Kodak's PhotoCD's were a great idea, but too expensive and impractical. To add photos to a disc meant sending the original disc back to Kodak or buying an expensive new disk. The images were saved on disks with an unusual CD disk format which made it very difficult to make backup copies. Kodak was fixed on file formats which included multiple resolutions of each image, an idea that was carried over to their FlashPix format. No-one bought into this idea.
US anti-trust laws likely limited the company in many ways, but at the start of the digital transition, Kodak was a profitable company with lots of cash to invest in "right-sizing" their film business and investing in other businesses. Entering the highly competitive and low-margin consumer printer market was a strange choice. I remember reading a Wall Street Journal article at the time wondering why that choice was made.
A well-run Kodak would likely be producing a similar film line as currently, but would have at least protected the pensions of its workers and investments of its shareholders. It almost seems like at some point management decided the ship was sinking and simply tried to get every last penny out of film before filing bankruptcy.
Spotted at advert on the TV tonight for Kodak eyeglass lenses. Never knew they made them but I will keep an eye out for those pardon the pun.
Spotted at advert on the TV tonight for Kodak eyeglass lenses. Never knew they made them but I will keep an eye out for those pardon the pun.
OK it looks like another company which just licenses the Kodak branding
http://www.signetarmorlite.com/resources/company-profile/
As with the Kodak batteries, here in the UK, Kodak branded, licenced to a UK company, Made in China. Mostly sold in "Poundland" low-price shops (for the equivalent of about $1.50 for 4 AA's).
And all three errors came to haunt them when "disposable" cameras became a thing in 1986, with Kodak's 110 and APS-based offerings losing out to Fuji and Generic 35mm offerings.
APS was backed by all three major film manufacturers.
...
For decades, they refused to embrace 35mm as a consumer format, and instead trotted out cameras in a myriad of other film formats.
What if they'd taken 127 size film (which they introduced in 1912 and is between 35mm and 120 in size) and adapted that for both consumers and amateurs
They did in 1957 with the introduction of the Star cameras which were great little cameras.
That is an easy one to answer. Each smaller format used less film base, less silver and other chemicals, and more film packages per master roll, thus increasing profits.I've always wondered why they introduced formats every decade providing lesser quality than 35mm, viz. 126, 110, disc, APS. What if they'd taken 127 size film (which they introduced in 1912 and is between 35mm and 120 in size) and adapted that for both consumers and amateurs? Just another one of those paths not taken.
That is an easy one to answer. Each smaller format used less film base, less silver and other chemicals, and more film packages per master roll, thus increasing profits.
That is an easy one to answer. Each smaller format used less film base, less silver and other chemicals, and more film packages per master roll, thus increasing profits.
Thus increasing Kodak's bottom line. This was a common discussion that I heard at Kodak while I worked there.I suspect that isn't true. Yes, each roll used less sensitized material but the finishing and packaging process became much more complex.
I've always wondered why they introduced formats every decade providing lesser quality than 35mm, viz. 126, 110, disc, APS.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?