Slashdot Mirror

• Better Light. Prices range from $10000 to $20000.
• Fuji Film. See this distributor's page on one model. Prices run from $13000 up.
• Kodak Digital Camera backs. $12000 to $25000 range.
• Leaf digital backs. $10000 to $25000.
• Megavision. $25000.
• Phase One. $12000-$25000.

• DCS 760 experience
• DCS 760 review
• Kodak's information

How can no one mention the OLED TOLED and FOLED! Essentially what we are talking about here are those technoligies but possibly for proprietry reasons they have resorted to other names

Kodak
FOLED

Yes, that's right. 1280x1024. On a movie-sized screen. That's why it looks bad.

Would people be so hip on digital cinema if they knew it had less resolution than an average conference room LCD projector? If they knew they could go to an electronics store and buy an HDTV monitor for a couple of thousand dollars that has more resolution (1920x1080) than the much-hyped digital cinema?

TI did their first theatrical demos of DLP more than five years ago. It was 1280x1024 then, and it's 1280x1024 now. They've had half a decade -- a lifetime in the electronics business -- to increase the resolution, and they have not done it. Will they ever? Who knows?

Further more, who cares? There are two competing technologies that are up and coming and will soon overtake it.

The first is D-ILA from JVC, a reflective technology that has better coverage and more contrast (and no moving parts, unlike DLP). Kodak is using D-ILA in their attempt to build a digital projection system. It's already up to 2K resolution and should hit 4K by the end of this year. Secondly, there is laser projection, which is difficult to find details about online, but promises to also deliver far better resolution than DLP.

So I'd say that resolution most certainly is a problem, and one that hopefully will be solved before too long, thanks to some good old fashioned competition. Take that, TI!

Kodak is good at this stuff. There were involved in Hobby-Eberly and also Keck.

If they are going to build it out of a bunch of little mirrors, then the size probably isn't what would prevent it from being put into space. Though weight, and sheer volume would probably still be prohibitive.

Kodak is good at this stuff. There were involved in Hobby-Eberly and also Keck.

If they are going to build it out of a bunch of little mirrors, then the size probably isn't what would prevent it from being put into space. Though weight, and sheer volume would probably still be prohibitive.

Kodak is good at this stuff. There were involved in Hobby-Eberly and also Keck.

If they are going to build it out of a bunch of little mirrors, then the size probably isn't what would prevent it from being put into space. Though weight, and sheer volume would probably still be prohibitive.

• Annoy people.
• Prove that you're an idiot.

recent generations of color papers (Kodak Edge 8 et al) have much better long-term image stability -- on the order of 50-100 years

Really? That's nice. Do you know which are the new ones vs. the old?

Kodachrome 64 is still available, as is 200. Both are pro films; consumer K-14 is dead.

Er....your are right about PKR (ISO 64 Kodachrome), but PKL (ISO 200 Kodachrome) is discontinued, according to Kodak! Bummer. K64 and K100 are both listed as consumer films as well. Maybe the announcement last year about the end of K64 was a bit premature? Or maybe like some of Agfa's speciality films they will do "one more batch" until the final order is too small?

Picture CD gives you 1.5 megabinary pixels of resolution, while a Photo CD gives you multiple resolutions on a single CD ranging from 24 kilobinary pixels to 6 megabinary pixels. Pro Photo CD has a maximum resolution of 24 megabinary pixels! And keep in mind that this is electronically scanned from the original negative or slide. One couldn't possibly hope to duplicate this at home.

Now, if you have existing prints for which you have no negatives or slides, then you need to scan at the highest resolution you can and store it in a non-lossy format, high bit-depth format. Note that this is for poor man's "archiving". If you just want to store a representation of the picture to use for printing or something, then you could use a low end compression algorithm like JPEG.

Picture CD gives you 1.5 megabinary pixels of resolution, while a Photo CD gives you multiple resolutions on a single CD ranging from 24 kilobinary pixels to 6 megabinary pixels. Pro Photo CD has a maximum resolution of 24 megabinary pixels! And keep in mind that this is electronically scanned from the original negative or slide. One couldn't possibly hope to duplicate this at home.

