"Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash"

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

"Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash"

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

"Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash" - 6/16/2007 4:13:39 PM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

"Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash"

By Franklin Paul
Thu Jun 14, 2:54 PM ET

" NEW YORK (Reuters) - Eastman Kodak Co. (NYSE:EK - news) said on Thursday it has developed digital camera technology that nearly eliminates the need for flash photography, part of the company's effort to make money from its deep patent portfolio.
The world's biggest maker of photographic film says its proprietary sensor technology significantly increases sensitivity to light. Image sensors act as a digital camera's eyes by converting light into an electric charge to begin the capture process.

Kodak, which is in the last year of a lengthy and expensive transformation into a digital photography company as its film business shrinks, intends to lean on its wealth of intellectual property to boost its bottom line, expecting up to $250 million this year alone in royalties and related revenues.

For example, Chief Executive Antonio Perez has previously said its new inkjet printer strategy grew out of the discovery of existing, unused patents for printer ink.
"Our strategy is to get it out of the lab and onto the street," said Chris McNiffe, general manager, Kodak Image Sensor Solutions.

Analysts have looked at that outlook skeptically, since Kodak has given few details about the types of patents it intends to exploit. Moreover they say licensing contracts are incremental and hard to bank on in the long term.

"They have been guarded about their portfolio, with certain degrees of success," said analyst Christopher Chute of research firm IDC. "But at the end of the day you need to have invented something or have some kind of intellectual property in order to maintain a market position." "

(click here for the rest of the article and photos)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070614/tc_nm/kodak_sensors_dc_2

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/16/2007 4:17:17 PM

slaveboyforyou

Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline

That sounds really cool. The flash can really make a photo look like crap if you don't know what you're doing. Of course, I wonder how much this new technology is going to cost. My guess is that it won't be affordable to the average consumer for a few years when it finally hits the market.

(in reply to Vendaval)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/16/2007 4:28:54 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

Was reading about a technology to block digital cameras. Apparently, the image sensors in the back of the camera have a certain look, or else give off a certain kind of radiation, that these scanners spot and then send a non-visible frequency to blind the camera.

Paparazzi, watch out!

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/16/2007 11:27:31 PM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

I agree, slaveboy, the initial cost for this product will most likely be fairly high and take a few years to be
affordable for your average consumer. Thank goodness for all the photo software to improve our digital shots.

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/18/2007 8:09:51 AM

dragone

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Hi; The new Hasselblad digital is well within the average users budget...just a mere, 35 thousand, depending upon where you shop, On ebay the bidding starts at 29 thousand bucks. So, anyone can have the cream of the crap.

The very best camera, the Linhof, film, sorry, can be had for about 800 + bucks, yet some still demand 6 grand, for a 1950's film camera. By far, the best of the best, without exception....and it's all in the lenses.

So, you buy the digital, then you must have the system to use it, the batteries, computer, the printer. Your digital costs big, if you want to have the same quality as in....... film.

What is the attraction here? I simply do not understand. Everything is switching to digital, okay, a new, different technology, so what.

So, an associate switched to digital, wow, they said; forgiving the quality was a bit low, they didn't spend the 35 g's for the Hassel; then they went to make prints, and bought a printer, WOW, this is great they thought; then they said, Behold, I never have to go to a lab to get my prints, Wow, this is great.....then they saw, with astonishment, how much ink it takes to print, and the cost of the ink, the cost of the photo quality paper.....then they said.....this is bullshit.

(in reply to Vendaval)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/18/2007 8:56:06 AM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Actually you can get the occasional picture printed for you at a store for about .35 US each. Why would you want to print all of the pictures out? With a digital camera you can take thousands of pictures for pennies. View, share, and edit them for next to nothing, and print the occassional really good one for about the same price as getting a second print from a film camera. Plus the toxic chemicals used to make and develop film are used less and less each year. Unless you are a serious Photogropher doing your own developing, and doing "art" in the development process, or using a disposable under conditions that likely will ruin a good camera why would you want to use film?

(in reply to dragone)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/18/2007 9:34:37 AM

dragone

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

You're right, thousands of pictures, for pennies, print out the occasional 'good' one , and share the rest, via computer. Why bother with film at all? You are right.

So, you print out a pic for 35 cents; what did you get, a 3"X4" snap, mostly blurred, acceptable for casual viewing, no detailing, cannot be enlarged at all. If that is what you want, okay. So I get the samething with a film camera, 220 costs abit more, depending upon the lab you use. Except, I can enlarge to 8x10, with no problem whatsoever, and even larger, detail is their, sharpe and clear.

