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
  #21  
Old February 11th 14, 12:29 AM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Dale[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default 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  
Old February 11th 14, 12:56 AM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Dale[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default 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  
Old February 11th 14, 02:01 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 , 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  
Old February 11th 14, 02:01 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 , 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  
Old February 11th 14, 04:01 AM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default 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  
Old February 11th 14, 09:36 AM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default 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  
Old February 11th 14, 02:53 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Dale[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default 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  
Old February 11th 14, 02:54 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Dale[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default 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  
Old February 11th 14, 02:55 PM posted to sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.soft-sys.matlab
Dale[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default 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  
Old February 11th 14, 05:56 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 , 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

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 01:26 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.