Now, if you have existing prints for which you have no negatives or slides, then you need to scan at the highest resolution you can and store it in a non-lossy format, high bit-depth format. Note that this is for poor man's "archiving". If you just want to store a representation of the picture to use for printing or something, then you could use a low end compression algorithm like JPEG.

Unfortunately, Kodak is getting out of the CD-R business. Which is a damn shame - if anyone knows about archival properties of dyes and plastics, it's them, as they've been doing similar stuff for over a hundred years.

Right now if you go to shop@kodak on Kodak's home page you can get some "closeout" deals on their remaining stock. Most of the online wholesalers have already run out of existing stock.

I think Mitsui is planning to remain in the high-quality CD-R media business for a little while longer.

(not karma whoring, just rambling)
I've always liked the concept of lowend digital photography:
Starting with a kodak DC20...amazing light (like, hollow) small camera, 16 320x240 (or 8 493x373, never messed with that tho). Lasted forever on one of its little batteries. Got some decent shots from it.

Then later got a kodak palmpix add on to my Palm IIIc...not quite convenient/small enough to justify its drawbacks as a camera, though using the Palm as a viewfinder was kind of a trip.

My friend got a cart so he could upload pictures from his game boy camera.

I loved those old b+w quickcams, made some tiny animated GIFs out of them.

And now this...of course, now I have a tiny Canon elph powershot in my pocket at all times...but it's a bit bulky...maybe I should compromise and go for this new thing, who needs good resolution anyway? (But then I'd hardly ever use the canon, argh...)

(not karma whoring, just rambling)
I've always liked the concept of lowend digital photography:
Starting with a kodak DC20...amazing light (like, hollow) small camera, 16 320x240 (or 8 493x373, never messed with that tho). Lasted forever on one of its little batteries. Got some decent shots from it.

Then later got a kodak palmpix add on to my Palm IIIc...not quite convenient/small enough to justify its drawbacks as a camera, though using the Palm as a viewfinder was kind of a trip.

My friend got a cart so he could upload pictures from his game boy camera.

I loved those old b+w quickcams, made some tiny animated GIFs out of them.

And now this...of course, now I have a tiny Canon elph powershot in my pocket at all times...but it's a bit bulky...maybe I should compromise and go for this new thing, who needs good resolution anyway? (But then I'd hardly ever use the canon, argh...)

Though admittedly they will not shine a laser in your eye :)

Though admittedly they will not shine a laser in your eye :)

Um, I think you mean photos 713 and 714 . Other than that, you seem to be right, the same person is even standing in the doorway! But he's bound to have screwed up in a few places, I mean, it was 3,304 miles afterall, so cut him some slack.

Um, I think you mean photos 713 and 714 . Other than that, you seem to be right, the same person is even standing in the doorway! But he's bound to have screwed up in a few places, I mean, it was 3,304 miles afterall, so cut him some slack.

This is simply irresponsible.

"When Matt got to San Francisco and shot the Golden Gate Bridge at mile 3,304, he celebrated with a pizza and a beer. It was a Friday, six days after he left New York. He dismounted the camera, drove home, and was back in his office on Monday morning."
-Kodak

If only I had more time to do this, I could take beautiful images just like this guy did. This picture, for example, somes it all up for me.

Read this and find out: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/onTheRoad / nterview/index.shtml

Do they say when this trip happened?

Look at pictures 613 and 614, for example; they're both ends of the same service station! The same jeep is even in both pictures! Is this service station really a mile long?

OK, first there is no jeep. Second, 612 is grass/sky, 613 is a service stations and 614 is grass/sky

Look at pictures 613 and 614, for example; they're both ends of the same service station! The same jeep is even in both pictures! Is this service station really a mile long?

OK, first there is no jeep. Second, 612 is grass/sky, 613 is a service stations and 614 is grass/sky

Look at pictures 613 and 614, for example; they're both ends of the same service station! The same jeep is even in both pictures! Is this service station really a mile long?