I had a brochure to shoot, and the client supplied these digital prints, and the chipboard.....I could not use any one of them at all; and I eventually had to shoot film, I had a hell of a time convincing the client his stuff was unusable. I mean, the digital stuff was really, really bad; totally unusable. It wasn't that I wanted to reshoot, so I could charge more, I had to. Some of the stuff was to be used for murals. Oh the mess, oh the humanity.

For me, personally, I am enslaved to the 'Art'; I view my negs, print what I want, If I want to share a photo, I've printed, I download and share. Same difference, of course the neg storage can be problem. I also love shooting Black & White.

Honestly, the digital shots I've seen, rarely are acceptable for any serious consideration, other than for the casual shooter. The quality is lacking, unless you are invested into the high end digital. Rarely can you enlarge to poster size with any detail. With my Linhof, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever, and I did not invest the big bucks, the soft ware, the Hasselblad prices.

Toxi fumes, yeah that is a problem; I don't like that rotten egg smell in the developer.

Digital has it's purpose and advantages; mainly I think it's the digital marketing and hype; doing away with the tried, tested and true, to get your dollar out of your wallet. Then after you've gone digital, there is no turning back, you need more and more, just to catch the quality of the film camera.

It's a matter of choice. I like film, and see a use for digital as well. And to dump my film, invest in digital.....only, and only, if I have a client that is high end enough to warrent the changover. What I'm saying is, the client must be high calibre, big bucks. The project must pay for the changover, and leave me with a profit. If I shoot weddings, then digital is just fine, who cares.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/19/2007 1:01:59 AM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

I have been a photographer most of my life, at times professionally, and dragone is correct.

Digital puts every pixel into a cage, whereas Analog simply records everything. For most people, a digital
photograph is sufficient for what you want, although the pixellation is starting to surpass the point a person's
eye can detect. And the vast expense of printing that picture out is not that big of a saving.

On a related note, most professional musicians refuse to record in digital. I imagine they know.

Where digital (to me) excells is that a person can put their photos on the web to be viewed. On the other hand, most competent photographers take 100s of pictures and print out the 1-3 best ones. As somebody who used to print pictures, the cost of printing those 3 pictures is insignificant.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to dragone)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/19/2007 9:41:06 AM

dragone

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Thank you for your support. I recently saw some really fine digital photos, and curious to the high quality, I investigated. So, the photographer used a Canon 5d- 35mm EOS for their shoot. Okay, the quality was damn good; the camera body only, no lens, costs 2500 bucks, put a lens with that, chipbopard, and you can add another 2500 bucks or there about. To view what you shoot, you need a computer, the software, and whatever else. So you have this camera, and the system, for what, 6 grand or so; then you add the specialized software, say a wedding format, add another grand or so. You are into over 10 grand......but you can print out a picture for 35 cents.

I have my Linhof, I paid 700 bucks, 1950 vintage 6x9 pristine condition, with two lenses; my quality of print is unrivaled, and I can enlarge to a billboard size and still be better that any digital around, considering the amount of money invested.

I used the Hassie CM for awhile, and really thought it highly over rated for what I got. A Rollie which far and away outstripped the Hassie. I also owned for serious shoots a Crown Graphic 4X5, .....absolutely GREAT, but it looked like hell... Then came my Linhof, that is it.

I also collect old cameras, and I shot with a Koni Omega for the longest time, Great, Great, far and away out performed the Hazzie, hands down.

No one ever thinks....this digital technology... the manufactures push it all down our throats, claiming how cheap it all is. And...they are right, it is cheaper, for them. No more manufacturing paper costs, no more film manufacturing costs,no more chemical processing costs, just electronic motherboards, imprinted circuits knocked out by a robot. And then they advertise big time....and who gets the bill at the end. The consumer.

Need a repair.....whoa, hold onto your wallet; better to just dump your old digital, box, and pop another 2500 for a new box. My linhof, if it needs repair, a screwdriver usually, replaces the part. The Linhof is in a metal box, built like a tiger tank. Oh sure, it is a bit heavy, but figure the plus...if I'm attacked by an outraged mother, I can swing it like a mace, and go on shooting.

I carry my days, or projects film needs per shoot, so I try to make every shot count.

The movie Matrix, used Nikon digital cameras, to set up their special effect shoots. They deployed about 50 to a hundred or so, all in sequencial order, to view the upcoming shoot. Figure the cost of the cameras, all with lenses, and software and whatever else. Cheap huh. Then after all was said and done, they shot it all to film.

