Slashdot Mirror

From reality. The scanners are not the limiting factor, it's rather the film itself. Take "Bad Times as the El Royale" as an example - it was shot on Kodak film of which you can read the specs at https://www.kodak.com/uploaded...

Look at the logarithmic scale of the spatial resolution diagram - the contrast of the higher spatial frequencies drops very quickly, while granularity quickly increases under all but the most ideal lighting conditions. In reality, the resolution you will get from such a film, even when using good scanners and 4k digital intermediates, is nowhere near the resolution of a decent digital camera (like let's say an Arri Alexa 65).

To explain a little further, he's talking about the "Modulation Transfer Curves" graph, which essentially shows how well the film records fine detail. It's 100% at 10 cycles per mm but below 50% (and falling steeply) by the time you go up to 80 cycles per mm. Now there are, crudely, 2 pixels per cycle and the 35mm film frame is 25mm wide, so that's 4000 pixels across. Remember, that's the film coming out of the camera; the quality of prints will be worse. Another factor is that camera lenses will struggle to match the resolution of this film.

I don't know where you get the 'nowhere near 4k' from.

From reality. The scanners are not the limiting factor, it's rather the film itself. Take "Bad Times as the El Royale" as an example - it was shot on Kodak film of which you can read the specs at https://www.kodak.com/uploaded...

Look at the logarithmic scale of the spatial resolution diagram - the contrast of the higher spatial frequencies drops very quickly, while granularity quickly increases under all but the most ideal lighting conditions. In reality, the resolution you will get from such a film, even when using good scanners and 4k digital intermediates, is nowhere near the resolution of a decent digital camera (like let's say an Arri Alexa 65).

Looks like one of few digital media that might survive. Apparently if you want film to last this long you'd better make separate black and white recordings of the RGB channels, since the color dyes are much less stable and probably won't last more than like 30 years (methods B-D).

Method A: Let's begin with extended life expectancy records-those film documents that need to last for a very long time. Nothing can last forever, but hundreds of years or longer is possible. Color originals should be made on high-quality camera-color-negative film such as EASTMAN EXR Color Negative Film, having a set of properly exposed and processed black-and-white separation positives made for the red, green, and blue records onto EASTMAN Panchromatic Separation Film on ESTAR Base. Then you should store the original negative and separation positives and the master positive and duplicate negative, that were made from the original negative, at the keeping conditions specified earlier.

Addendum; More seriously, Kodak appears to have quietly discontinued *all* its slide films around three years ago:-

http://www.thephoblographer.co...

It wasn't immediately obvious, especially as they'd been discontinuing variants and paring down the range for years prior, but it appears that the slide films they discontinued that time were *the only ones remaining*, "I’m confirming that we did send a notice to dealers today that we will be discontinuing our three slide films" (not simply "discontinuing three slide films").

Given that there's no mention of slide films on their site any more (go there and see if you can find any (*)) and no sign of new stock available through retailers, it's pretty clear that they managed something far more significant than the discontinuation of Kodachrome itself with far, *far* fewer people noticing.

Huge irony is that Fujifilm- who were much more willing to move into the digital age and thus prospered whereas Kodak didn't- still sells slide film, along with traditional colour and black-and-white negative and instant (Polaroid-style) film.

(*) Colour and black-and-white negative films listed, but no transparency:- http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/...

Doesn't matter much - Kodak's days in the film business seem numbered.

Is is true that Kodak has stopped making transparency film altogether?

They announced the discontinuation of Ektachrome in particular formats in early 2012, but never actually said "we're stopping making slide film". Yet some people seem to believe that this is effectively what's happened.

Go to their website, visit the "professional films" section (the "consumer" films bit only seems to contain a couple of print films) and click on "color reversal films". There's nothing there but the discontinuation notice.

Many people interpreted a press release from Kodak around a year ago as (effectively) signifiying they were discontinuing slide film (e.g. here). If this is the case, then Kodak managed to slip a *very* significant announcement through as just yet another downsizing of their film line.

So... has Kodak discontinued slide film, and if so, why didn't more people pick up on it?!

Doesn't matter much - Kodak's days in the film business seem numbered.