OK, first there is no jeep. Second, 612 is grass/sky, 613 is a service stations and 614 is grass/sky

Damned slashdot broke the url...
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/onTheRoad
/ postcards/tellYourFriends.shtml?mile=1

The barn is supposedly where the Last IBM Mainframe ever used at Rose was housed, according to urban legend circa 1982.

--Mike--

They were beautiful, weren't they?

The least pleasant part of our relationship was the animals he would catch. I think there's still a garter snake loose somewhere in my apartment. That's not so bad, but having to finish off all those poor baby birds he assumed were toys...

Then one day he just disappeared. Run over? No, he was smarter than that. More likely he played Ambush with one dog or fox or coyote too many. Or maybe the large raptor I spotted about the same time (they take out ducks; Babinski wasn't any bigger) got him.

Used to be big fan of the Kodak FalconCam. Fun's gone now.

So my next cat's indoor only. Adopt one that grew up indoors, and doesn't even want to go out. Or raise a kitten that way. Less grief, less hassle, less environmental impact.

Ridley was not "dumming down" anything. Who shoots a movie on negative film? EVERYONE. All professional films are shot on negative stock. The reels that are projected in theaters are prints made from what was actually exposed in the camera. Remastering from negative means going back to the original source rather than transfering from a copy (or a copy of a copy of a copy...).

I've shot both negative and reversal stock and the biggest benefit of reversal is you can develope and then project the same strip you shot on without added cost of having a print made. This can save struggling would-be-directors from going even MORE bankrupt on class assignments. This is BAD for professional film because I'm sure we all know how crappy and scratched film gets after being played many times (hence discount theaters). Reversal is less forgiving in latitude so it helps students to learn good exposure.

Quinto said,"35 mm film is a negative." This is only half true. 35mm is only the size of the strip of film, it can be either negative OR reversal just as other sizes (8mm, 16mm, or super 16mm) can be either. Kodak's reversal film are used primarily for projects which are intended to be released to video/digital and will not need prints made. The reversal (ie "positive") image is placed on a telecine machine and results in very crisp, vibrant scan. More about reversal stocks here.

njord commented that "I'm certain that nobody (especially a Hollywood studio) shoots a movie with 35mm film... I don't know all of the types used, but 8 and 16mm film are pretty common."

8mm and 16mm are never used in feature films except for low-budget, independent, or "stylistic" purposes. 35mm is the standard, often times even larger (65mm, or 70mm IMAX). In fact, 35mm is even used in many different ways to produce a variety of aspect ratios (bonus geek points if you recognize the movie shown in the 1.85:1 example).

njord also claimed "negative film isn't suited for projection; ...A movie is shot in one of the aformentioned formats with a positive emulsion." True, negative film is not suited for projection. That does not mean negative film isn't used in the camera. Your home snapshots are on negative film. Does that mean your photo album is full of funky reversed colors? No. A print is made from the negative. NO ONE would ever allow the original roll of exposed film to be projected.

Ridley was not "dumming down" anything. Who shoots a movie on negative film? EVERYONE. All professional films are shot on negative stock. The reels that are projected in theaters are prints made from what was actually exposed in the camera. Remastering from negative means going back to the original source rather than transfering from a copy (or a copy of a copy of a copy...).

I've shot both negative and reversal stock and the biggest benefit of reversal is you can develope and then project the same strip you shot on without added cost of having a print made. This can save struggling would-be-directors from going even MORE bankrupt on class assignments. This is BAD for professional film because I'm sure we all know how crappy and scratched film gets after being played many times (hence discount theaters). Reversal is less forgiving in latitude so it helps students to learn good exposure.

Quinto said,"35 mm film is a negative." This is only half true. 35mm is only the size of the strip of film, it can be either negative OR reversal just as other sizes (8mm, 16mm, or super 16mm) can be either. Kodak's reversal film are used primarily for projects which are intended to be released to video/digital and will not need prints made. The reversal (ie "positive") image is placed on a telecine machine and results in very crisp, vibrant scan. More about reversal stocks here.

njord commented that "I'm certain that nobody (especially a Hollywood studio) shoots a movie with 35mm film... I don't know all of the types used, but 8 and 16mm film are pretty common."

