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 » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

my take on Kodak downfall



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 13th 14, 01:21 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default my take on Kodak downfall

On 2/10/2014 2:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Dale
wrote:

the raw Bayer array


should never be used, an XYZ related array should be used


what is an xyz related array??

bayer is the best solution that exists today and will be for the
foreseeable future.

foveon's layered approach has been a disaster.



facts?

--
PeterN
  #32  
Old February 13th 14, 11:38 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default my take on Kodak downfall

In article , PeterN
wrote:

bayer is the best solution that exists today and will be for the
foreseeable future.

foveon's layered approach has been a disaster.


facts?


oh, where to start.

with a market share of under 1% and shrinking, sigma's cameras have
been a complete disaster. not only do they not sell particularly well,
but they are a money loser for the company.

foveon originally was backed by two venture capital firms, who soon
realized they'd been had and what a ****up it was, so they bailed.

that left foveon, whose only customer was sigma, without any money and
about to file for bankruptcy.

had that happened, sigma would have been completely screwed, so sigma
bought foveon at firesale prices and has been sinking money into it
ever since.

the cameras are utter crap (and yes, i've used them).

they're anything but consistent. two photos in a row might look totally
different, despite the settings being identical. the sd14 was pig slow
(around 6 seconds write time) and you actually had to wait until it
finished, or the camera could lock up and you'd lose photos. the sd14
was *really* buggy and sometimes locked up even if you weren't taking
photos one after another

the sd14 originally was $2000 msrp ($1600 street), which quickly
dropped due to slow sales, and around a year later, it was being sold
off for $300-400, new, and even at that price, people still weren't
buying all that many.

the sd1 originally was pitched at a ridiculous $9700 msrp (~$6000
street) which was complete insanity for a 15 megapixel camera. even the
fanbois were stunned. not surprisingly, sigma did not sell very many
cameras at that price.

as best as i can tell, they sold about 10, total, based on posts in the
sigma forum and serial number analysis (which is encoded in every
photo, btw, so it's easy to track).

after tens of thousands of unsold cameras sat in warehouses, sigma
slashed the price by roughly $4000 in one day, and the price has
dropped even *further* since then.

the dp1/2/3 series have been riddled with lens motor failures, where
the lens just gets stuck extending out or back in, along with all the
usual problems with the sensor.

sigma tries to claim more accurate colour, but the delta-e is much
higher than bayer, which means *less* accurate colour.

sigma claims 'no guessing' of colour data, yet there's more 'guessing'
than bayer because they don't actually capture rgb at every location
(another lie of theirs). the spectra of the layers overlap by quite a
bit and there's a ****load of very complex math to extract rgb from it,
which is one reason why the software is slow and the results are noisy
and with weird colour casts.

the first foveon camera, the 3.4 megapixel sd9, did not sell well, so
they decided to lie about the number of pixels in the sd10 because
'bigger numbers are better', despite the camera having the same sensor.

normally that's called fraud, but somehow, they managed to get away
with it.

sigma's software is slow and buggy and there aren't any viable options
from third parties. even adobe has given up supporting it. part of the
'sigma look' is heavy sharpening. if you set the sigma software to 0
sharpening, you're actually getting a wallop of sharpening. you have to
set it to -1 to -2 to get 'none', depending on version.

foveon sensors are theoretically interesting, but they are riddled with
problems and actually don't offer anything the eye can see anyway. it's
a solution in search of a problem.

foveon sensors have substantially higher noise, lower colour accuracy,
lower resolution, worse high iso performance and higher manufacturing
cost.

that's a huge price to pay for 'full colour', something humans can't
even see anyway.

three layer sensors sound like a good idea on paper, and one day they
might be feasible without significant tradeoffs, but they sure as hell
are not now.

if that day comes, the technology won't need lies to market it. it will
sell itself because it's actually better.

on the other hand, bayer is a very clever design based on how the human
eye works. it's cost-effective to manufacture and works exceptionally
well for creating photos that humans look at.
  #33  
Old February 14th 14, 01:44 AM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default my take on Kodak downfall

On 2/13/2014 5:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

bayer is the best solution that exists today and will be for the
foreseeable future.

foveon's layered approach has been a disaster.


facts?


oh, where to start.

with a market share of under 1% and shrinking, sigma's cameras have
been a complete disaster. not only do they not sell particularly well,
but they are a money loser for the company.

foveon originally was backed by two venture capital firms, who soon
realized they'd been had and what a ****up it was, so they bailed.

that left foveon, whose only customer was sigma, without any money and
about to file for bankruptcy.

had that happened, sigma would have been completely screwed, so sigma
bought foveon at firesale prices and has been sinking money into it
ever since.

the cameras are utter crap (and yes, i've used them).

they're anything but consistent. two photos in a row might look totally
different, despite the settings being identical. the sd14 was pig slow
(around 6 seconds write time) and you actually had to wait until it
finished, or the camera could lock up and you'd lose photos. the sd14
was *really* buggy and sometimes locked up even if you weren't taking
photos one after another


If you are saying Sigma markets crap, I agree.
If you are saying that Foveon is not ready for prime time, you are
probably right.