Is is true that Kodak has stopped making transparency film altogether?

They announced the discontinuation of Ektachrome in particular formats in early 2012, but never actually said "we're stopping making slide film". Yet some people seem to believe that this is effectively what's happened.

Go to their website, visit the "professional films" section (the "consumer" films bit only seems to contain a couple of print films) and click on "color reversal films". There's nothing there but the discontinuation notice.

Many people interpreted a press release from Kodak around a year ago as (effectively) signifiying they were discontinuing slide film (e.g. here). If this is the case, then Kodak managed to slip a *very* significant announcement through as just yet another downsizing of their film line.

So... has Kodak discontinued slide film, and if so, why didn't more people pick up on it?!

OTOH, the technology that comes from creating high quality coatings on an industrial scale has applications far beyond photography.

I guess it's not lucrative enough to support the entire company, but they have tried to capitalize on what they know.

I might have to look into that. I just wish that Kodak had made a non-commercial version of the HR 500

Besides, nobody has stated the obvious. Kodak had a reputation as a maker of film, not cameras. For Kodak to have survived, it would have had to either develop enough FAB experience to try and corner the market on CCDs, or establish itself as a premium maker of cameras and that would mean going up against some stiff competition where brands who have a proven track record in optics and glass were the brand differentiators.

Right, because Kodak didn't have over 30 years of experience developing CCDs.

Well, its all well and good to point to Kodak and say "see, they should have gone hog wild with digital." From that, we would infer, companies should ditch profitable core businesses and competencies whenever a technology billed as disruptive presents itself.

But...

What about all the times investors pour billions into some new technology or concept that completely flames out. Perhaps that new technology is too much, too soon, and it is better to let someone else take the risks. De Havilland invented the passenger jet, but was nearly bankrupted by it after a series of crashes and had to be bought out. Concord was a money loser from the get go. Chrysler, back in the day, spent lavish sums on trying to put a jet turbine into a car. Wankel Rotary engines pretty much destroyed AMC and almost destroyed Mazda as well. Boeing's massively composite 787 has seen delay after delay, the original investors of the super modern Empire State Building took a beating. Finally, there's IK Brunels Great Eastern, which was a wonderful piece of technology for its day that ruined everyone who had a shilling to stand near it.

So... yes, there's plenty of people out there that say Kodak should have changed. But, if you look at FY 2000's annual report, Kodak was actually making 3 billion a year in digital sales... and the company was paying a decent dividend.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/annualReport00/financialHighlights.shtml

Besides, nobody has stated the obvious. Kodak had a reputation as a maker of film, not cameras. For Kodak to have survived, it would have had to either develop enough FAB experience to try and corner the market on CCDs, or establish itself as a premium maker of cameras and that would mean going up against some stiff competition where brands who have a proven track record in optics and glass were the brand differentiators.

Sure Sony is doing "ok" with its digital cameras, but really, for photographers, the people that have the best reputation of making cameras were always the ones poised to win from the digital transition. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, all those -camera- brands flourish, because people buy cameras... and they didn't need film anymore, and that's why Kodak died.

Their consumer products may be crap, but their commercial printers are pretty impressive. There are two of these in the building I'm working in right now.

Kodak is still the Eastman Kodak Company even after spinning off Eastman Chemicals, see for instance Kodak's own press release about going into bankruptcy protection. So calling them Eastman Kodak is accurate, if perhaps a little formal.

and other people use it, then you have the right to be compensated for that use.

Were not talking about patent trolling, Kodak invented technologies, uses those technologies in its own products, and licenses those techs to other companies.
Whats wrong with that.

Patent trolling is usually understood to be when a company or individual uses a strategy of making money from lawsuits rather than selling products. Kodak has all but admitted that this is its strategy.

Apple wants to use its patents to block competition while Kodak wants people (including Apple) to pay when they use its technology.

Say what you will about Apple, but it actually makes stuff and sells it to get money.

Kodak historically has treated its customers and its employees very well(with pensions including retiree health insurance).

Aww, are we one of the beneficiaries of the Great Yellow Father? Is that why we're jumping in to defend them? Aww, your loyalty is so touching.

