Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kodak in crisis?

This is topic Kodak in crisis? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002624

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-23-2003, 05:08 AM:

Eastman Kodak investors are holding crisis talks amid the continuing slump in the company's share price. Link to story.

quote:
Kodak, the world's largest manufacturer of photographic film, is in crisis.
by Mark Gregory, BBC World Service business reporter.

The growing popularity of digital cameras that do not use traditional film has severely dented the market Kodak has dominated for more than a century.

And the company's net profits have slipped to $122m (£73m) for the July to September quarter, marking a 63% drop when compared with the same period a year earlier.

In an effort to sort it out, a group of rebel investors who control about a quarter of the company's shares are meeting in New York on Wednesday.

The investors want to find a way to reverse a plunge in the company share price that has been caused by both the falling profits and by concerns about the group's strategy going forward.

Digital limbo

Last month Kodak unveiled plans to invest $3bn to increase its presence in the area of digital technology.

This, the company believes, would counteract a sharp fall in demand for its traditional products in the world's rich countries - that is, in the markets that matter.

But such plans have infuriated some investors whose dividend payments have been cut by 72% to pay for the diversification.

The rebel investors say Kodak is taking too many risks.

Staying put

The investors want Kodak to avoid head to head competition with established electronics giants like Sony, Canon and Hewlett Packard, which have big leads in digital imaging.

They are worried that Kodak will spend too much on buying up other companies to beef up its position in an area its unfamiliar with.

After all, they insist: Film may be in decline, but its still provides Kodak with sizeable profits.

Besides, in some parts of the developing world demand for film is actually rising.

Rebel investors say the company should stick to the business it knows.

But Kodak is mindful of the fate of the instant picture group Polaroid, which went bust two years ago after failing to move with the times.

The group is desperate to avoid a similar fate.

"Our third-quarter results reinforce the rationale behind the strategy we unveiled to our investors on 25 September," said chairman and chief executive Daniel Carp.

After all, history is littered with examples of firms that were performing brilliantly with one type of technology but failed to make the transition to the next.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-23-2003, 08:33 AM:

Here's the information directly from Kodak:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20031022-03.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/corp/investorCenter/pr20031022-03.pdf

If you look at the results of Kodak's Research and Development, there's a nice mix of film and digital imaging:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/techProdHighlights.shtml

Here's what Richard Sehlin, Chief Technology Officer for Kodak's Entertainment Imaging has to say about the future:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/products/v2/sehlin.shtml

About 70% of our R&D budget is dedicated to advancing FILM technology.

Within the next few months, Kodak will introduce several additional new Kodak VISION2 films, expanding on the innovations introduced with Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218.

Kodak just introduced two NEW B&W camera films, supporting filmmakers creativity:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/bw/newBWFilms.shtml

Kodak is also investing in developing "Hybrid" technologies (e.g., scanning, recording, image management, etc.), as well as in Digital Cinema:

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema

Other companies (e.g., Sony) are facing challenges too:

http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2003/10/20/rtr1115288.html

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-23-2003, 09:58 AM:

One thing which struck me about the BBC article was that it didn't mention film for moving image use at all (and as we know, that sector of the industry isn't going to 'go digital' in anything like the same timescale as still photography) - a layman reading it would think that all Kodak made was film for still cameras...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-23-2003, 10:21 AM:

quote:
One thing which struck me about the BBC article was that it didn't mention film for moving image use at all (and as we know, that sector of the industry isn't going to 'go digital' in anything like the same timescale as still photography) - a layman reading it would think that all Kodak made was film for still cameras...

Yes, the press often "gets it wrong" because they "see" only that side of Kodak by what's on store shelves. There's more to the story:

InfoImaging

Kodak Business Units

Prolific Inventors

Kodak Investors Information

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 10-26-2003, 02:44 PM:

Kodak should develop a digital camera that can print to film.

The same concept as the Advantix camera with the LCD preview screen, except have the ability to save the pictures digitally as well as on film. A switch at the top could let you select "Film" or "Digital Only" so you can decide whether something is important enough to have prints of, or just a digital copy. You could also avoid wasting a shot on something you weren't sure of. I would certainly buy one of these "Hybrid" cameras to avoid carrying around a film AND a digital camera with me.

Now I know most all photo finishing places offer prints from digital, but most people don't have the time to sift through 100+ digital pictures they've taken, decide what they want, put it on a disk or CD and take it over there, not to mention most people don't know how to.

