Slashdot Mirror

Yes, Tri-X lives on, available for 55 yrs+ in 135 format. and for color reversal prints (direct positive process), Ilford CibaChrome continues under the name Ilfochrome Classic. You can still make ArT and it is still pricey.

Like and idiot, I forgot to update the section in my reply that actually listed the model number before I hit submit (with Slashdot had an "Edit" feature :) ).

Please replace this:

I looked around a bit and got a Kodak

With this:

I looked around a bit and got a Kodak EasyShare W1020 http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=13162&pq-locale=en_US. Its a bit pricy (although they also have a smaller model for less), but I really wanted to get my father something nice for his 79th birthday. :)

:)

And we all know since there's no specification for EXIF data that someone who has a vested interest in removing it would be unable to figure it out.

I'm thinking aloud here, but - JPEG is a lossy alogrithm with all sorts of things you can tweak in terms of image quality. And image sensors on cameras never give you a perfect image - there's always a certain amount of noise. The processor on the camera generally applies some sharpening as well. I wonder if, given a JPEG image straight off the camera with EXIF information removed, it would be possible to deduce the make/model?

And we all know since there's no specification for EXIF data that someone who has a vested interest in removing it would be unable to figure it out.

Someone else linked to this kodak stuff as some that is rated for 100+ years.

But I'm really surprised that no one mentioned data redundancy. Use something like dvdisaster to create a huge amount of extra redundancy data. That way even if there is some bit rot, your chances of recovery go up.

Even with that I agree with the commercial pressed cds since they should last longer than any cdr media. I assume there is special pressed media for archival as well. As others have said I would worry too much, 25 years isn't that long, and cds and dvds are so widespread that you're likely to be able to find a reader for that long at least. But if you're paranoid, try a few of the methods until you run out of funds. Multiple gold cdrs with lots of redundancy is probably your cheapest option, then go from there.

Kodak guarantees their Gold CD and DVDs for 100 years. I don't know how they can, but that would be your best bet. I don't know what they'd do if they didn't hold up 25 years later, but at least that might make your boss happy. I'm sure you can find other discs from other manufacturers who make archival-quality discs.

Read this: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq1632.shtml

Zooomr CEO Thomas Hawk was ejected from a San Francisco art museum because the security guard apparently thought his expensive camera could be used to spy on female employees. Another photographer notes that 'many people consider a professional-looking camera a threat,'

I've been taking some pictures out of our bathroom window here using a Kodak EasyShare P850. It's not the greatest camera ever (5 megapixels, rather noisy sensor, bad in low light conditions) but it does look sort of like an SLR camera (I've had people mistake me for a professional photographer on at least two occasions), and it has a 12x zoom lens. So after a while of this, I heard something along the lines of "It's the pervert again" and later that night, the fucking police arrive! They seemed to be rather unconcerned about the whole thing, but I was shocked and a bit angry. Why didn't the person just come and ask me to stop taking pictures if they were so bothered about it? It would probably give their call to the police a little more legitimacy if they at least uttered the words "Could you stop taking pictures please?" at some point during the proceedings.

I later went around to where I suspect the phone call was made, and found a rather mouthy woman who talked about being worried about a pervert taking pictures of them getting changed. With my experience with this camera, that's ridiculous. With a high-quality tripod, massive zoom lens, and 20 megapixel digital SLR (at least £2500 worth of kit by my reckoning, a far cry from the £100 my camera cost) then maybe I could get something. But an obstruction as flimsy as net curtains would render even that setup meaningless, and taking a picture of someone on the other side of the street through their window while never leaving your own window is a bit like trying to watch a striptease through two keyholes that are a whole room apart.

Really, this paranoia about picture taking is getting to be more than a joke. I had a bit of a laugh at the ridiculous stories around photo paranoia, but it really takes the fun out of things when you end up talking to police about it. Being that I live in Britain, it find it somewhat ironic that people will complain about me taking pictures of them with my camera while we're both being filmed at all times by various CCTV cameras. At least they can ask me to stop, and I will. Try asking the same of the operators of those damn things.

Kodak Specs

Kodak News Release

Kodak Specs

Kodak News Release

I don't think a do-it yourself digital back for your old camera is a very realistic project, unless you're an experienced Analog & Digital electronics designer. Kodak used to have a pretty nice demo board for their CMOS imager chips, which was about as "plug and play" as you could hope for, but I haven't seen anything for their higher-end CCD sensors...