Well, worse, they showed a demonstration of a Linux print on a blog post, promised the driver was coming soon, and then never delivered. Never released either beta or source. That was almost four years ago.

Wrong, wrongity wrong wrong.

They tried going digital.

They were just too late.

Wrong, wrongity wrong wrong.

They tried going digital.

They were just too late.

Wrong, wrongity wrong wrong.

They tried going digital.

They were just too late.

From Kodak's 2002 Annual Report:

Our traditional film business is sound as digital imaging
continues to evolve.

That was 10 years ago. The typical end-user desktop/notebook world probably has a similar life left. Just as a few specialty photographers still need film, there will always be niche professionals that need high-end desktop or notebooks, but most end users won't.

Tablet PC - a hybrid of the two is what I think we'll see eventually IF corporations don't get carried away locking down anything worthwhile or useful to claw more money from the consumer. Phones will always be the ultra portable solution - they've already killed off the dedicated pocket computers like the palm pilot.

From Kodak's 2002 Annual Report:

Our traditional film business is sound as digital imaging continues to evolve.

That was 10 years ago. The typical end-user desktop/notebook world probably has a similar life left. Just as a few specialty photographers still need film, there will always be niche professionals that need high-end desktop or notebooks, but most end users won't.

Actually Kodak do make their own chips, and have done so successfully for years: many cameras and webcams use Kodak-branded chips.

Kodak image sensor solutions

Where I think Kodak failed is packaging: Canon, Nikon etc. had vast experience and brand awareness packaging quality _cameras_, Sony the same but with video cameras. Kodak had comparatively little experience of that, except for a few point-and-shoot cameras mostly made as a vehicle for selling more film. Kodak was never going to win a camera mfg. war. They might be able (or might have been able) to hold their own in a sensor mfg. war if they'd played it right. Also, a lot of people do still want to print their pictures - that is, or was, another avenue for them.

As far as I understand, film still has its use - in very low temperatures (say, -30C), CCDs do not work as well as film. I am sure that there are special cameras with heated CCDs, but they would cost a lot, where film can be used with a (relatively) cheap camera.

Actually, that's backwards. At low temperatures, photographic film becomes brittle and must be heated. On the other hand, CCDs have less noise at lower temperatures. Astronomers use cooled CCDs extensively. IR cameras often have cooled CCDs; if you want to image heat, you want as little extraneous heat as possible at the imager.

I'm an ex professional newspaper and sports photographer... and my main camera is the LX5 too... quality is amazing, leica lens, 24mm wide angle, HD video, low noise, good screen.

DSLR is great, but it's a pain in the butt to carry around. Unless you go out SPECIFICALLY to take pictures, something like the Lumix LX5 is more than enough. There's a great blog post on this:

http://1000words.kodak.com/thousandwords/post/?ID=7136485015460840984

MadCow

Well if you use to shoot sports you should know better than advocating that a point and shoot is more than enough. Try shooting sports one sometime - very limiting.

It all depends on what you want to shoot.

I'm an ex professional newspaper and sports photographer... and my main camera is the LX5 too... quality is amazing, leica lens, 24mm wide angle, HD video, low noise, good screen.

DSLR is great, but it's a pain in the butt to carry around. Unless you go out SPECIFICALLY to take pictures, something like the Lumix LX5 is more than enough. There's a great blog post on this:

http://1000words.kodak.com/thousandwords/post/?ID=7136485015460840984

MadCow

And when it was obvious, maybe they felt they were too late to the party.

Not sure how they could be late to the party. They were the first one there. And it's not like they didn't mingle at the hors d'oeuvres tray, either.

If memory serves me correctly, Great Yellow Father bitch-slapped those two Texan-clowns pretty hard, and Diamonds have been mostly De Beers marketing hype for decades.

I can testify that planned obsolescence of cameras is already happening. I have a working digital camera from about 1998/1999 era. I still have original cd w/ the drivers and software. It was designed for use w/ windows 98 via a USB cable. It also worked fine with windows 2000/xp. When I built my most current machine w/ windows 7 pro on it, I could not get the camera to work with windows 7. After finding documentation both by Microsoft and Kodak that stated in no uncertain terms that this camera amongst many others would not be supported, I wrote to kodak asking for help (I had nothing to lose), I got a form letter basically saying they were more interested in their newer models. I ended up having to purchase a 3rd party card reader to read the old card that it uses in order to pull pictures off of it.

