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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 02/10/2014 05:52 PM, Dale wrote:
there is your business case study and cheap overseas products is not an excuse, they had NAFTA and were making consumer digital cameras in Mexico -- Dale |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 02/10/2014 06:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Dale wrote: film had the money, film people got the careers which is why they went bankrupt. they knew digital was going to replace film, but they refused to let go of the film business. had they invested in digital, like their competitors did, they'd still be a player. they had NAFTA and a consumer camera plant in Mexico, they were right on time I tell you, it was not an accounting problem, or a strategic problem, it was a corporate culture problem -- Dale |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
In article , Dale
wrote: film had the money, film people got the careers which is why they went bankrupt. they knew digital was going to replace film, but they refused to let go of the film business. had they invested in digital, like their competitors did, they'd still be a player. they had NAFTA and a consumer camera plant in Mexico, they were right on time I tell you, it was not an accounting problem, or a strategic problem, it was a corporate culture problem none of that matters. what matters is as you say, corporate culture. the management were a bunch of clueless ****s, who despite claiming that digital was going to replace film, did not invest in digital. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
In article , Dale
wrote: On 02/10/2014 05:52 PM, Dale wrote: there is your business case study and cheap overseas products is not an excuse, they had NAFTA and were making consumer digital cameras in Mexico other than the dslr hybrids which cost more than a car and were basically a technology demo more than a commercially viable product, kodak's digital cameras were *horrible*. it doesn't matter where they were made (nobody really cares). they were basically junk. i remember trying one of them at a trade show, and to change the shutter speed or aperture, you had to wade through *four* levels of menus (no joke). who the hell thought that was a good idea? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
In article ,
says... On 10/02/2014 19:13, Dale wrote: On 02/10/2014 01:13 PM, Martin Brown wrote: the raw Bayer array should never be used, an XYZ related array should be used The raw data is what you actually measured at each sensor site - there is *nothing* more fundamental than that. You are showing your ignorance. We can conclude that the reason Kodak failed was because they were daft enough to employ people like you and the other ****wits in marketing that managed to launch products almost simultaneously with names that were anagrams, homophones or synonyms of each other. Kodak at one time had world leading digital technology but chose to squander their advantage to milk the analogue film cash cow until dry. They succeeded but the cash cow died as a direct result. An old story. American electronics manufacturers dinked around with overpriced transistor radios. Then the Japanese introduced transistor radios for cheap and followed up with transistor TVs and a bunch of other solid-state consumer electronics products for not cheap and ate their lunch. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 11/02/2014 01:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Dale wrote: On 02/10/2014 05:52 PM, Dale wrote: there is your business case study and cheap overseas products is not an excuse, they had NAFTA and were making consumer digital cameras in Mexico other than the dslr hybrids which cost more than a car and were basically a technology demo more than a commercially viable product, kodak's digital cameras were *horrible*. Have you ever used one? The Kodak DC-120 served me well from the time I got it shortly after launch until the second generation digital Ixus came out. It had a wide range of shutter settings and a fast f2.5 lens of reasonable quality. It was perfectly good enough for website work back them and it was about as sensitive as the human eye on its 16s button setting. It did have a warm corner but you could fix that with darkframe subtraction. It was widely used in early digital scientific imaging because you could get it to return the raw Bayer sensor array a feature not present on any other camera at the time or since. it doesn't matter where they were made (nobody really cares). they were basically junk. They were not junk. Mine is still going although an only just a megapixel camera now is nothing to write home about back in the late 1990's it was impressive (it also cost about £1000 back then). i remember trying one of them at a trade show, and to change the shutter speed or aperture, you had to wade through *four* levels of menus (no joke). who the hell thought that was a good idea? The only problem I ever had with mine was that batteries didn't last very long at all in it and it would eat a set a couple of hours use. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 02/10/2014 02:52 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. XYZ is CIE-XYZ unless bayer used an used big-CIE-RGB he made an assumption on the RGB and the doubling of G cells that is not an assumption of the eyes response like CIE-XYZ or CIE-bigRGB -- Dale |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 02/10/2014 10:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says... On 10/02/2014 19:13, Dale wrote: On 02/10/2014 01:13 PM, Martin Brown wrote: the raw Bayer array should never be used, an XYZ related array should be used The raw data is what you actually measured at each sensor site - there is *nothing* more fundamental than that. You are showing your ignorance. We can conclude that the reason Kodak failed was because they were daft enough to employ people like you and the other ****wits in marketing that managed to launch products almost simultaneously with names that were anagrams, homophones or synonyms of each other. Kodak at one time had world leading digital technology but chose to squander their advantage to milk the analogue film cash cow until dry. They succeeded but the cash cow died as a direct result. An old story. American electronics manufacturers dinked around with overpriced transistor radios. Then the Japanese introduced transistor radios for cheap and followed up with transistor TVs and a bunch of other solid-state consumer electronics products for not cheap and ate their lunch. USA has NAFTA available, this is not an excuse Kodak had a plant in Mexico making consumer digital cameras under NAFTA -- Dale |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 02/10/2014 08:01 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Dale wrote: film had the money, film people got the careers which is why they went bankrupt. they knew digital was going to replace film, but they refused to let go of the film business. had they invested in digital, like their competitors did, they'd still be a player. they had NAFTA and a consumer camera plant in Mexico, they were right on time I tell you, it was not an accounting problem, or a strategic problem, it was a corporate culture problem none of that matters. what matters is as you say, corporate culture. the management were a bunch of clueless ****s, who despite claiming that digital was going to replace film, did not invest in digital. no, I tell you it was people -- Dale |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
In article , Martin Brown
wrote: other than the dslr hybrids which cost more than a car and were basically a technology demo more than a commercially viable product, kodak's digital cameras were *horrible*. Have you ever used one? The Kodak DC-120 served me well from the time I got it shortly after launch until the second generation digital Ixus came out. It had a wide range of shutter settings and a fast f2.5 lens of reasonable quality. It was perfectly good enough for website work back them and it was about as sensitive as the human eye on its 16s button setting. It did have a warm corner but you could fix that with darkframe subtraction. It was widely used in early digital scientific imaging because you could get it to return the raw Bayer sensor array a feature not present on any other camera at the time or since. the dc120 might have been ok, but it came out very early in the game. their later cameras were pretty bad, especially with the easyshare nonsense, and at that point, there were a *lot* of competitors and kodak had nothing compelling to offer versus the competition. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
mail to kodak person: kodak V550) | santosh | Digital Photography | 2 | December 16th 05 08:54 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 |