Actually, they do have an evaluation board listed for the previous version of this sensor:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Fullframe/KAF-39000/support.jhtml?pq-path=11937/11938/12138/12249/12265

That probably means they'll have one for the 50MP version soon(ish). Reading the documents on that page should give you an idea of the level of work involved.

The article doesn't seem to mention whether the new Kodak sensor uses the new-and-perhaps-improved pixel pattern that Kodak announced in 2007. See http://johncompton.pluggedin.kodak.com/default.asp?item=624876

"They sell kodak near here but I never saw them in the UK."

http://printers.kodak.com/

It's part of their EZ share line. The black is $10 with 400p @ 5% yield at least in the states. I'm not truly excited about the cost per page, but it is reasonable. The printer uses a technique similar to canon, detachable thermal head. It offers a multi color tank, as I recall three primaries and a clear, perhaps an additional black. Color and black are pigment. It's no Epson, but the price is a fair bit more reasonable even in contrast to their dye models.

Oh, near as I'm aware they only offer all in ones.

I bought my mom a Kodak LS743 digital camera for Christmas several years ago. Then she foolishly allowed me to borrow it when I went on vacation. During the course of that trip I absent mindedly set the thing on top of the car while getting in and left it there. Several miles later, after merging onto the freeway, I heard it slide allllll the way to the back of the roof and then launch wildly off before smashing into the pavement. Looking in the rearview I saw it skip and bounce along the road, and saw what I took to be parts shattering off of it. I pulled over and managed to retrieve it before anyone behind me could run it over. The only things that had come off during its 70mph thrill ride were the button on the back (the mechanism it covered was intact), and the battery along with the memory card had flown out. After snapping everything back in place, it was in perfect working order with only a mild case of roadburn to show for it. If only her car had been so easy to fix after I borrowed that and annihilated a deer with it... http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-locale=en_US&pq-path=1764

Kodak recommends shooting Tmax 3200 up to ISO 25,000 and pushing it accordingly in development.

If we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem

Actually plastic can be made without petroleum oil. Prior to 1934, when DuPont was given a patent on making plastic from oil, plastic was made from cellulose. Ever hear of Cellophane, the plastic wraps for food? As it's name suggest it was originally from plant cellulose. Thing is is DuPont was the US's first producer of cellophane. Another big company that made and used cellulose based plastic, cellulose acetate, was Kodak.

this is a disingenuous cop-out and you know it.

What's a cop-out is saying nuclear power is needed when it isn't.

finally, everything that makes our society modern comes from mining, either ore or pretrochemicals
despite the demand of 6 billion people for all these mined goods the planet is still here and beautiful, and many more people are worried about logging than mining.

I went up the tread to see where I said the above in bold yet I don't see it. Is it something you're making up I said?

So in closing, if you are so opposed to mining as the bane of the planet, then you need to send everything you own which includes plastic or metal to the recycling plant and go live with the amish, or cut it with the hypocrisy.

Who's being hypocritical, someone stating facts or someone making things up? Plastics coming from mines? You are either ignorant or making things up. Though plastics are now made from petrochemicals this hasn't always being true. Prior to the mid 1930s, when DuPont was granted a patent on making plastic from petro, nylon then rayon later, plastics were made from plants such as trees. The cellulose in trees gave the name Cellophane, a plastic. Cellophane is what was used to wrap stuff like sandwiches, the saran wrap of yesteryear. Kodak the camera company had a process whereby they used plant cellulose to make the plastic for film. Hemp was also a source of cellulose, as well as other things. Henry Ford designed and built a vehicle on his Iron Mountain Estate in the '30s that used hemp in the construction and was made into fuel for the vehicle. In the end I am not opposed to mining but seeing as how there is no need for nuclear power plants there's no need to mine uranium!

Years ago a fellow I knew took to hanging out in graveyards with his camera and film sensitive to Infra Red (pick up the background IR, except where spirits, which apparently suck the energy out of their surroundings when they manifest themselves.)

The IR sensitive film on the market is only sensitive at very near infrared wavelengths. See this spectral sensitivity curve. Note that 500nm is about the bottom end of color the human eye can see and peak sensitivity occurs around 550nm.