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/19/2007 2:15:39 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

Good points, dragone.

What many people do not understand is that there is a limitation to how big one can blow up an analog negative. The constraints go to the size of the chemical crystals used to imprint the color on the negative. Blow it up too high, and one gets into grainy textures from the chemicals that change colors. I suspect there is a similar issue with that digital pixellation.

I would have to say that cost is not necessarily my issue on whether to shoot digital or analog. I no longer have a functioning darkroom or time to do all the work myself. Trying to convince a camera store to actually just print out the negatives the way I shot the picture, as opposed to trying to monkey with the lighting, means my pictures generally look kinda crappy to my eyes. I like deep hues and tend to prefer them developed on the darker side, as opposed to washed out. Since I have a computer, a printer that can do photo quality, and photoshop, it makes more sense to me to shoot digital. There are certain aspects to Analog I am not familiar enough with digital to reproduce, but that is getting more into artistry than simply printing out pictures of my UMs.

I want to start messing around with pinhole cameras. Since there is no lens, depth of field is no longer relevant. However, it is the sort of thing which requires a vast amount of experimenting to get the lighting just right. Dont think this is something a digital camera can do.

While most people use 35mm, 110, or whatever film, professional portrait photographers generally preferr working with the (exact size escapes me) negatives that come out around 4 inches square or larger. I think Ansel Adams and similar landscape portrait photographers, to make his panoramic pictures, used negatives in the back of his box camera that were probably almost 8x10 or larger.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to dragone)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: "Kodak says camera sensor may eliminate flash&... - 6/19/2007 6:09:50 PM

dragone

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Hello again, I understand your problem with the lab techs; they just process to the general acceptance level of their customers; don't tell them anything, it'll just confuse the hell out of them. No one cares to extend themselves nowadays. I shoot 120 film, (2 1/4x2 1/4; 120 also yeilds 6x9, 6x7 )there too, not every Sav-On drug store will take it. The film you're thinking of is a 4x5 negative. Ansel Adams used one, and a larger 8x10 I think, until Hassleblad gave him a system so they could promote their stuff through him. You load one sheet into a holder, one on each side, in total darkness. You've seen them in the movies, those big Press cameras, the photog shoots, shoves in a slide, pulls out a holder thingie, flips it over, shoves it back into the camera pulls out the slide, pops the shot, shoves back the slide, yanks out the holder, dumps it into his bag, pulls out another holder, shoves it in the camera, pulls out the slide...whew, alot of pushing, pulling and shoving there; mine was a Crown Graphic 4x5, and it shot the most exceptionally sharp, crisp images ever. That size, you cannot beat, except to go to an 8x10 neg. or larger.

In Phoenix, (we are going back some years now); the newspaper chiefs decided that 35mm was good enough, so the staff photographers dumped their 4x5s, and I picked mine up for 100 bucks, with lensboard and lens. Used the beast for years. Whenever, I had a pro shoot, I'd set up the Crown Graphic, and the clients eyebrows would raise, "with that old thing?"...yeah, of course, not to worry; and I shurgged them off. The shots were nothing short of astonishing, and they all would remark in disbelief..."That old camera took these?" Well, new is new, and sometimes the old ways are best after all. Oh, by the way, the 35mm proved a dismal failure, some of the staff rebought their 4X5s others went to the Hassleblads.

For the most part, everyone of the pro's I know is switching to digital, with the exceptional hold out, like me. More and more, the switch over to digital is apparent, the clients want to see the image NOW!!!! ; the fees are dwindling, so yes, I can see the writing on the wall.

However, Linhof still produces their film cameras, as does Horseman, a clone of Linhof, and some others as well. And these newer versions are going for upwards of 4 grand, without lenses.

When ever I get an assignment for a product, I shoot film, with my Linhof, I do not own a digital, if it fails to produce the required image, it is usually my inepitude rather than the camera, no batteries, nothing electronic, all manual, so if it screws up, it's me that screwed up, not the camera.

The final output, I scan and photoshop what I need if need be, and then print out on my trusty 99 dollar Epson printer. The results are just as gradifing as if I had gone digital all the way.

I am just not going to spend the bucks to go digital, now if a company wants to do like they did to Ansel baby, then fine, but I'm no Ansel Adams.....so my baby Linhof and I will ride into the sunset together.

By the way, my Linhof also has a holder type back, but I use the 120 roll film back; and some tell me Linhof produces a digital back for my beast. ( dunno however) ...Okay, so it's about 8 grand for the back....see what I mean.

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 11