Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

KODAK invented the digital camera

Noah Kadner

Noah Kadner

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.callboxlive.com
8141full.jpg


Wow- this is news to me. :) If only they'd gone down the path of development they kicked open in 1975...

http://www.biz-architect.com/kodaks_missed_moments.htm

Texas Instruments designed a filmless analog camera in 1972, but it is not known whether it was ever built. The first recorded attempt at building a digital camera was by Steven Sasson, an engineer at Eastman Kodak.[3] It used the then-new solid-state CCD image sensor chips developed by Fairchild Semiconductor in 1973.[4] The camera weighed 8 pounds (3.6 kg), recorded black and white images to a cassette tape, had a resolution of 0.01 megapixels (10,000 pixels), and took 23 seconds to capture its first image in December of 1975. The prototype camera was a technical exercise, not intended for production.
Click to expand...

Food for thought REDHeads of the world....

Noah
 
Love the cassette hanging off the right hand side. lol Kodak has been working sensor design for a long time. The great yellow father is not stupid.
 
Bayer Pattern

Bayer Pattern

The Bayer pattern used inside your Red camera was invented by Kodak so anyone using any form of camera using a bayer pattern have Kodak to thank.
 
ha ha its compact cassette
 
Kodak has singlehandedly done tremendous contributions to color science that anybody who is active in that area would know. The "Kodak/fim is dead" fanboy attitude on this forum notwithstanding, the research division of Kodak is entity that can never be discounted for its contribution to our understanding of color, perception, and its effect on technology. Any company worth it salt would dream/envy the advances Kodak has made.
 
Yes, when it comes to scientific development Kodak is one of the most amazing companies in American history. What's really astonishing is that the engineers at the company came up with hundreds of amazing ideas for digital photography way before the competition, but never produced them because management wanted to focus on film. Their new CEO is trying to reverse this trend Check out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/technology/02kodak.html?partner=rssnyt

This passage from the Times article is really telling: "[New CEO Antonio Perez and executive his team] mined the patent archives for intellectual property, a step that is yielding well above $250 million a year in licensing fees. One recent example: Kodak is licensing out a method to embed a chemical signature in materials that enables manufacturers and retailers to scan for counterfeit products." That's insane. Under the old management Kodak had patents that are now earning $250 million a year just collecting dust in drawers! All they had to do was dust them off and now they're making a quarter of a billion a year.

I really hope that this company can pull through and continue to develop new technology. Oh yeah, Vision 3 is totally awesome too.
 
Kodak has spent too much time insisting their business is photochemical film, when their real business is imaging technology, whether they like it or not.

I sincerely hope they pull through, but frankly, I think too many other companies have already eaten their lunch.

Somebody mentioned to me once Kodak could help turn their fortunes in the motion picture film business by developing a relatively low-cost desktop telecine. I have no idea whether or not that is a practical thing for them for them to be investing in, but I do admit it sure seemed like a cool idea.
 
NateWeaver said:
Kodak has spent too much time insisting their business is photochemical film, when their real business is imaging technology, whether they like it or not.
Click to expand...

First of all, IMHO it is a wrong impression that Kodak only spent time in photochemical film. Though, it is true that the end product they had in mind, at least several decades ago might be film, however, Kodak has done amazing research in color science in 30's and 40's a lot of which is still applicable today, even to digital video cameras.

Color science and perception is just color science and a lot of it applies to both film and digital.

I have an uneasy feeling, that as happens often (think Wavelets), that people will re-invent what Kodak has discovered 60-80 years ago and present it as new science.
 
Here's a idea that I have floated out there before; what if Kodak announced tomorrow that motion picture film will now cost $5 for a 1,000' roll, processing included?
That might take some of the wind out of digital's sails, don't you think?
Cheers,
Harry
 
Joofa said:
First of all, IMHO it is a wrong impression that Kodak only spent time in photochemical film.
Click to expand...

I'm aware they've spent plenty of time and money on other processes, including CCD/CMOS development, I'm sure.

But it would appear upper management is ready to fight the film fight until it's no longer viable...when any junior stockbroker's advice of "diversify" might be better heeded.

Just to be clear, my discussion of this has nothing to do with emotional attachments to either technology. It's just more of a "never put all your eggs in one basket" thing.
 
NateWeaver said:
Kodak has spent too much time insisting their business is photochemical film, when their real business is imaging technology, whether they like it or not.

I sincerely hope they pull through, but frankly, I think too many other companies have already eaten their lunch.
Click to expand...

Before founding Birger, I was at Polaroid. Now that is a company that refused to believe it was anything other than a film and chemicals company. I was the lead ASIC designer for the consumer digital camera that they were going to come out with in 1998. They had an awesome sensor made by IBM, a very well received professional camera already out, and they just couldn't stop thinking about the consumables (i.e. give away the razor, overcharge for the blades) business model.

Kodak is the world's leading (or at least one of the top two or three) providers of CCD image sensors. Their film business may seriously be on the decline, their slice of the hollywood pie may be in decline - but Kodak ain't going anywhere any time soon.
 
birgerEngineer said:
Kodak is the world's leading (or at least one of the top two or three) providers of CCD image sensors. Their film business may seriously be on the decline, their slice of the hollywood pie may be in decline - but Kodak ain't going anywhere any time soon.
Click to expand...

That's good to know. I knew they've spent time in CCD development, but I didn't know they had a real CCD development/manufacturing/licensing business.

Maybe when film is gasping it's last breath in pro circles, they'll finally release some CMOS tech to the motion picture market.
 
NateWeaver said:
That's good to know. I knew they've spent time in CCD development, but I didn't know they had a real CCD development/manufacturing/licensing business.
Click to expand...

Who do you think provides the CCD's for every Spirit telecine (and the entire optical path, for that matter)? Not to mention the CCD's for countless digital still cameras. And, oh, by the way, who do you think is the largest vendor of digital still cameras in the world? Hint: It's not Canon, Fuji, Nikon, or any other Japanese company.

The only real criticism I have of Kodak is that they could have built what Red did, and they could have done it almost 10 years ago. They chose not to, but it wasn't because they didn't already have the technology to do it.
 
mmost said:
Who do you think provides the CCD's for every Spirit telecine (and the entire optical path, for that matter)? Not to mention the CCD's for countless digital still cameras. And, oh, by the way, who do you think is the largest vendor of digital still cameras in the world? Hint: It's not Canon, Fuji, Nikon, or any other Japanese company.

The only real criticism I have of Kodak is that they could have built what Red did, and they could have done it almost 10 years ago. They chose not to, but it wasn't because they didn't already have the technology to do it.
Click to expand...

Well alrighty then. So now that I've been presented with more facts on the matter (and I say that without a speck of sarcasm)...

I'm even more puzzled why Kodak has continued their hardline approach in our market. Is it just a timing thing and they think the time has not yet come? I would think the time has come to break out their other weapons...
 
Same story it's with IBM, Xerox or Apple. They developed such amazing technologies and then they bury them. They are soooo huge ... It must be pretty frustrating to work there. Lucky thouse ones at Red :w00t:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top