"Suck the energy out of their surroundings" sounds like this would make the temperature plummet. If you want to photograph something cold like that, the temperature inside the camera must be lower than what you are photographing and the film would have to have been kept cold since its manufacture. Otherwise the film would just get fogged from the ambient IR given off by the camera body and/or film canister. This is the reason that most forward-looking infrared systems use a super-cooled CCD. It just isn't that practical with regular film.

It was not the Kodak Star cameras. It was the Kodak Instant Cameras

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq009 8.shtml

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0 7E5D61139F936A25753C1A963948260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940 DEFD61F3EF934A25756C0A96E948260

On top of that the Kodak Star Cameras uses the 110 and 135 (35 mm) film sizes:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/t echInfo/aa13/aa13pg2.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

35 mm film (135 size) is still available, and I believe you can still purchase 110 size film as well.

http://www.walgreens.com/store/productlist.jsp?CAT ID=100555&selectedBrand=

http://www.walgreens.com/store/productlist.jsp?CAT ID=100384&navAction=push&navCount=1

It was not the Kodak Star cameras. It was the Kodak Instant Cameras

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq009 8.shtml

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0 7E5D61139F936A25753C1A963948260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940 DEFD61F3EF934A25756C0A96E948260

On top of that the Kodak Star Cameras uses the 110 and 135 (35 mm) film sizes:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/t echInfo/aa13/aa13pg2.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

35 mm film (135 size) is still available, and I believe you can still purchase 110 size film as well.

http://www.walgreens.com/store/productlist.jsp?CAT ID=100555&selectedBrand=

http://www.walgreens.com/store/productlist.jsp?CAT ID=100384&navAction=push&navCount=1

A quick Google search turned up these.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq009 8.shtml

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0 7E5D61139F936A25753C1A963948260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940 DEFD61F3EF934A25756C0A96E948260

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-pa th=10581&pq-locale=en_US

Their new printers have half the ink costs of their closest competitors.

For the curious, it appears that this post's parent is referring to the Kodak EASYSHARE 5100 All-in-One Printer.

Obviously, there's a problem, know-nothing slashdot smartmouths be damned. Here's what Kodak says:

Ambient-Background Radiation

(effects on raw stock)

Ambient gamma radiation is composed of two sources: a low-energy component which arises from the decay of radionuclides and a high-energy component which is the product of the interaction of cosmic rays with the earths upper atmosphere. The radionuclides responsible for the low-energy photons exist in soil and rock and are carried into earth-derived building materials, such as concrete. Upon exposure to ambient-background radiation, photographic negative materials can exhibit an increase in minimum density, a loss in contrast and speed in the dark areas, and an increase in granularity. The changes in film performance are determined by several factors, such as the film speed and length of time exposed to the radiation before the film is processed. A film with an exposure index of 500 can exhibit about three times the change in performance as a film with an index of 125. While this effect on film raw stock is not immediate, it is one reason why we suggest exposing and processing film as soon as possible after purchase. We recommend a period of no more than six months from the time of film purchase before processing, provided it has been kept under specified conditions. Extended periods beyond six months may affect faster speed films as noted above, even if kept frozen. The only way to determine the specific effect of ambient-background radiation is with actual testing or measurements and placing a detector in the locations where the film was stored. The most obvious clue is the observance of increased granularity, especially in the light areas of the scene.

Exactly. Particularly when the printer is $150, and not some $20 piece of garbage that's just a holder for the $40 or $50 cartridge. Nobody cares really about messing up their printer, when you can just get a new one practically for free -- but when the printer is a significant investment, and the replacement cartridges are cheap, who's going to do that? It's penny-wise and pound-foolish at that point to cut corners.

I'm reading the black as being equal to 3c/page, I would guess 333pages/tank or $15/ream. I read the Kodak 1215581 tank is 10ml, or $1.00/ml Bulk dye ink tends to run $1-$2/ounce or about .03c/ml to .06c/ml. From what i'm reading, the 5300 looks like it uses pigment ink, 1 text cartridge and a photo cartridge with CMYK and clear. That's closer to 15c/ml for bulk pigmented ink, 85% savings is to be expected on the black cartridge. I have no meter for the color cartridge, but 80% savings is not unreasonable for bulk fill pigment based inks.

