1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Kodak going bankrupt?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by RobWatson, Sep 30, 2011.

  1. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

  2. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    I know some astronomers swear by their ccds.
  3. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Their CCDs seem to fare well in Leica's too....:smile:
  4. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    This Kodak bankruptcy rumor isn't quite as simple as it first appears. True, the company is in trouble. And it is also true that Kodak is trying to raise cash through the sale of many of its patents.

    But the bankruptcy part comes in because some of the companies interested in buying those patents are nervous that should Kodak ever involuntarily go bankrupt, creditors might come after them for more money - claiming the patents were let go for too little money. The idea here is that if Kodak voluntarily goes into technical bankruptcy, the patent sales could get the approval of a bankruptcy court, protecting everyone in the future.

    But it's still a sad development for a once-glorious company that brought affordable photography to much of the world - and even developed the first digital camera. They only mis-stepped by not realizing how quickly digital would catch on with the masses.

    To this day, Kodak sensors are among the world's best (I'm sure Leica wouldn't use them otherwise). I believe Kodak's digital R&D is informed by over a century of film imaging that no other company has. Their sensors are great in many subtle ways that aren't always apparent at first glance.

    I wish Kodak all the best.
  5. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    It's inconceivable that Kodak could go out of business, the history of the company is so entwined with photography as to make the two inseperable. For many years to me photography was Kodak. But when was the last time I bought any of their products? About four years ago when I bought my Olympus E-500, it has a Kodak sensor. Oh, I tell a lie, more recently I bought a roll of K64 from ebay, just for nostalgia after it had been discontinued. So, from buying their products pretty much on a weekly basis, now I almost never buy from them.

    However, I will be extremely sad if they do go out of business and I hope they find a way to survive, even if it means breaking the company up so that the profitable sections (if there are any) can continue on a smaller scale.

    On another level, what a wasted opportunity. Kodak needed to adapt quickly to the new digital era. They had all the resources but not apparently not the innovation and expertize to break into the digital camera market beyond point and shoot. Despite using rebadged Nikon bodies they never really took off.

    On the other hand, Olympus had all the innovation and expertize necessary to develop digital cameras but lacked resources. What a shame Kodak didn't buy Olympus ten years ago, I'm sure that by now they would have been the dominant player.
  6. PeterB666

    PeterB666 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 14, 2010
    Tura Beach, Australia
    Kodak has been on shaky ground for a number of years with a lot of no longer profitable business. Won't be a surprise.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
  7. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It would be sad to see them go bankrupt..... but that's just how things are right now. Globalization and greed have changed things. Companies either reinvent themselves or die off. Really sad. Goldenlight said it... they were early to the digital world but just simply failed to capitalize.

    A lot of the medium format digitals use CCD for their backs (Hasselblad if I recall correctly is one). The Kodak CCD sensor has so many things going for it.... but one thing it does not is high ISO performance. Unfortunately for them, high ISO replaced megapixels in the rat race to consumer and professional DSLRs market.
  8. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Add to this the demand for video (which I could care less about)...CMOS sensor works much better for video than the CCD.
  9. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
  10. linkedit

    linkedit Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 6, 2010
    New Jersey, USA
    It's a familiar story. They didn't adapt quickly to the digital era. Just ask Polaroid.
  11. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    This isn't quite true. When it comes to long exposure high ISO shots, CCD sensors excel quite a bit. This is why Astrophotographers use them.

    When I see CMOS and CCD in the similar pixel density and size, I always prefer pictures from the CCD, especially higher ISO. The only advantage of recent years is Sony's new backlit CMOS, in terms of smaller CCD's.

    Here is a unbiased article( the companion articles/pdfs mention in the article are also very good) about ccd vs cmos:

    CCD vs. CMOS

    The problem Kodak has is:

    1. In smaller sensors, CMOS has caught up.
    2. With larger sensors, CCD's are just too expensive.
  12. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Thanks for renaming the thread ... poor choice on my part.

    For years the sensors have been the only thing Kodak has not been losing money on. Seems like the old guard (film guys) pooh poohed the digital age and simply got left behind. Never too late to catch up but some serious housecleaning is in order before that can happen.

    Anything of value will get snapped up so the only thing to worry about is the downtime during the transistion ... this may well kill a number of businesses off that depend on Kodak sensors for their products.

    PS You will know CMOS has come of age when a space based telescope has them instread of CCD imagers.
  13. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    Each imager type has unique properties which allows for varying designs. They both have advantages and disadvantages. I wonder how come Kodak hasn't made CMOS(or do they?) since their chips make money?

    Their point and shoot cameras aren't anything special, and their printers I don't find compelling either. I'm really suprised no other large company has purchased them.
  14. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    I've just been reading a thread on another website (non photographic) in which many people contributed who either worked for Kodak or did business with them. The overwhelming consensus was that seldom was there a more poorly managed company. It was repeatedly said that their management structure was ridiculously multi-layered and packed with highly educated twits who didn't know their own business or how to manage people.

    Certainly I do not know the full truth but from the outside Kodak looks like a company coasting for a decade or more on a huge pile of cash earned by their elders with zero present day leadership. Its an old story. True wealth ( intellectual or monetary ) seldom survives three generations.
  15. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    True (and Kodak does make CMOS as well).

    I'm waiting for back thinned/illuminated CMOS with quantum film layers in an active pixel configuration. Can anybody say hyperspectral plenotic with video capabilities? Kodak could have done such a beasty 5 years ago and the spin-off potential alone would be a money machine.
  16. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    NOTE: I didn't say "CCD" but "Kodak CCD sensor". I have yet to see a photographic (non Astro as I know nothing from that standpoint) camera with a Kodak CCD sensor that competes with the current CMOS chips (from Canon or Nikon specifically) of today from a pure ISO performance standpoint.

    I have no facts on cost but I always thought CCDs are suppose to be less complex than CMOS... which is odd that CCD would be "too expensive".
  17. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Interline transfer CCDs come pretty close and you will find those in still and video cameras. Frame transfer and full frame CCDs generally cannot be run so fast and maintain low noise (this is changing). Some of the early Kodak P&S as well as Polaroids did actually have Kodak CCDs in them. Then the megapixel rage took over and CMOS outpaced CCD in that race.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.