I foresee some very scary circumstances coming out of this patent from the US dictatorship err *cough* government. I realize there would be ways to stop infrared feeds from getting into a camera that has this technology enabled but the masses won't bother or care.

Kodak Ektar 100, which was launched about 2 years ago, is maybe the closest current film to what you're suggesting. It's very fine-grained and designed for scanning, though you only get ISO 100, and the chemistry is standard C41 colour negative (which realistically it has to be - nobody is going to do R&D on an entirely new film process at this point, and finding decent local processing is already hard enough):

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=13328

Every time I consider the maniacal steps involved in process K-14 (small .PDF), I'm amazed that anything shows up at all.

Kodak at one point made an automated Kodachrome minilab, the K-Lab, which was intended to make processing more widely available:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/klabs/index.shtml

Unfortunately it never really took off, and one was up for sale for several years with no takers:

http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/equipment/klab.htm

The day before it waa due to be scrapped, an enthusiast stepped in and bought it, and is now hoping to get it running again:

http://www.kodachromeproject.com/forum/showthread.php?t=674

Obtaining the necessary processing chemicals, especially the proprietary dye couplers, is the major barrier to making this happen.

That last time Kodak had a good viable product would have been the very early 90's.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Kodak is still very relevant in motion picture film. Their latest camera films were introduced in 2009 and 2010 (Vision 3).

And film is often still the preferred original in motion picture production, if you can afford it + a digital scan for post production. It is not only preferred because the cameras and accessories are so good, but also because the film itself captures better pictures in most situations, or is easier to work with in high contrast lighting. Here is a recent comparison with the RED One.

As for digital, Kodak introduced the first film scanner in 1993 (the Cineon), and the .DPX files used in digital post production today are directly derived from the file format Kodak introduced with the Cineon.

In their field, this was and still is an innovative company doing fantastic professional products.

It would be a pity to see them end as patent trolls.

Send a message to Kodak customer relations department here:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=15718&pq-locale=en_US

http://pluggedin.kodak.com/post/?id=687843
The date there is October 16, 2007

News? Hardly.

I have to admit that when I did cross processed photography it was mostly as an experiment/learning experience.

So far all I've done is pushing or pulling film however I want to try other alternative methods of developing film. I'd like to go through Alternative Photography to see what they have. I heard one where orange juice was used. Ah, here's one using lemon juice. I like how the photo turned out.

I wonder how much longer film will be available. Kodak stopped making film based cameras, now this. Though TFA says Kodak stopped making Kodachrome they still make Elite, er, Ektachrome.

Falcon

'The smallest it ever got was when they'd have lab set up in the back of a semi-trailer to do on-site processing at the World Series, Kentucky Derby, and similar events.'

They actually got as far as building a commercial Kodachrome minilab ('Requiring only 46 square feet of floor space, the K-LAB Processor can fit through a standard 32-inch doorway') that automated the whole thing:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/klabs/index.shtml

Unfortunately it never caught on, though someone has/had one for sale:

http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/equipment/klab.htm

(worthless without support and consumables from Kodak, of course).

with a useless bit of trivia
Kodak- 100+ years
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq1632.shtml

so it is still tied to oil.

No it's not. Biopolymers are produced by living organisms. The cellulose from trees can be used. The first plastics made were bioplastics from plants. Do you recall the old Cellophane plastic wrap for sandwiches? Made from wood cellulose. Eastman Kodak, the camera company, first used plant based plastic for it's cameras and film. Even today film is sometimes called "Cellulose".

Plant, cellulose, based plastics only fail by the wayside after DuPont was awarded patents on making plastic from petroleum in the mid 1930s.

Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.

Now this is a potential problem, forests could be cleared to plant plantations for polymers. However the products are compostable.

Falcon

Kodak makes:

Digital Cameras (imagine that!)
Memory cards of all types
Printers
Video Cameras
Digital Picture Frames

I'm pretty sure Kodak just rebrands crappy products from China. Does anyone actually buy Kodak digital/computer equipment?