3c/page is good, but on par with other inkjets including the classic hp 45a cartridge.

I read it has a 6.5pl head for text, 2.7pl nozzles for color.

For other printers, bulk ink pays for it self after 2 or 3 cartridge changes. This kodak looks like you can get 6 OEM cartridge changes for roughly equal to the cost of the printer. I would expect 7 cartridge changes on bulk ink before it paid for it self. This would be slightly more than 2oz of black ink, and I presume an equal amount for each color plus clear. I do base my cost estimates on epson compatable ink.

As far as who would risk their printer? Companies like MediaStreet seem to do perfectly well offering bulk ink to pro-sumer printers costing $500+. High profit retrofitting wide printers.

While I am not all that excited about this printer, it's nice to see another option other than Epson, esp since Epson pretty much offers a document printer (c series) and a photo printer (r series), but nothing really to cover both bases. Even better yet, Kodak is offering a thermal based pigment printer before canon releases their a3+ pigment model.

Kodak Easyshare 5500

Show me a laser printer that can, scan, copy, print photos, fax and duplex with a price tag of only $300 and ink refills you can buy in a local retailer. It's simply not possible.

Oh... and that printer is fully Mac compatible. Remember that Mac special $100 discount off of a printer deal? Yeah, this will work with that.

Hands down, (based on it's stated features/pricing) this is the perfect printer for home users. Not only does it have the convenience of an all-in-one printer but it's much cheaper per page than a traditional inkjet. I've actually done quite a bit research recently with the intent to buy a laser printer for the reason you said and because I like the fact that laser printed ink doesn't smear. When I came upon this printer, I simply couldn't justify going laser. Ever since, I've been waiting patiently it to come out.

-Grym

That's not really true. Have a look here: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrang e2/

Unfortunately the only negative film compared was Kodak Gold 200, but you can compare it's response curve (here: http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/consumer/pro ducts/techInfo/e2329/f002_0618ac.gif) with other films. A good modern digital SLR has quite a bit more dynamic range than colour negative film, and on par or close to the very best black and white films.

Nozzle clogging - TFA mentions clogging in passing, but doesn't say they are going to test for this. In my experience, clogging occurs over time, as crystals form at the print head. More expensive inks contain a better (or just more) biocide to prevent crystal growth. Clogged print heads (or even worse, clogged ink lines) can be expensive to fix, and usually the cheapest repair is to toss the printer in the dumpster and buy new.

Archival quality - TFA does mention pictures fading over time and they will be testing for this. Subtle differences in ink and paper composition can have a dramatic effect. Remember, color is the effect produced by the combination of ink and paper. I think there are some techniques used in both paper and ink that can lessen the effects of UV rays. Again, this will cost money.

Color accuracy - TFA has side by side images of original vs. 3rd party prints, using the same driver settings, and it is pretty easy to see a big difference. Fortunately, you can correct for this by creating a custom ICC profile for your ink+paper combination. Profiling is not something that your Mom will want to do (unless she's a graphic designer), but it can be done. Profiling might be cost effective if you are a small design shop, producing some color-critical work, but you need to optimize costs.

As for me? I've switched over to laser printing for most of my work, and when I do need color output (which is rare), I use HP multi-function printer that cam with my PC and use geniune HP inks, just so that I won't have to worry long term nozzle clogging from infrequent use.

If my HP inkjet ever packs it in, then I'll switch over to a color lazer and be done with it.

First was a Fujitsu P1000 micro-laptop (Transmeta Crusoe based, so there's your "linux/linus" reference, although it ran WinME). I used it for email, web browsing, updating a web page, managing finances, storage of digital photos, and as an MP3 player. It held up remarkably well in 15000 miles of on- and off-road riding, and did everything I needed it to do. No CD drive - the external one I used was left behind. The PCMCIA slot was used to mount the camera's memory card.

Next was a Kodak DC280 digital camera. It used AA batteries, and I used a small charger rather than buying new batteries. The weight of the charger was pretty low. The camera was beat up pretty well, but still works. Pictures were copied to the laptop as needed.

A couple of small earbud earphones with a splitter to let us listen to music in the tent, as well as an adapter to have RCA outputs to pipe audio to a hotel's TV or stereo when desired (music or webcasts).