What I am saying is that Foveon has potential worth exploring, if only
for scientific purposes.


the sd14 originally was $2000 msrp ($1600 street), which quickly
dropped due to slow sales, and around a year later, it was being sold
off for $300-400, new, and even at that price, people still weren't
buying all that many.

the sd1 originally was pitched at a ridiculous $9700 msrp (~$6000
street) which was complete insanity for a 15 megapixel camera. even the
fanbois were stunned. not surprisingly, sigma did not sell very many
cameras at that price.

as best as i can tell, they sold about 10, total, based on posts in the
sigma forum and serial number analysis (which is encoded in every
photo, btw, so it's easy to track).

after tens of thousands of unsold cameras sat in warehouses, sigma
slashed the price by roughly $4000 in one day, and the price has
dropped even *further* since then.

the dp1/2/3 series have been riddled with lens motor failures, where
the lens just gets stuck extending out or back in, along with all the
usual problems with the sensor.

sigma tries to claim more accurate colour, but the delta-e is much
higher than bayer, which means *less* accurate colour.

sigma claims 'no guessing' of colour data, yet there's more 'guessing'
than bayer because they don't actually capture rgb at every location
(another lie of theirs). the spectra of the layers overlap by quite a
bit and there's a ****load of very complex math to extract rgb from it,
which is one reason why the software is slow and the results are noisy
and with weird colour casts.

the first foveon camera, the 3.4 megapixel sd9, did not sell well, so
they decided to lie about the number of pixels in the sd10 because
'bigger numbers are better', despite the camera having the same sensor.

normally that's called fraud, but somehow, they managed to get away
with it.

sigma's software is slow and buggy and there aren't any viable options
from third parties. even adobe has given up supporting it. part of the
'sigma look' is heavy sharpening. if you set the sigma software to 0
sharpening, you're actually getting a wallop of sharpening. you have to
set it to -1 to -2 to get 'none', depending on version.

foveon sensors are theoretically interesting, but they are riddled with
problems and actually don't offer anything the eye can see anyway. it's
a solution in search of a problem.

foveon sensors have substantially higher noise, lower colour accuracy,
lower resolution, worse high iso performance and higher manufacturing
cost.

that's a huge price to pay for 'full colour', something humans can't
even see anyway.

three layer sensors sound like a good idea on paper, and one day they
might be feasible without significant tradeoffs, but they sure as hell
are not now.

if that day comes, the technology won't need lies to market it. it will
sell itself because it's actually better.


Not true. think VCR & Betamax.
think WordPerfect & Word
Both are examples of the triumph of marketing over quality.




--
PeterN
  #34  
Old February 14th 14, 02:31 AM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default my take on Kodak downfall

In article , PeterN
wrote:

If you are saying Sigma markets crap, I agree.


ok

If you are saying that Foveon is not ready for prime time, you are
probably right.


not only am i right, but foveon is never going to be ready for prime
time because it's not physically possible.

not even sigma can break the laws of physics.

What I am saying is that Foveon has potential worth exploring, if only
for scientific purposes.


exploring the technology is one thing. there's nothing wrong with that.

many companies are looking into multilayer sensors, including nikon,
canon and fuji and i think sony too.

the difference is that those companies are working on perfecting the
technology so that it actually *is* better than what exists now and
*then* turning it into a product.

what sigma is doing is taking half-baked technology that is clearly
worse than what exists now, lying about what it can and cannot do,
faking some of it in software and claiming it does stuff that is not
physically possible.
  #35  
Old February 15th 14, 06:57 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Michael[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default my take on Kodak downfall

On 2014-02-10 18:36:46 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Dale
wrote:

having worked there

consumer film was where the big money was

the key is the word *was*.

although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to
manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt.


it isn't too late for Kodak, it might make the investments in digital
across the imaging board, staarting with their focus on commercial and
prepress labs and going to other focuses


it's too late for kodak.

might be some hybrid stuff out their too, they could use/license
intellectual property

maybe even some analog stuff that they could use/license intellectual
property too


that's about all they have now. they should sell their patents to
someone and call it a day.

they might not be a propreitary closed system dealer in all areas, but
starting with open standards they might be an open systems player, and
eventually perhaps develop themselves into intellectual property for ne
propreitary systems

I think they should start with capture though, professional
cameras/lenses lighting, etc.


what could they possibly do in that space that existing players haven't
done? nothing.

kodak never made cameras that were any good, although some were quite
popular such as the instamatic.

the kodak dslr hybrids were retrofitted canon/nikon cameras.