Kodak used to be great, but they haven't done much in a long time.

I'm pretty sure God beat you with the stupid stick.

The world does NOT evolve around what you buy, or how you think crap is being used.

So to answer your questions, Yes, people do buy Kodak's products.
And parts are most likely made in China/Hong Kong/Taiwan, but from what I found, is assembled here in America.

As for them "used to be great, but they haven't done much in a long time." only goes to show how stupid you are.
Because you don't use their product, don't mean shit. You've already proven you can't grasp normal concepts.

If you bothered to look at their website, like this page: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/historyOfKodak/2000.jhtml?pq-path=2217/2687/2695/2704

You'd see they are still putting out products, and from what I can tell, nice stuff.

I guess I could give you some credit, since you must think they are just about camera's, but i'm not going to. You could of corrected the misconception just viewing their website.

Kodak press release containing the patent number - 6,292,218 - and also stating that Kodak has won a ruling that the patent is valid and relevant in a similar case against Samsung.

http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/home

Sure looks like a patent troll to me.

Well, there is a troll involved here but it certainly isn't Kodak.

From TFA, summarizing:

• Ryobi power / garden tool replacement battery: £1.16/Wh
• Bosch Rotak 43LI lawnmower battery: £1.50/Wh
• Sony VAIO TT laptop battery: £2.50/Wh

Whiner. A Kodak KLIC-8000 lithium-ion digital camera battery comes out to £3.46 / watt hour.

I think it's time that Congress look into market collusion and racketeering.

Kodak is supposed to have competitive ink prices. The only thing that is keeping me from buying one is the paperweight status of most of the Linux drivers.

Who cares what your previous camera came with?

Give your customers a certain treatment, and they'll expect to be treated at least as well in the future. At the least, they'll expect you to make it clear if you suddenly start offering less.

You made a stupid assumption, it's your fault - not Kodak's.

I made an incorrect assumption, but I still don't think it was stupid. What is stupid is making non-rechargeable digital camera batteries in the first place.

I expected everything that came in the same box to basically last for the lifetime of the camera, unless clearly stated otherwise. Sticking a non-rechargeable battery in there just so you can say it comes with a battery – well, no, it doesn't. Not with a proper battery, anyway... it comes with a battery that you'll get to toss in the trash shortly after buying the camera.

Did the camera take a specialized battery, or a standard one you can pick up practically anywhere?

It came with a Kodak Lithium Digital Camera Battery CRV3, $7.99 if you get it from Kodak. Of course, knock-offs do exist, but is a cheap knock-off from China going to be the same quality as the one you're getting from Kodak? Doubtful.

The rechargeable one, on the other hand, is the Kodak Li-Ion Rechargeable Digital Camera Battery KLIC-8000 (battery + charger), $29.95, for a total of $59.90 if you want the charger and two batteries (before taxes and shipping... shipping apparently brings it to $67.40 for standard ground in the US).

It's a racket anyway, selling cameras (or anything else) that takes a specialized battery without including a battery that will last the lifetime of the device, and then without clearly telling the buyer that they'll be buying a battery before they'll be able to use the device (or to continue to use it, when the one you gave them dies). Plenty of camera manufacturers sell cameras that take regular-sized AA batteries, either alkaline or rechargeable Ni-Cad.

For what it's worth, Kodak apparently has a history of sub-standard customer service. At the time, I looked up the Eastman Kodak Co. on the Better Business Bureau because I wanted to file a report, and I discovered that the company was "under review", with issues noted regarding their customer service and the way they handled their warranty claims. Since then, Kodak has apparently said "Fuck you Whares and Fuck you Dorphins, and Fuck you, Better Brusness Bureau": rather than stepping up their service, they just left the BBB and are now listed as "Not accredited – BBB Rating, F".

Reasons for this rating include:
> Failure to respond to complaints filed against business
> Number of complaints filed against business that were unresolved
> Overall complaint history with BBB
> Length of time business has taken to resolve complaint(s)

Who cares what your previous camera came with?