Internet access was typically through dial-up, although I could use a local fast connection when available. You can either get a service with roaming support like iPass, or sign up for local service if you plan to be in a country for a while. We even used Net10's free service while in the USA; this was sufficient to connect, download/upload emails and cache a few web pages, and disconnect.

I had a cell phone - we'd get pre-paid SIM cards for use in local countries, and just tell friends our new phone number as needed. This was for emergencies, and for making travel arrangements and hotel bookings when needed.

No GPS receiver - although it might have been nice to have a log of our travels.

We used BOB trailers for most of the trip, and had a small daypack to carry the computer, camera, passports and cash with us at all times.

If you can afford it, get the Nikon 9000. Sell it when you are done. I settled on using an Epson 4990 since I wanted the flatbed for other things. If the difference between a good flatbed and a dedicated film scanner matters to you, then get the dedicated. The film trays that come with the Epson 4990 work pretty well, but I got a better film carrier from http://www.betterscanning.com/ Takes a lot of the hassle out of curled negatives. Also. If you plan to post process your scans much, I highly recommend Photoshop with either NeatImage, http://www.neatimage.com/ or Noise Ninja, http://www.picturecode.com/ for removing noise. FocalBlade or FocusMagic, http://www.focusmagic.com/ has it's place too for some of pictures of interest. Post processing is going to be key in getting the best results from your scanning effort. Figure out what you are willing to live with, because it's unrealistic to scan every negative in at max resolution due to the size of the resulting file.

As mentioned in previous posts, the Digital ICE dust/scratch removal doesn't work on B&W film. Also Kodachrome color slide film may not work well with certain scanners when trying to use the auto dust/scratch removal.

B&W presents some challenges. You must scan at 16 bits/channel resolution, otherwise, B&W results will be too contrasty and lose shadow detail. It sometimes helps to scan as positives then invert the image in Photoshop. Secondly, flatbed scanners tend to be noisy. This can be offset by using a multiple-pass option. Four passes work reasonably well without taking a lot of time. Quite a bit of this noise can be dealt with via NeatImage or Noise Ninja as well. Since Digital ICE (available on the 4990) does not work with B&W, you will get a lot of dust. Resist using third-party dust reduction software since it seriously degrades the image. Just plan to Photoshop images you plan on printing.

If you are wanting to really get down and do some serious negative scanning, quickly (and cost is not restricting). Get a Creo Eversmart (now owned by Kodak) flatbed scanner. http://graphics.kodak.com/global/product/scanners/ professional_scanners/default.htm These are the machines that image archives use when dealing mass volume. It is impractical to drum scan every slide/negative in an archive, and this is an excellent compromise.

The main thing is to make sure your negatives keep protected. In another 10-15 years, the scanning capabilities will be much, much better. However, the people you want to enjoy seeing these scanned images might be gone! So it's best to use what you can and get the job done. Let the next generation scan again if they want it done better.

When is the industry going to start producing LCD with OLEDs (Organic Light Emitting Diode) to skip the backlighting entirely? Once that happens I think the argument is over. Super bright, can see in bright light, low power consumption, not as much side-angle fade.....

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20 030302-02.shtml

there is,
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-pa th=6433&pq-locale=en_US
It has built in wi-fi. SDIO Wi-Fi 802.11b
So if you have a laptop with wifi secured in your car, you could set it up to automatically download images from the camera when they are taken

I'm the Systems Administrator for my company. I used to be the Prepress Manager as well until we hired this fabulous lady to handle it instead. More Slashdot for me. :-) At my company we don't care what color space the image is in. It gets converted to the industry standard SWOP color space (CMYK) no matter if its RGB, LAB, or grayscale by our Kodak Prinergy workflow. Anything that's printed goes through this PDF based system. Its amazing. The software just color converts automatically! :-p Welcome to the new millennium

And yes, GIMP sucks rocks!

When you have an important info - burn it on a gold master cdr. Depending on the brand the life is supposed to be 100 to 400 years. They cost $1.50 in bulk.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq100 8.shtml

http://store.mam-a-store.com/standard---archive-go ld.html

At this point, I think you are nuts to buy any camera (except perhaps a DSLR) that does not include Image Stabilization technology.