What do you think?
=TMP=

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-26-2003, 03:11 PM:

Well, it's been possible for a some time, on medium and large format cameras, where you can mount film or digital backs at will. I think it would be more difficult to do in a low-cost consumer camera, at an acceptable cost.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-26-2003, 08:38 PM:

I would not really be interested in buying a camera that recorded a picture digitally only to "print" it to film later. It might be a neat concept, but the practical terms of it make no sense. Perhaps a digital camera might be nice to "proof" or test an image before doing a film exposure. But if I am going to shoot something on film, I want the entire process happening analog, light to lens to film emulsion with no digital step in between.

Most digital cameras use a CMOS chip (while some use a CCD) to "see" a digital image and record it to memory. The resolution of a CMOS chip is finite and would not create any more image data by digitally recording to film than it would by simply storing the image onto a flash memory card. In fact, you would likely get a fair amount of image degradation in the process. The only difference I see in this is just added film development costs. It would be better to save that money, buy some good glossy photo paper and print out the photos using an inkjet printer.

Here's the film/digital combo camera I would like: a 35mm film camera with all the normal bells and whistles of a good SLR and a removeable digital CMOS back that can insert in place of a roll of film.

Granted, creating such a thing would be pretty tricky given the different exposure areas of 8-perf 35mm still camera film versus the tiny size of a CMOS chip. But if large format cameras can switch between analog and digital function why should 35mm be any different? Photographers can invest in really good lenses and make great improvements to both digital and film images.

This kind of insertable CMOS system would also be a good route for varying features to make certain models more affordable versus something more high end. You could have a single chip CMOS setup with a certain level of resolution versus a pretty high end model sporting sharper resolution spread across 3 CMOS chips.

Actually, I'm surprised we haven't seen much in the way of 3CMOS cameras. All digital camera chips really only see a black and white image. Filters are applied to specific areas of the chip to see either the Red, Green or Blue component of color and then the chip interpolates a full color image from that. It seems to work okay in digital still cameras, but not very good at all in consumer CCD video cameras. That's why all professional video cameras have a 3CCD system. It would stand to reason that some digital camera makers might want to try to market a 3CMOS camera with more accurate color than a typical 1CMOS camera can provide. With interchangeable backs, a company could offer such an upgrade route without pinning the entire model line down on it.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-26-2003, 10:55 PM:

Does Kodak actually manufacture digital cameras or simply contract for their construction, and if so who makes the imaging chips?

Maybe they should have hung onto Eastman Chemical.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-27-2003, 12:16 AM:

Kodak's digital cameras are definitely outsourced. The notice on the bottom of my Kodak DX6340 "EasyShare" camera says "Made in China, Designed in Japan for Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY." I'm not going to take apart the camera to check the markings on individual components. There may be some TI or Motorola stuff in there (like you would find in a lot of Japanese branded consumer electronics gear). But I would be willing to bet items like the main CMOS sensor were probably made in Chinese chip fabs. The consumer digital camera market is a little too price driven rather than quality driven for there to be a 100% American made or mostly American made product.

The cutesy factor is another problem with digital cameras. Aside from my fantasies over 35mm/digital still interchangeability or 3CMOS/3CCD still cameras, I would like to see a return to developing digital cameras that had something better than PITIFULLY SHORT BATTERY LIFE.

Battery life in nearly all digital cameras just outright sucks! No points higher than that at all. Why is it that my little palmcorder can take batteries that can last 3 or 4 hours while there just isn't much of anything on the still market that lasts more than a few minutes? When one considers the huge and ever growing capacities of flash memory chips on the market, it is easy for someone to sit through their kid's soccer game and literally shoot 200 or 300 pictures. But you wind up missing a bunch of action if you are constantly rumaging through your camera bag trying to find more charged AA batteries.

I don't know if Sony still offers camcorder style batteries with any of their Mavica line of cameras. Our shop used to have a model that used camcorder style batteries. It even had a 14X optical zoom lens with optical image stabilization. Sony doesn't make a camera like that anymore. You put those kind of features on a camera that can take a 3.1 megapixel or higher rez image and you'll have a absolute winner of a digital camera.

If Kodak wants to improve their digital camera business, I suggest in the strongest possible terms they incorporate some kind of external socket where you can attach a camcorder battery. I know this thread was really about Kodak's sagging film business, but this battery angle can be a money making opportunity for them if they approach it right.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-27-2003, 05:55 AM:

Sourcing depends upon the camera model. Kodak developed and makes the high-end imaging chips:

Kodak Digital Sensors

DCSPro14n Camera

16 Megapixel Digital Camera Back

Kodak Consumer Cameras

Adding some links about improving battery life:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/urg00039c12s8.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/tib4324.jhtml

On-line "Firmware Updates" for some Kodak digital camera models offer improved "power management" over the original software loaded into the camera:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/software/dx3600/dx3600Software.jhtml

[ 10-27-2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-27-2003, 01:23 PM:

I haven't had any problems with short battery life on my Olympus C2020Z which takes 4 AA, normally NMH. Maybe my expectations are different. The view screen backlight illumination is probably the biggest drain. I've had it now almost 4 years and like it alot.