Give your customers a certain treatment, and they'll expect to be treated at least as well in the future. At the least, they'll expect you to make it clear if you suddenly start offering less.

You made a stupid assumption, it's your fault - not Kodak's.

I made an incorrect assumption, but I still don't think it was stupid. What is stupid is making non-rechargeable digital camera batteries in the first place.

I expected everything that came in the same box to basically last for the lifetime of the camera, unless clearly stated otherwise. Sticking a non-rechargeable battery in there just so you can say it comes with a battery – well, no, it doesn't. Not with a proper battery, anyway... it comes with a battery that you'll get to toss in the trash shortly after buying the camera.

Did the camera take a specialized battery, or a standard one you can pick up practically anywhere?

It came with a Kodak Lithium Digital Camera Battery CRV3, $7.99 if you get it from Kodak. Of course, knock-offs do exist, but is a cheap knock-off from China going to be the same quality as the one you're getting from Kodak? Doubtful.

The rechargeable one, on the other hand, is the Kodak Li-Ion Rechargeable Digital Camera Battery KLIC-8000 (battery + charger), $29.95, for a total of $59.90 if you want the charger and two batteries (before taxes and shipping... shipping apparently brings it to $67.40 for standard ground in the US).

It's a racket anyway, selling cameras (or anything else) that takes a specialized battery without including a battery that will last the lifetime of the device, and then without clearly telling the buyer that they'll be buying a battery before they'll be able to use the device (or to continue to use it, when the one you gave them dies). Plenty of camera manufacturers sell cameras that take regular-sized AA batteries, either alkaline or rechargeable Ni-Cad.

For what it's worth, Kodak apparently has a history of sub-standard customer service. At the time, I looked up the Eastman Kodak Co. on the Better Business Bureau because I wanted to file a report, and I discovered that the company was "under review", with issues noted regarding their customer service and the way they handled their warranty claims. Since then, Kodak has apparently said "Fuck you Whares and Fuck you Dorphins, and Fuck you, Better Brusness Bureau": rather than stepping up their service, they just left the BBB and are now listed as "Not accredited – BBB Rating, F".

Reasons for this rating include:
> Failure to respond to complaints filed against business
> Number of complaints filed against business that were unresolved
> Overall complaint history with BBB
> Length of time business has taken to resolve complaint(s)

Who cares what your previous camera came with?

Give your customers a certain treatment, and they'll expect to be treated at least as well in the future. At the least, they'll expect you to make it clear if you suddenly start offering less.

You made a stupid assumption, it's your fault - not Kodak's.

I made an incorrect assumption, but I still don't think it was stupid. What is stupid is making non-rechargeable digital camera batteries in the first place.

I expected everything that came in the same box to basically last for the lifetime of the camera, unless clearly stated otherwise. Sticking a non-rechargeable battery in there just so you can say it comes with a battery – well, no, it doesn't. Not with a proper battery, anyway... it comes with a battery that you'll get to toss in the trash shortly after buying the camera.

Did the camera take a specialized battery, or a standard one you can pick up practically anywhere?

It came with a Kodak Lithium Digital Camera Battery CRV3, $7.99 if you get it from Kodak. Of course, knock-offs do exist, but is a cheap knock-off from China going to be the same quality as the one you're getting from Kodak? Doubtful.

The rechargeable one, on the other hand, is the Kodak Li-Ion Rechargeable Digital Camera Battery KLIC-8000 (battery + charger), $29.95, for a total of $59.90 if you want the charger and two batteries (before taxes and shipping... shipping apparently brings it to $67.40 for standard ground in the US).

It's a racket anyway, selling cameras (or anything else) that takes a specialized battery without including a battery that will last the lifetime of the device, and then without clearly telling the buyer that they'll be buying a battery before they'll be able to use the device (or to continue to use it, when the one you gave them dies). Plenty of camera manufacturers sell cameras that take regular-sized AA batteries, either alkaline or rechargeable Ni-Cad.