...imagine how much more information you could extract from e.g. the Zapruder film if it had been captured this way.

Actually, it would likely have been rendered completely unusable. The Zapruder Film was taken on a Bell & Howell Zoomatic using Kodachrome II Super 8mm safety film, which had a stated resolution of 63 lines/mm. That gives each frame an effective resolution of about 85,000 pixels.

A plenoptic camera of the type described here, using this film as the detector, would have an effective resolution of less than 480 pixels, or about a 25x19-pixel field. The result might let you determine roughly how far away the Lincoln Continental was from the camera, but that datum wouldn't be 0.00001% as valuable as the details you sacrificed to get it.

I need 2 4x6's. Sure, they're $0.14 online, but add $4.95 in shipping and off you go.

I use Mpix.com for all my large printing needs. They are actually exposing the digital exposure to Kodak film paper which can be common among some people. Their price and service can't be beat either. 8x10s for $2.

However if I need a 4x6, or a 8x10, a home printer is a decent deal. I recently picked up the Kodak 1400 dye sub printer for just this reason. There was a $100 rebate so it's a $343 printer, and the paper size of 8x14 lets me print 4 4x6s, 2 5x7s, 2 6x8s, or one 8x10 or 8x12 per page. I won't be printing out a 'major event' like my son's 2nd birthday portrait or the disaster that was the attempt at my daughters 4th birthday portrait because I usually want a ton of wallets, a good amount of 4x6s, and 5x7s and 8x10s for the grandparents, my desk, what not.

But for quick and easy home prints, a decent (but not outrageous) printer works for me. I've got a bad taste in my mouth for inkjet because the Canon S9000 I got when I got my first digital SLR in 2002 fades pretty badly unless you frame it. It doesn't stand up to my 'fridge test' where you print it, take a magnet, and pin it to the fridge for all eternity.

Fotki.com and the Kodak Easyshare Gallery have so far withstood that test rather well. However Kodak keeps making me sign a release form for every order for copyright reasons. Mpix does not, because there is no copyright displayed on my images. Apple has the same issue in iPhoto, but Kodak is their print engine. Fotki has been on the fridge for over a year now with no fading, next to a S9000 4x6 that is about as faded as it gets.

actually it's not even intersting.

wow a camera that uploads via wifi..ehh.. not like what was reported here or here.

I swear there were three other stories about the 'first wi-fi camera" but I can only find two. Maybe because I work in WolfCamera but this is old news. Kodak has the EasyShare One, Nikon has the P2, and those are just the consumer level cameras.

I know the EasyShare One has been out since april. We've never had one until last week but we've had a sign for it in our display case. always wanted to see what it looks like but they don't pay me enough to look up cameras on the clock much less off.

Isn't this a WiFi enabled camera from Kodak?

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-pa th=6434&pq-locale=en_US

> Up to 1,700 F. for one hour with the interior temperature
> remaining below 350 F.

Fine for paper (Fahrenheit 451).
Not so fine for magnetic tape (125 F) or CD/DVD (248 F) media, both would be damaged long before 350 F.

There are a number of data media rated fire resistant safes that will keep under 125 F for an hour for a 1800 F fire.

From
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib4300 .shtml#SEC759-SUBSEC3
The glass transition temperature for polycarbonate is approximately 140 degrees Celsius. If the temperature gets within 20 degrees Celsius of the glass transition temperature, there is a likelihood of significant disc deformation.

From
http://vsg.cape.com/~pbaum/magtape.htm
Other than a fire, the real danger of high temperatures (above 80 degrees Fahrenheit) is an increase in tape pack tightness caused by wound in debris, tape distortion caused by this pressure, and possible layer to layer adhesion. Print-through is increased by approximately 1.4 dB for every 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit).

They replaced Tri-X Pan with Tri-X 400/400TX
Source: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/suppor t/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml

They replaced Tri-X Pan with Tri-X 400/400TX
Source: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/suppor t/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml

This submission about Kodak discontinuing B/W paper production is categorically incorrect!! I did a little research because I want to put an end to Slashdot lies and found that indeed Kodak is promoting and selling black and white paper for use with the same looking single lense reflex camera you had back when you had that telephoto lense and got some nice shots of that chick naked in the appartment acros.. nevermind.. And not only that, they upgraded the camera for this futuristic paper and GUESS WHAT! Not only can do control depth of field and shutter or whatever it is you do that makes your pictures "artistic" or whateverthefuck, you can use your old SLR lenses on Kodak's frickin awesome SLRs. So calm down and damnit editors do not drop to the Republican's level to use fear to increase ummm... Kodak sales. Yeah, that's the ticket.