Back when I got it, Olympus thoughtfully included not only a set of NMH cells and charger but also a set of conventional alkaline cells on the theory that the rechargable cells would need charging but the buyer (or giftee) would want to start using it right away. They've probably eliminated that on the succeeding models as price competition has intensified.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-27-2003, 02:12 PM:

Olympus also started using these super-long-life batteries..CR-V3. They seem to last a REAL long time.

Steve

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-27-2003, 02:59 PM:

quote:
Olympus also started using these super-long-life batteries..CR-V3. They seem to last a REAL long time.

Many Kodak digital cameras also take the CRV3 Lithium Batteries. They definitely have an advantage over other battery types. Trouble is, they are not rechargeable.

Internet Review of Kodak MAX CRV3 Lithium Battery

Amazon.com review

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-27-2003, 03:33 PM:

quote:
Trouble is, they are not rechargeable.

Hey the landfills need disposables too! [Wink]

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-27-2003, 08:40 PM:

My Kodak camera came with a CRV type battery as well. And those types do last longer than traditional AA batteries. Perhaps up to four or five times as long. Still, the life of a CRV battery is quite a bit shorter than one charge of a Li-ion rechargeable camcorder style battery.

Unfortunately, for some of the types of things I photograph such as early evening shots of new signs lit in all their glory, I need the visual feedback on the LCD screen. And the LCD screen drinks battery juice very fast. I can't just leave the view finder turned off since I use the "point and shoot" mode for those low light purposes. You have to bracket shots in those conditions, but you have to use the LCD screen to set up your different exposure and aperture settings. I have to do this quickly since the ambient light of early evening disappears very fast. But it really turns into a drag when you have to unscrew the camera from the tripod to drop in another pair of AA NiMH batteries.

Of course my case is a special circumstance. But I know (and have seen) lots of people run into similar jams trying to take photos of their kid's high school football game and other stuff like that. A 512MB SD card will last you the duration of a football game. It is a shame we can't have a digital still camera battery that can do the same, especially when camcorder batteries can do the trick.

It is nice to learn Kodak makes its CMOS sensors.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-28-2003, 11:26 AM:

I assume part of the issue is that consumers want small, lightweight cameras, without umbilical cords --- limiting the size of the battery or use of external batteries.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-28-2003, 03:54 PM:

My Canon G2 has an incredible battery life. This is consistent with many of the Canon Powershot cameras that I've seen reviewed.

Doing some online checking, I found that one review rated the G2's battery life at 128 minutes using the LCD display. That gets extended to ~10 hours w/o the LCD (but I always use the LCD).

My understanding is that this battery also is used by some Canon DV camcorders. A friend of mine that also has a G2 was in Las Vegas and forgot to charge his battery overnight. The gift shop in the hotel had extra batteries for sale, plus they offered to charge both batteries for him, which saved the day photo-wise.

The one downside is that I cannot pop in some AA's in a pinch. The problem I've had is that I forget to charge the battery (since it doesn't need charging every time I use it), so when I go out and take lots of shots, I run into a situation where I've waited too long between recharges. A spare battery would fix that, but it hasn't been a huge problem for me.

The G2 is a really nice camera. The G3 is also a good follow-up, but I don't have any experience with the newest model (G5).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-28-2003, 04:05 PM:

quote:
The one downside is that I cannot pop in some AA's in a pinch.

Yes, the widescale availability of AA standard sized batteries is also a factor.

In October 1987 I was taking photos on the Great Wall of China near Beijing. My trusty old Minolta SRT-101 had no problem (never had to use the spare PX-13 meter battery I had brought along), but some people with more automatic power-intensive cameras and video cameras couldn't find replacement batteries when theirs ran out, and left with few pictures. Lesson learned was to buy cameras that have batteries that are widely available.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-28-2003, 05:16 PM:

quote:
I found that one review rated the G2's battery life at 128 minutes using the LCD display.

I think the Powershot G2 model has been discontinued, but its successor the G3, does indeed use a Lithium ion battery very similar to those used in video camcorders. And it is not very big. I would say that is a noticeable plus for that camera model. It is too bad many of the dumbs**ts who write reviews for PC Magazine, PC World, CNet and others rarely ever comment on things like battery life when writing reviews about digital cameras.

With so many digital still cameras adding more resolution, RAW file capability and even some digital video recording function, it would seem sensible to consider battery life will become a much more important issue with the design and development of new digital cameras in the future.