8mm and 16mm are never used in feature films except for low-budget, independent, or "stylistic" purposes. 35mm is the standard, often times even larger (65mm, or 70mm IMAX). In fact, 35mm is even used in many different ways to produce a variety of aspect ratios (bonus geek points if you recognize the movie shown in the 1.85:1 example).

njord also claimed "negative film isn't suited for projection; ...A movie is shot in one of the aformentioned formats with a positive emulsion." True, negative film is not suited for projection. That does not mean negative film isn't used in the camera. Your home snapshots are on negative film. Does that mean your photo album is full of funky reversed colors? No. A print is made from the negative. NO ONE would ever allow the original roll of exposed film to be projected.

I'd install oled screens, and just pipe the movies to each screen from a server. The picture would be much better. Who knows, this might cut distribution costs enough to enable me to switch to a subscription business model, maybe $20/person/month, all the movies you (and overpriced junk food ;)) you can eat. No PFYs on the payroll standing around selling and tearing up costly paper tickets, no lines for the customers. I wouldn't have to hire any projectionists, either, another cost savings.

The current leader is 16 megapixel made by Eastman Kodak, the sensor is 4080x4080 in a Bayer array, which means it has 16 million pixels. That creats an image that is 48 megabytes, or if you work in the raw mode 96 megabytes (since you need a 16bit dword to hold the 12 bit data).

Well then you should Check Here.
or more to the point The ones they're selling here.
They do have nice pictures of a hypothetical mockup of an active matrix full color OLED, and Researchers have proven that True Color can be reproduced with OLEDs. However the cost of actually building one would be pretty insane right now.
One last thing Sanyo will be making Active matrix OLED displays. they should be up to full speed at the plant by 2003, so full color active matrix displays should start showing up on highend Kodak digital cameras around that time frame, and perhaps even high end PDAs. Who can argue with low power vibrant picture indoors or outdoors for a PDA? Maybe by 2007 Nintendo will release a portable with OLEDs, if they're cheap enough by then they should.

Well then you should Check Here.
or more to the point The ones they're selling here.
They do have nice pictures of a hypothetical mockup of an active matrix full color OLED, and Researchers have proven that True Color can be reproduced with OLEDs. However the cost of actually building one would be pretty insane right now.
One last thing Sanyo will be making Active matrix OLED displays. they should be up to full speed at the plant by 2003, so full color active matrix displays should start showing up on highend Kodak digital cameras around that time frame, and perhaps even high end PDAs. Who can argue with low power vibrant picture indoors or outdoors for a PDA? Maybe by 2007 Nintendo will release a portable with OLEDs, if they're cheap enough by then they should.

Well then you should Check Here.
or more to the point The ones they're selling here.
They do have nice pictures of a hypothetical mockup of an active matrix full color OLED, and Researchers have proven that True Color can be reproduced with OLEDs. However the cost of actually building one would be pretty insane right now.
One last thing Sanyo will be making Active matrix OLED displays. they should be up to full speed at the plant by 2003, so full color active matrix displays should start showing up on highend Kodak digital cameras around that time frame, and perhaps even high end PDAs. Who can argue with low power vibrant picture indoors or outdoors for a PDA? Maybe by 2007 Nintendo will release a portable with OLEDs, if they're cheap enough by then they should.

Next tine you're walking under the Marriott Marquis, wave for the camera!

$25 for an LED? Bah. I spent about 8 bucks on an 87C filter, slapped it on a Mag-Lite, and got about 50 yards' range when viewed through a Sony camcorder with NightShot.

In the largest award ever in a patent-infringement case, a Federal judge ruled yesterday [October 1990] that the Eastman Kodak Company must pay the Polaroid Corporation $909.4 million for infringing Polaroid's patents for instant photography.
...
Both companies are widely held. Kodak, which has annual sales of $18 billion, has about 172,000 stockholders and Polaroid, which is much smaller with sales of about $1.9 billion, has about 21,000.
...
The award brings closer to an end a battle that began in April 1976, when Kodak introduced a line of instant cameras. Polaroid filed suit six days later, charging that Kodak infringed 10 patents, most involving technology in Polaroid's SX-70 system, which had been introduced in 1972.