This submission about Kodak discontinuing B/W paper production is categorically incorrect!! I did a little research because I want to put an end to Slashdot lies and found that indeed Kodak is promoting and selling black and white paper for use with the same looking single lense reflex camera you had back when you had that telephoto lense and got some nice shots of that chick naked in the appartment acros.. nevermind.. And not only that, they upgraded the camera for this futuristic paper and GUESS WHAT! Not only can do control depth of field and shutter or whatever it is you do that makes your pictures "artistic" or whateverthefuck, you can use your old SLR lenses on Kodak's frickin awesome SLRs. So calm down and damnit editors do not drop to the Republican's level to use fear to increase ummm... Kodak sales. Yeah, that's the ticket.

the foil inside would actually rust over time.

Actually, I've never known Silver, Gold or Aluminum to rust...

The "flaking problem" is / was quite common with poorly manufactured CDRs. (The OLD cdrecordable.com's discs were notorious for this) IMHO, Always look for the big three (If you do any "tape-trading" you will start to see a trend of what people will and wont accept): Mitsui, Taiyo Yuden and Kodak. Stay away from CMC Magnetics for your archival stuff (Seems to be about every brand out there). CMC has improved over the years, but they are still at the bottom of the scale.

Get yourself an ATIP reader (Windows version "cdrecord -atip" for linux) and you will be able to tell your cheap CDRs from the good ones. For instance, Fuji brand (not FujiFilm) with the spin-on top-holder are Taiyo Yudens ;)

Hope that's useful to someone.

-FB

There might have been one or two Kodak camera bodies, but those use Canon Lenses too...

Kodak also makes cameras with Nikon mounts. What's the difference between the Kodak 14N Pro and the 14C Pro? The "N" has a Nikon mount whereas the "C" has a Canon mount. Otherwise they are the same.

There might have been one or two Kodak camera bodies, but those use Canon Lenses too...

Kodak also makes cameras with Nikon mounts. What's the difference between the Kodak 14N Pro and the 14C Pro? The "N" has a Nikon mount whereas the "C" has a Canon mount. Otherwise they are the same.

This web page is from 2002 and may be obsolete, but it says that all Kodak media is silver/gold and has phthalocyanine dye: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq163 0.shtml

Guerre

Believe me, if they've got it , they'll print it on the box for you - it's not like you can get many other differentiating features in CD's.

Kodak Gold Ulitma CD's were a silver / gold alloy. I've still got a few from my first burner... they're 5 years old now and still (apparently) ok.

Here's a FAQ about data life of kodak CD's. Accelerated aging at 80 degrees C and 80% RH seems a bit tough :-)

But I'll bet there are executives in Rochester who are happy to hear this one.

I will never buy another Kodak camera because of a horrible experience that I had with my ancient Kodak DC50 camera. It isn't just that it was a bad camera, but that Kodak's attitude was that they wanted to use a proprietary image format and they were going to do everything they could to keep it that way. As a result, they really aren't my pictures.

To this day you can get all sorts of open source digital camera software that supports all sorts of competing cameras from that era, but NOT the DC-50. The reason is that Kodak refuses any requests for information on the data format used for pictures from that camera. Sure, there's an SDK out there, but it's win16 only and the image conversion code is pre-compiled without any source code. You can build a windows 95 compatible program around their DLL, but you can't write a program for Linux, FreeBSD or Java to read their image format. This makes the camera almost useless now because the even the windows software for the camera doesn't work with any version of Windows past Windows 98! If they had open source software on the camera or on the client side, then we wouldn't have this problem. Heck, even if they had an open format for their images, we'd have a fighting chance of being able to convert the images to some more usable format.

So, the end result is that they aren't my pictures. They're effectively Kodak's pictures because I don't have access to them anymore. I can only use the images I took with my camera as long as Kodak decides to support the product, which they don't any more.