For what it's worth, Kodak apparently has a history of sub-standard customer service. At the time, I looked up the Eastman Kodak Co. on the Better Business Bureau because I wanted to file a report, and I discovered that the company was "under review", with issues noted regarding their customer service and the way they handled their warranty claims. Since then, Kodak has apparently said "Fuck you Whares and Fuck you Dorphins, and Fuck you, Better Brusness Bureau": rather than stepping up their service, they just left the BBB and are now listed as "Not accredited – BBB Rating, F".

Reasons for this rating include:
> Failure to respond to complaints filed against business
> Number of complaints filed against business that were unresolved
> Overall complaint history with BBB
> Length of time business has taken to resolve complaint(s)

> This page [kodak.com] at the kodak site shows about 8 different types of 35mm film which Kodak is marketing.

That page shows the negative film. Kodachrome is slide film and this page shows that kodachrome is being discontinued but some newer slide films remain.

I'm sad. I used to use kodachrome; it was nice film if a little slow for the English climate.

I don't think film is exactly going away yet. It's true for a lot of home-stuff digital is becoming 'the standard', but isn't a lot of/most professional work still done on film? I think Kodachrome is going away simply because other, newer 35mm have won in the market? Someone had a link to a wikipedia article on Fujifilm Velvia as an example of another popular film which is still being sold. I imagine Kodak themselves probably have come out with a newer film type? This page at the kodak site shows about 8 different types of 35mm film which Kodak is marketing.

Indeed. Kodachrome for many years has been a fringe old-style color slide film that's been mostly replaced with E-6 process film for many years now (the E-6 process dates from 1977). Kodak's certainly not discontinuing their Ektachrome E-6 process films.

we cannot afford to forget that it is nuclear power that promises us the quickest (and cleanest) way to combat our oil dependency.

The last nuclear power plant commissioned in the US took more than 20 years to build and put in operation. But say you could cut that into a quarter, 5 years to build a 1 gigawatt reactor, it's still not the fastest way to add generation. If you erect 20 5 megawatt wind turbines a month in one year you'll add 1.2 gigawatts of capacity in a year.

As and for cleanliness, nuclear power is dirty. There's the mining and initial processing, reprocessing spent fuel, storage of the leftovers as well as toxic chemicals used for reprocessing, then closure of the power plant.

we're going to be deeply screwed when it comes to producing something we've come to take for granted in the modern age - plastics.

Oil, petroleum, isn't needed to make plastic. Before oil was used to make plastic plastic was made from plant material. The original cellophane plastic wrap for sandwiches was made from cellulose, a part of plant cells. Way back when, before 1951, Kodak made their film from cellulose. The only reason bioplastics lost favor was because DuPont invented a process to polymerize petroleum to make plastic and that was cheaper than bioplastics. Today bioplastics are making a comeback. I don't feel like looking for it now but Kodak had a pdf online showing the process of making bioplastic.

Falcon

At least they are releasing drivers, versus some companies like Kodak and the ESP printers.

They have macrud OSX support and have developed basic drivers for Linux but refuse to release them

http://johnmanard.pluggedin.kodak.com/default.asp?item=2191668 - Driver and shows and example of output.

http://susantousi.pluggedin.kodak.com/default.asp?item=473852

Free means - no cost, period.

I can DL nvidia, ATI, VMWare etc all for free and its all closed source. Fine with me.

I can't DL any of the stuff for Kodak as they won't release an API, interface specs, or the driver they have developed.

Linux desktop users do NOT care open or closed source, they want free software to DL and install. They want free drivers to DL and install and use the device(s) they purchased at Newegg or other place with out a hassle.

At least they are releasing drivers, versus some companies like Kodak and the ESP printers.

They have macrud OSX support and have developed basic drivers for Linux but refuse to release them

http://johnmanard.pluggedin.kodak.com/default.asp?item=2191668 - Driver and shows and example of output.

http://susantousi.pluggedin.kodak.com/default.asp?item=473852

Free means - no cost, period.

I can DL nvidia, ATI, VMWare etc all for free and its all closed source. Fine with me.

I can't DL any of the stuff for Kodak as they won't release an API, interface specs, or the driver they have developed.

Linux desktop users do NOT care open or closed source, they want free software to DL and install. They want free drivers to DL and install and use the device(s) they purchased at Newegg or other place with out a hassle.