A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

my take on Kodak downfall



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 21, 07:29 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 187
Default my take on Kodak downfall

On 2/10/2014 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
having worked there

consumer film was where the big money was

too often consumer systems were developed and then a professional system
was hacked out of it

as opposed to developing professional systems and watering them down for
consumer applications

would have taken some quick work too keep up with the consumer demand,
but Kodak was big enough to keep up with that I think

then there is the general USA/UN/WTO issue of fair trade versus free
trade allowing cheap imports from places with less consideration of
workers and environmentalism, etc.

but Kodak had plants in Mexico after NAFTA, so they should have been
able to invest that consumer film money better I think




this thread isn't from me ...

--
Mystery - https://www.dalekelly.org/
  #2  
Old May 19th 21, 08:46 PM posted to sci.engr.color, sci.image.processing, rec.photo.darkroom, rec.photo.digital, comp.soft-sys.matlab
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default my take on Kodak downfall

On May 19, 2021, Dale wrote
(in article ):

On 2/10/2014 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
having worked there


anchient

this thread isn't from me ...


Then the mystery, as to why you chose to post this seven year old, obviously dead, cross posted screed to sci.engr.color, sci.image.processing, rec.photo.darkroom, rec.photo.digital, and comp.soft-sys.matlab remains.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

  #3  
Old May 19th 21, 09:26 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default my take on Kodak downfall

On 19/05/2021 20:46, Savageduck wrote:
On May 19, 2021, Dale wrote (in article
):

On 2/10/2014 12:28 AM, Dale wrote:
having worked there


anchient

this thread isn't from me ...


Then the mystery, as to why you chose to post this seven year old,
obviously dead, cross posted screed to sci.engr.color,
sci.image.processing, rec.photo.darkroom, rec.photo.digital, and
comp.soft-sys.matlab remains.

To promote his clickbait website perhaps?

Kodak PCD digital scanning service was well ahead of the game at one
point and Bryce Bayer one shot colour mask designer worked for Kodak.

I recall the Kodak transition to digital cameras as an early adopter. I
got a massively discounted DC-120 1Mpixel camera "remaindered" when they
launched the confusingly named DC-210 a couple of months later.

Kodak marketing department really knew how to shoot themselves in the
foot with both barrels. Almost as bad as IBM with the PS/2 OS/2 debacle.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #4  
Old May 20th 21, 11:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default my take on Kodak downfall

In article ,
RichA wrote:

They believed just prior to that that cameras would be hybrids, film as the
main imager with digital as a kind of preview or back-up. All in one camera.
Never came to pass that I know of.


the company is run by morons.

kodak knew digital would replace film. they just were too stupid to
realize how fast it would happen.

after going bankrupt, they learned absolutely *nothing* and just a few
years ago launched the most absurd product anyone could possibly have
designed, a digital super-8 movie camera that sells for $2500, in an
age where people carry a 4k video camera in their pocket that cost a
fraction of that (and can do much more).

https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/super-8-camera

it uses super-8 film which people have to then send out for processing,
totaling about $100 per roll, after which they get a link to about 2
minutes of video.

meanwhile, everyone else is shooting unlimited 4k and 8k video without
any hassles or any additional cost. those who want the 'super-8' look
can add it via a filter, although most people prefer the *much* higher
quality than super-8 could ever possibly do.

it would have been a fantastic april fool's joke (it really is quite
funny), but they actually want to sell this thing, they're that stupid.
  #5  
Old May 20th 21, 10:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default my take on Kodak downfall

On 20/05/2021 10:33 pm, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

They believed just prior to that that cameras would be hybrids, film as the
main imager with digital as a kind of preview or back-up. All in one camera.
Never came to pass that I know of.


the company is run by morons.

kodak knew digital would replace film. they just were too stupid to
realize how fast it would happen.

after going bankrupt, they learned absolutely *nothing* and just a few
years ago launched the most absurd product anyone could possibly have
designed, a digital super-8 movie camera that sells for $2500, in an
age where people carry a 4k video camera in their pocket that cost a
fraction of that (and can do much more).

https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/super-8-camera

it uses super-8 film which people have to then send out for processing,
totaling about $100 per roll, after which they get a link to about 2
minutes of video.

meanwhile, everyone else is shooting unlimited 4k and 8k video without
any hassles or any additional cost. those who want the 'super-8' look
can add it via a filter, although most people prefer the *much* higher
quality than super-8 could ever possibly do.

it would have been a fantastic april fool's joke (it really is quite
funny), but they actually want to sell this thing, they're that stupid.


Surely that was intended as a joke (?).

geoff
  #6  
Old May 20th 21, 11:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default my take on Kodak downfall

In article , geoff
wrote:

They believed just prior to that that cameras would be hybrids, film as the
main imager with digital as a kind of preview or back-up. All in one
camera.
Never came to pass that I know of.


the company is run by morons.

kodak knew digital would replace film. they just were too stupid to
realize how fast it would happen.

after going bankrupt, they learned absolutely *nothing* and just a few
years ago launched the most absurd product anyone could possibly have
designed, a digital super-8 movie camera that sells for $2500, in an
age where people carry a 4k video camera in their pocket that cost a
fraction of that (and can do much more).

https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/super-8-camera

it uses super-8 film which people have to then send out for processing,
totaling about $100 per roll, after which they get a link to about 2
minutes of video.

meanwhile, everyone else is shooting unlimited 4k and 8k video without
any hassles or any additional cost. those who want the 'super-8' look
can add it via a filter, although most people prefer the *much* higher
quality than super-8 could ever possibly do.

it would have been a fantastic april fool's joke (it really is quite
funny), but they actually want to sell this thing, they're that stupid.


Surely that was intended as a joke (?).


there is no indication that it is or was a joke, especially since it's
been 5 years since it was first announced at ces, shown a few more
times since then, with detailed product info still at kodak's site.

it hasn't shipped, so maybe someone realized how incredibly stupid that
would be, although with a link to sign up to be notified when it goes
on sale, perhaps they're still stupid enough to go through with it.

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea...2/kodak-super-
8-camera-revival-price-2500-2018-release-date-update-film-footage
Kodak first announced its revival of the classic Super 8 camera two
years ago at CES 2016. The company didnıt have too many details on
the Yves Béhar-designed project at this yearıs show, but it did have
an updated price to sha around $2,500 to $3,000.

Thatıs a pretty hefty price tag, because the company had originally
planned to release a limited edition version in fall 2016 for between
$400 and $750, with a less expensive model planned for sometime
in 2017.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
my take on Kodak downfall Dale[_4_] In The Darkroom 38 May 19th 21 08:46 PM
summary of Kodak downfall Dale[_4_] In The Darkroom 12 May 19th 21 07:29 PM
summary of Kodak downfall Dale[_4_] Digital Photography 37 May 19th 21 07:29 PM
my take on Kodak downfall nospam Digital Photography 2 February 14th 14 01:31 AM
Kodak Gold 100 vs Kodak Bright Sun vs Kodak High Definition Colour Film Graham Fountain 35mm Photo Equipment 9 October 5th 04 12:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.