I disagree with you about Kodak never making cameras that were any
good. In the days before the SLRs captured the attention and money of
every amateur photographer as well as the pros, Kodak made some decent
cameras under their Retina Brand. Most of the good ones were made in
Germany with decent lenses and shutters. They were rangefinder cameras
with (usually) non-interchangeable 50mm lenses, but they were optically
and mechanically good and took good pictures for their day. Their day
ended when every wannabee bought a Nikon F or a Nikkormat. On the
otherhand, all those "wannabees" learned what f stops were and how to
properly expose pictures and focus lenses, something today's DSLR
"wannabees" don't bother to learn because the automation makes it
unnecessary if all they want is an expensive and pompous point and
shoot. Sorry for rambling a little bit OT.
--
Michael

  #36  
Old February 15th 14, 06:27 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Scott Schuckert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 368
Default my take on Kodak downfall

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article 2014021500570875641-adunc79617@mypacksnet, Michael
wrote:

I disagree with you about Kodak never making cameras that were any
good. In the days before the SLRs captured the attention and money of
every amateur photographer as well as the pros, Kodak made some decent
cameras under their Retina Brand. Most of the good ones were made in
Germany with decent lenses and shutters. They were rangefinder cameras
with (usually) non-interchangeable 50mm lenses, but they were optically
and mechanically good and took good pictures for their day. Their day
ended when every wannabee bought a Nikon F or a Nikkormat. On the
otherhand, all those "wannabees" learned what f stops were and how to
properly expose pictures and focus lenses, something today's DSLR
"wannabees" don't bother to learn because the automation makes it
unnecessary if all they want is an expensive and pompous point and
shoot. Sorry for rambling a little bit OT.
--
Michael


Indeed. While many of the Retina series were overly complex (they were
German, after all) and mechanically troublesome, you cant say they
didn't take a hell of a picture. Some of the best pictures I've ever
taken were with the utterly manual Retina IIa I used to carry
everywhere.

Granted, that was 40 years ago, and the camera wasn't new even then -
but Kodak had their glory says. At one time, I could open the Kodak
catalog at my camera store, and order every single thing a serious
photographer could need, from film, through cameras, to darkroom and on
to mounting supplies.
  #37  
Old February 15th 14, 09:58 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Michael[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default my take on Kodak downfall

On 2014-02-15 17:27:23 +0000, Scott Schuckert said:

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article 2014021500570875641-adunc79617@mypacksnet, Michael
wrote:

I disagree with you about Kodak never making cameras that were any
good. In the days before the SLRs captured the attention and money of
every amateur photographer as well as the pros, Kodak made some decent
cameras under their Retina Brand. Most of the good ones were made in
Germany with decent lenses and shutters. They were rangefinder cameras
with (usually) non-interchangeable 50mm lenses, but they were optically
and mechanically good and took good pictures for their day. Their day
ended when every wannabee bought a Nikon F or a Nikkormat. On the
otherhand, all those "wannabees" learned what f stops were and how to
properly expose pictures and focus lenses, something today's DSLR
"wannabees" don't bother to learn because the automation makes it
unnecessary if all they want is an expensive and pompous point and
shoot. Sorry for rambling a little bit OT.
--
Michael


Indeed. While many of the Retina series were overly complex (they were
German, after all) and mechanically troublesome, you cant say they
didn't take a hell of a picture. Some of the best pictures I've ever
taken were with the utterly manual Retina IIa I used to carry
everywhere.

Granted, that was 40 years ago, and the camera wasn't new even then -
but Kodak had their glory says. At one ti haser every
single thing a serious
photographer could need, from film, through cameras, to darkroom and on
to mounting supplies.


Sitting on the desk next to me are a Kodak Retinette 1A that I bought
for $8 last year in an antique store- sadly inoperative and not worth
restoring, but it has a 45mm f/2.8 Schneider Kreutznach lens. And next
to it is a VERY functional Kodak Retina Automatic III. The automatic
part doesn't work but it's a good manual camera with a Retina-Xenar
f/2.8 45mm Schneider Kreutznach. It takes fine pictures, currently has
my very last roll of Ektachrome in it. I got it as part of a 4-camera
lot at auction a few months ago for $22.
--
Michael

  #38  
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/
  #39  
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

 




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
mail to kodak person: kodak V550) santosh Digital Photography 2 December 16th 05 09:54 PM
Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst [email protected] Digital Photography 0 October 19th 05 10:44 PM
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
kodak software ,unable to down load from kodak JSN61 Digital Photography 1 August 9th 04 01:48 AM
Kodak T400CN vs Kodak BW400CN vs Fuji Neopan 400Cn (C-41) Chris Wilkins Film & Labs 0 May 14th 04 10:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.