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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |