Slashdot Mirror

...just not mass produced or affordable.

I'm really hoping there is a push to market for these things. Sony has exclusive rights to the technology, developed by Silicon Light Machines. I've read anecdotal accounts from people who've seen the technology demoed that the images were amazingly crisp and vivid.

This link for a little blurb & small picture

This link for an abstract & link to a semi-technical pdf

Kodak just introduced a similar, competing system, as you can read here. Maybe that will drive the pricepoint down...if the demand exists.

I know I want one.

However, the price tag of the robotic mission is between $1 billion and $2 billion, almost the cost of a new space telescope.

Heck, you could shave a few hundred thousand off that pricetag if you built a new HST around the "backup" primary mirror made by Kodak (which was figured and tested correctly). NASA would just have to get it from The National Air and Space Museum.

I guess it's good news for at least one company.

Use Kodak's Contact Form to let them what you think. I did:

As a software developer, I was dismayed to hear about Kodak's decision to sue Sun based upon some bogus software patients. Most software developers think these kinds of patents are causing great harm to the American software developer. Any new feature (even obvious ideas) added to a piece of code could potentially be infringing on someone's intentionally vague software patient. I just read the 3 patents which Kodak has accused Sun of violating. Honestly, I have no idea just what you are claiming to have invented. Of course, that's probably the point.

In addition, Kodak seeks over $1 billion in damages from Sun. This is obscene. Through Java, Sun has revitalized the software industry. You are causing great harm to a company that has done wonderful things for both developers and consumers alike.

In response, I have decided to avoid Kodak products forever more. No more Kodak 35mm film, photo paper or film processing for me. By the way, my next camera will probably be a Canon digital camera. In short, you've sold your last Kodak product to me ever.

I know that my personal boycott of your products will have no measurable effect on Kodak's bottom line, however you have just annoyed over one million Java developers. We take this stuff seriously. I suggest Kodak visit SlashDot, a news site read 3 million times every day to get a feeling for the damage you have inflicted upon yourselves.

Before Kodak reinvents itself as a Intellectual Property (IP) holding company whose business model is to simply sue everyone in sight, I suggest that you investigate another company that has gone down that road before you. SCO, formerly a well respected Unix vendor, has basically given up Unix development and now focuses on very shaking IP lawsuits against vendors (IBM, RedHat) and users of the Linux operating system. With their software patent action, SCO (stock symbol: scox) has lost the goodwill of software developers worldwide. Their stock price has dropped from about $150/share five years ago and now trading at $3.70/share. In short, SCO is on the verge of collapse.

Be smart, don't be a SCO. Develop great products, not bogus IP lawsuits and you may yet avoid SCO's fate.

Canon and Nikon have complete domination of the digital SLRs. Where will Kodak find a niche?

I'd say that Kodak isn't quite out of the running when it comes to the high end digital SLR. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/produc ts/cameras/dcsPro14n/dcsPro14nIndex.jhtml?id=0.1.1 8.22.3.18&lc=en

Or just use their online contact form, like I just did.

Craig

Their contact form

I told them that I'd never buy another Kodak product again as long as I live... and I'm dead serious about it.

I work for the Scientific Imaging Systems group at Eastman Kodak. http://www.kodak.com/go/scientific. Several years ago I conceived of, and wrote the software for a product we called the Field Imaging System FIS265. It was based on the DC265 which was the first Kodak camera to run the DigitaOS. I wrote a suite of scripts that ran in the camera and a plug in for the popular GIS mapping software ArcView. Another group at Kodak developed a nice bracket that held the camera together with a Garmin GPS III+. When you pressed the shutter button, the script captured the current GPS data and added a tag to the EXIF image header. Images could be transmitted anywhere and the GPS data would not be lost. The ArcView plug-in made it easy to add point symbols to any map at the location of each image capture. Click on a symbol and you would instantly see the image taken at that location. Pretty slick (IMHO). A very complete review, with pictures of the FIS265, and a tour of how it is used, can be found here: http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/newsletter/issue12/ demofis265.html The same scripts would also run in a DC290. But the DC290's rev of the DigitaOS also made it possible to parse NEMA output from any GPS (I wrote scripts for that, too.) For other reasons, Kodak decided not to use Digita in its future cameras, so the FIS265 was eventually discontinued: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/health/scientific/produ cts/fis265/ This was a shame, because shortly after that, the US military dropped SA and the system performance was about 5 times better at no extra cost! -Doug

I work for the Scientific Imaging Systems group at Eastman Kodak. http://www.kodak.com/go/scientific. Several years ago I conceived of, and wrote the software for a product we called the Field Imaging System FIS265. It was based on the DC265 which was the first Kodak camera to run the DigitaOS. I wrote a suite of scripts that ran in the camera and a plug in for the popular GIS mapping software ArcView. Another group at Kodak developed a nice bracket that held the camera together with a Garmin GPS III+. When you pressed the shutter button, the script captured the current GPS data and added a tag to the EXIF image header. Images could be transmitted anywhere and the GPS data would not be lost. The ArcView plug-in made it easy to add point symbols to any map at the location of each image capture. Click on a symbol and you would instantly see the image taken at that location. Pretty slick (IMHO). A very complete review, with pictures of the FIS265, and a tour of how it is used, can be found here: http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/newsletter/issue12/ demofis265.html The same scripts would also run in a DC290. But the DC290's rev of the DigitaOS also made it possible to parse NEMA output from any GPS (I wrote scripts for that, too.) For other reasons, Kodak decided not to use Digita in its future cameras, so the FIS265 was eventually discontinued: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/health/scientific/produ cts/fis265/ This was a shame, because shortly after that, the US military dropped SA and the system performance was about 5 times better at no extra cost! -Doug

In the past there was a kit for some Kodak cameras to connect a normal handheld GPS receiver with NEMA output to the serial port of the camera. I think they overlayed the coordiantes as text onto the picture. I doubt the newer cameras even have a serial port, but the old ones are dirt cheap now.

Here's an article on connecting a GPS to a Kodak digital SLR, and if you google a bit, you will find that most of the old digita-OS based cameras (e.g. DC290) support this.

It was great for crime photos, surveying, construction, etc. IIRC they had a snap on module later.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/professiona l/tib/tib7061.jhtml?id=0.1.14.34.5.110&lc=en

They seem to hava abandoned it. Silly to do for such a simple and useful feature. Hope the new project takes off.

What I've read (but I am a violinist, not an engineer...) is that typical OLED displays have a life of about 5-10,000 hours. These folks apparently market a 20,000-hour OLED panel, but I believe that's for the monochrome version. That measurement is the amount of time until the panel display reaches half-brightness, I believe.

Even a 10,000-hour display would give you a decent useful lifetime, but according to this page, little things like exposure to air, humidity, and temperature extremes can reduce the display's lifetime.

Yes they did play a big part in the development of OLED technology.
Kodak OLED Research

It's like carrying around a black plastic brick. The DC240/280 is a featherweight by comparison. The DC120 is still fairly slim when you compare it to its older brother the DC50

The only decent thing about the 50 & 120 is that they have threads for filters, zoom lenses or whatever else you want to attach to your camera.

It's like carrying around a black plastic brick. The DC240/280 is a featherweight by comparison. The DC120 is still fairly slim when you compare it to its older brother the DC50

The only decent thing about the 50 & 120 is that they have threads for filters, zoom lenses or whatever else you want to attach to your camera.

It's like carrying around a black plastic brick. The DC240/280 is a featherweight by comparison. The DC120 is still fairly slim when you compare it to its older brother the DC50

The only decent thing about the 50 & 120 is that they have threads for filters, zoom lenses or whatever else you want to attach to your camera.

So maybe I'll get some mod points for this (makes up for maybe losing my job on Monday. :)

DX7630 specs

DX6490 specs

Note the descriptions on the specs page, no where does it mention OLED, but LCD is everywhere.

So maybe I'll get some mod points for this (makes up for maybe losing my job on Monday. :)

DX7630 specs

DX6490 specs

Note the descriptions on the specs page, no where does it mention OLED, but LCD is everywhere.

They've still got development to do. 260,000 colours aren't enough!

They will do 24 bits in no time and you will see them in laptops PDA's cameras and cell phones sooner than you think.
for more info on LEP/OLED displays try these...
Universal display
cambridge display tech
high efficency
transparent
flexible
stacked hi res

and some apps...
# Low-power, bright, colorful cell phones
# Full color, high-resolution, personal communicators
# Wrist-mounted, featherweight, rugged PDAs
# Wearable, form-fitting, electronic displays
# Full-color, high resolution, portable Internet devices and palm size computers
# High-contrast automotive instrument and windshield displays
# Heads-up instrumentation for aircraft and automobiles
# Automobile light systems without bulbs
# Flexible, lightweight, thin, durable, and highly efficient laptop screens
# Roll-up, electronic, daily-refreshable newspaper
# Ultra-lightweight, wall-size television monitor
# Office windows, walls and partitions that double as computer screens
# Color-changing lighting panels and light walls for home and office
# Low-cost organic lasers
# Computer-controlled, electronic shelf pricing for supermarkets and retail stores
# Smart goggles/helmets for scuba divers, motorcycle riders
# Medical test equipment
# Wide area, full-motion video camcorders
# Global positioning systems (GPS)
# Integrated computer displaying eyewear
# Rugged military portable communication devices

My favorite is the high efficency ceiling mount. Need white light [click] there you are. Want a change of pace go for blue sky with puffy white coulds [click] done.

These products are supposed to be cheap enough to do these things once mass production has begun.

How about 14?. Sure I've seen 22MP before as long as you accepted it being permanently tied to a PC.

In any case, the number of pro photographers shooting to a target print size bigger than a broadsheet newspaper page isn't exactly huge, is it?

The display is amazing. The camera turns heads as people ask about the large bright screen and the vibrant colours. I can hold it at virtually any angle or up high over a crowd and still see what I'm shooting.

I don't understand why Kodak doesn't release more cameras with the same display. I think the LS633 was only available in Australia?

Can't wait for TV size screens :)

Source Kodak:

The "red-eye" phenomenon has been familiar to photographers since the introduction of synchronized flash picture-taking. It's caused by the reflection of light off the blood vessels of the retina of the subject's eyes. It occurs most often when the flash is located close to the picture-taking lens of the camera.

The red-eye effect tends to be more evident when the subject is young and has blue or gray eyes which reflect more light than darker eyes. Also, children have larger pupils and less pigmentation than adults' eyes and they transmit more light back to the camera lens.

Red-eye wasn't so common with older, bulkier cameras that had separate flash units. These units were attached to a handle or flash bracket several inches away from the lens, or the photographer could detach the flash and hold it away from the camera. With today's popular small cameras with built-in flash, the flash is closer to the lens. However, this doesn't mean the red-eye is unavoidable.

The following techniques can help reduce red-eye:

Increase the level of light in the room by turning on all the room lights. The added light will cause the subject's pupils to contract, reducing the reflective surface that causes red reflections.

- Have the subject look at a bright light (for example, a room lamp or a ceiling light) just before you take the flash picture. The bright light will reduce the size of the subject's pupils

- Have your subject look slightly away from the camera lens rather than directly toward it. This will help reduce or eliminate the reflections that cause red-eye.

- If your camera has a detachable flash, move the flash away from the camera lens. You can attach the flash to the camera with a flash cord and handhold it or clamp it to a nearby object.

Manufacterers like kodak and hp don't have a lot of experience in camera design

Being from Rochester, NY (the headquarters of Kodak), I'm going to have to call bullshit here. The first Kodak camera hit the market in 1888. No, that's not 1988. That's 1888, one hundred and sixteen years ago. And they've been making them ever since, which would give Kodak 49 more years of experience than Canon and 29 more years than Nikon.

(And no, I'm not rabidly pro-Kodak. Perhaps their lenses are of inferior quality; if this is the case, it is certainly not from lack of experience. Further, I own a Canon digital camera and am very satisfied with it, to the point that I will probably buy a Canon digital SLR soon.)

Isn't "Hard Radio" what we are going to call legacy radio hardware after Soft Radio replaces it. ? You know, like analog watches and film cameras ?

I don't know what percentage of Kodak business professional motion picture film is, but that certainly isn't dying. And development continues.

Their latest Vision 2 negatives are a huge improvement over previous material.

In the professional field, they also seem to well understand how to marry chemical and digital. Many years ago, they introduced the Cineon to scan motion picture negative, manipulate the pictures, and output back to film. It is still the reference, and such "digital intermediates" in the film process are becoming the norm.

Ignorant idiot.

You know you're right. They do produce some pretty horrible looking images.

But these aren't just scans, they're high resolution scans, color-corrected, in five different sizes. Sure there's the film, developing, and CD costs, but unless one is taking an enormous number of shots they're still a good bang-for-the-buck deal for the average special-event snapper.

Not only does one get a handy digital copy, certainly far better then all but the latest prosumer digital camera models can produce, but also one needn't invest into a new camera but continue to use one's tried, true, and relatively cheap equipment already out there.

Kodak even managed to get their PhotoCD technology put into about every CD reading device out there. Almost every PC CDROM supports PhotoCD. Many DVD players support PhotoCD. Numerous Kodak development shops can process the film and give you a CD in an hour. Even most major photo software can read a Kodak PhotoCD natively.

So where'd the blow it? They could have shared the digital photography revolution. Kept selling film for quality and offered digital prints for versatility. But truth be told Kodak had no clue how to counter the sexy new digital cameras.

Instead of trying to sell their system's versatility they offered it as a poor alternative. Instead of bringing in new customers lie digital cameras were they kept selling to their shrinking existing base of customers. Instead of doing a massive give-away promotion to jumpstart the whole thing they've steadfastly clung to their high prices.

They took their eye off the consumables business and instead tried to cash in too early on the PhotoCD tech, in the process losing both markets. They've even abandoned third parties being able to make PhotoCDs any more - their last software product went off the market years ago and there's no legitimate source left.

With folks scurrying around buying software to make VCD slideshows on often buggy players it's ironic that much of the needed tech is already working in their drives. Just the company owning it won't sell tools to use it.

Kodak's not going under, at least not soon. Polaroid's instant film market was pretty much decimated, that and years of dreadful mismanagement did them in. (To whomever now works for the last batch of Polaroid execs - SELL & RUN!) Kodak still has a viable business. Indeed they're even transitioning over pretty well. But they could have had a much easier time of it and owned a lot more of it if they'd have played their cards right.

Pick a resolution for colour negative film? 10000 x 8000 sound reasonable? That's about 2.4E+8 bytes per picture, or 8.6E+9 bytes per roll of film, equivalent.

There's no objective way to exactly compare film/digital resolutions, but your estimate is certainly biased towards film.

Apparently Kodak is "the #1 supplier of photo imaging kiosks at retail." So I think they're way ahead of you.

Oh the Irony. CD-R(W)s are a joke. I have had Plextor CD-Rs become unreadable in a couple of years they spent in a dark closet in my house. I suspect DVD-+R(W)s are even worse due to the higher data density. Thats Kodak makes it's Ultima line of CD-R's for. When processed and stored correctly, Kodak Ultima discs have "[A 95% chance of] 95% of properly recorded discs stored at the recommended dark storage condition (25C, 40% RH) will have a lifetime of greater than217 years ."

Oh the Irony. CD-R(W)s are a joke. I have had Plextor CD-Rs become unreadable in a couple of years they spent in a dark closet in my house. I suspect DVD-+R(W)s are even worse due to the higher data density. Thats Kodak makes it's Ultima line of CD-R's for. When processed and stored correctly, Kodak Ultima discs have "[A 95% chance of] 95% of properly recorded discs stored at the recommended dark storage condition (25C, 40% RH) will have a lifetime of greater than217 years ."

Oh the Irony. CD-R(W)s are a joke. I have had Plextor CD-Rs become unreadable in a couple of years they spent in a dark closet in my house. I suspect DVD-+R(W)s are even worse due to the higher data density. Thats Kodak makes it's Ultima line of CD-R's for. When processed and stored correctly, Kodak Ultima discs have "[A 95% chance of] 95% of properly recorded discs stored at the recommended dark storage condition (25C, 40% RH) will have a lifetime of greater than217 years ."

Visit the Kodak web site to see 14 megapixel digital images. The detail is amazing. You can see tiny white hairs on the faces of the models.

Presumably, in 5 years or so, cameras with this resolution will be inexpensive.

Maybe Kodak can still thrive, if they successfully re-invent themselves as a provider of OLED technology. They've already got a number of licencees.

I can't find the press release for 2k3 sales numbers because I'm not behind the firewall right now.

The average geek has a tendency to have the newest, most shiny stuff. OLED panels will be out within 5 years, which will replace the dual 17" LCDs on my desk right now.

The health imaging market is becoming almost completely digital(see here). Movie theatres are slowly, but surely moving to digital projection, in which Kodak is a major player. Digital capture is moving along at a brisk pace, also.

Argh, you're right. Too many lenses to fix and not enough sleep has made me lose my mind.

Although, "In April, the company unveiled the KODAK DIGITAL SCIENCE DC120 Zoom Digital Camera, the first point-and-shoot megapixel quality digital camera under $1,000"(from here) is more in line with what I should have said.

Feel free to slap me some...

Wake me up when the industry figures this out. Now _that_ will blow everything out of the water.

Already is...

I currently use a Kodak DC-210+ zoom digital camera. It's getting pretty long in the tooth, and starting to wear out. What should I replace it with?

I like CF, and I'm looking to spend $200-$300 on a personal camera. I like rich color, and convenience is very much an issue. I've always been happy with the image quality of the 1 Mpixel DC-210, but 3 Mp would be nice. I have never trusted "digital zoom" and prefer the optical type.

My biggest beef with the DC-210 is that it takes a long time to get ready for the next picture. (like 30-40 seconds)

Having used a number of different models, what camera would you recommend?

Compact Flash is old and it is big and bulky.

What is the difference between Type I, Type II, and Type III PC Cards?

* Type I - First standard defined by PC Card Association. Dimensions: 85.6 mm x 54.0 mm x 3.3 mm.

* Type II - Second standard form factor defined by PC Card Association. Dimensions: 85.6 mm x 54.0 mm x 5.0 mm. The KODAK Picture Card with Adapter fit into a Type II slot.

* Type III - Third standard form factor defined by PC Card Association. Dimensions: 85.6 mm x 54.0 mm x 10.5 mm. An example of this is the PCMCIA hard drive in a KODAK PROFESSIONAL DCS Digital Camera.

Quoted from this site.

I'd hardly call 8.5cm x 5.4cm x 0.5cm "big and bulky". If you start using the Type III cards they are a whole .55cm thicker. That's too big? And what's wrong with "old" as long as it still works and the standard is updated for new technology?

kodak still makes super 8 film.
i don't think anyone still makes super 8 cameras.
i don't think we have anything to worry about

It's news to me that Kodak even made non-disposable cameras at all.

[c]ontinue to manufacture APS films, consistent with consumer demand[.]

[c]ontinue to manufacture APS films, consistent with consumer demand[.]

I'm not shelling out any cash for a new display until I can get a true flatscreen display. This means I'll be waiting ~5+ more years for OLED, and flexible FOLED to hit the mainstream market.

Of course, this better and cheaper tech will canibalize the huge investments in current LCD/Plasma/etc, but that's not my problem. I'm just glad that the era of expensive, heavy, highly-toxic, energy-wasteful displays is almost over.

--

Sure, that's funny, but why wouldn't you care about quality differences between disposables? Some disposables, like Kodak Max HQ, give very good photos. With this digital "disposable" you get a lower resolution than film, moire, a major JPEG mess on photos of water, sometimes horizontal banding for some reason, and you might get a camera where the edges of the photo aren't in focus. Most disposables are better than this.

Although I quite agree with you that CCDs don't (yet) offer the same resolution as large-format films, I must disagree with you on one point: the dynamic range of a top quality CCD is far superior to that of silver emulsion film. As a photographer, I am but an amateur, but I am a physicist for a living--please do be careful when making indisputable assertions about physics facts.

Take, for example, the 22 megapixel Kodak KAF-22000CE CCD. The spec indicates a linear dynamic range of 73 dB--that's a factor of better than ten million between the darkest and the lightest tones. It's designed for use in the most demanding scientific applications, including optical astronomy and microscopy, as well as for conventional photography.

Depending on the source you look at, the optical density of film runs from 0 to anywhere between 3.2 and 4 (for good quality black and white emulsions). That's a factor of up to ten thousand. (Ten f-stops is a factor of one thousand.)

This was the main reason why Ansel never did much with color (he dabbled with Kodachrome in the 1940s but didn't like the lack of tonal control it gave you - something slide film shares with digital, only digital suffers from it more severely).

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say about digital here. It is certainly true that a new CCD camera may not have the response that one expects--this gray will look too light, while that gray will seem too dark. The palette can be tuned in the digital darkroom--with Photoshop--to accurately reflect the goals of the photographer. When a digital image is printed, each numeric pixel value is mapped to a corresponding amount of ink on the page. This mapping can be adjusted essentially completely arbitrarily, to suit whatever whims the photographer wishes to satisfy.

So Ansel wouldn't be happy with digital (yet) because he would have to sacrifice resolution, but the argument that the dynamic range isn't there just doesn't hold water, nor does the idea that he would lack 'tonal control'.

It uses an thin organic film between conducting layers rather than electronic components, but OLEDs are just a few years away. They're self-luminous and more efficient than a backlit LCD. Lots of /. stories about them too.

Kodak used to subject their CDs to "torture tests" to see how they'd stand up. Their "Gold Ultima" CDs were reported to have a 100-year archival life. Now, they're saying the same thing about the Ultima brand (now that the Gold brand is discontinued). Study results are here.

All I can say is that Kodak seems to have done a lot worse to their CDs than your friend did with just his tongue. :-)

D.