Never mind that 35mm-sized camera stuff, timothy. Try Kodak's "medium-format" digital photography. Dual hard disks, firewire, 36 bit CCD, 4080x4080 image sensor. Just add Hasselblad.

Does anyone else remember an outfit that was supposed to be making a universal digital back for SLRs? It seems the sensors are of a reasonable size now... I wish I could make my (cheapish) SLR into a digicam - it has way more control than my Kodak DC280 (decent picture, average controls).

Don't know if you'd consider it engineering texts, but XML is used in moving metadata from pictures around. There's an open source and binaries downloadable.... might help your implementation.

Good luck- it's quite impressive once you get the trees set up correctly :)

It works! There are 11 pages which reference Linux. The last one - on the second page - is a form which asks all sorts of details, surprisingly your e-mail address is a voluntary one. One of them is "Which o/s do you use?" Linux is the radio box at the top of the list! Now TELL THEM Be truthful now - remember they can tell from their logs what your browser and o/s are.

I agree that Kodak makes some awful software, so I wonder whose fault this really is. I've got a DC-265 and under Win98 it was a pain to use

The DC-265 is old, for a digital camera. Most manufacturers have better software now, and definitely easier to use than the old Kodak software.

In fact, (and what ZDNET glosses over) several manufacturers are moving towards "no-click" photo transfers. The EasyShare cameras mentioned in the article use a docking cradle. Users pop the camera in the cradle, hit a button on the camera, and the pictures are transferred without the user having to go into software. (The cradle recharges the camera battery while it's at it.) I've worked in camera stores, and I know there are people who need things that simple, and that Kodak is going to advertise these features heavily.

Som, That's the other reason Kodak is so angry. Microsoft has sabotaged Kodak's entire advertising strategy.

BTW, do folks here remember what made opened Dell's eyes for Linux: A lot of people searched their site about it. So folks, head over to Kodak and search for Linux, maybe it works... :-)

Windows ME does a similar thing to XP. I first noticed this when I installed a beta of Windows ME. I have a kodak DC 280 camera, and I assumed that somehow installing ME over 98 overwrote my Kodak software. I reinstalled the Kodak software, but there was no way to access it. As soon as I plugged the camera in, a Microsoft "Digital Photo Wizard" would pop up in my face and start asking questions. As far as I could tell there was no way to turn it off!

And, in my opinion, while the Kodak software wasn't anything special, it didn't have all the annoying "Are you sure? Y/N" features of Microsoft Wizards.

The other automatic thing I found really annoying about ME is the low disk space notification. While using my laptop, which only has a four gig drive, I'll often have only 200 megs or so free. On the taskbar, a hard drive icon with a big word bubble would appear warning me to correct the situation, and there was NO WAY to turn it off short of deleting stuff. I seems to me that a gentle reminder would have done the trick.

And they're already available, too!

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/produc ts/specialProducts/OEL/applications.jhtml

Okay, I think that's all.

-grendel drago

Boy, did I ever speak too soon. Egg on me.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/produc ts/specialProducts/OEL/whatsNew.jhtml

-grendel drago

Linking to a two year old story? Looks like it never went anywhere. There's *one* press release from this year:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressRelea ses/pr20010516-01.shtml

Does this mean they're unloading it? Is OLED just Not Going To Work Out?

Stay tuned! Same OLED-time, same OLED-station!

-grendel drago

A backlight won't help in the GBA's case. The LCD screen has reflective faceting to improve the visual quality (not to be confused with the reflective plastic cover that actually makes frontlighting the unit unbearable due to glare).

Any light shone through the back will only succeed in "washing out" the colour due to the properties of the LCD. Personally I would have preferred an organic electroluminescent display (OLED) to this darkened LCD nightmare. OLEDs produce their own light and are more energy efficient than LCDs, let alone LCDs with backlighting.

For those who are interested, here is a guide to storing and handling nitrate film. The part that I like best is: