Karma for Kodak?

[epcot85]

Maybe having a quality attraction at Epcot with Dreamfinder and Figment would be a good thing now?...

Eastman Kodak fights for its future http://usat.ly/tQzcAn

 

[ScoutN]

Kodak was late to jump on the digital gun. That put them behind the competition which is a death sentence nowadays and near impossible to recoup from.

 

[Timekeeper]

Attraction sponsorship would do nothing to benefit Kodak. Moreover, paying more money for something devoid of any return would probably hurt the company even more. We may as well slap a Polaroid sponsorship on Space Mountain.

Kodak wasn't just "late to the game" - as we can see that they may have been the victim of intellectual property violations (to be determined) - but they also had to compete with pre-existing strong brand names that were more closely related to the manufacture of camera equipment. A similar analogy might be Universal trying to compete with Disney. Even though Universal offers an excellent, newer product, the majority of consumers still opt for the Disney product. More often than not, "first to market" wins the game, and other companies were already in the market with famous camera brand recognition.

When consumer-level digital cameras started to see significant sales volume, the motion picture industry and prosumer-level photographers continued to opt for film because digital resolution, although cost efficient, was still inferior to celluloid. Over the past decade, however, we started to see some great improvement in digital resolution that outperformed the capabilities of film.

Analog photography/cinematography is endangered (but not extinct). It would be a real pity for photogs worldwide if the only celluloid to remain on the market is an overpriced inferior quality product

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Maybe having a quality attraction at Epcot with Dreamfinder and Figment would be a good thing now?...

Eastman Kodak fights for its future http://usat.ly/tQzcAn

Well, with sponsoring the all the guide books, Both Muppet*Visions, Mickey's Philharmagic, And Flik's Fun Fair at DCA. Just elimnating one out of the list doesn't seem to have an effect.

 

[TP2000]

Well, with sponsoring the all the guide books, Both Muppet*Visions, Mickey's Philharmagic, And Flik's Fun Fair at DCA. Just elimnating one out of the list doesn't seem to have an effect.

Kodak also sponsors the Captain EO Tribute at Disneyland.

But quite honestly, I'm surprised Kodak has lasted this long. I expected them to go bankrupt back in 2010. I really don't know how they are holding on this long?

 

[PhilharMagician]

So sad. Kodak is an iconic American company. Times change, but it is sad watching it die a slow death. I hope that Kodak can turn themselves around.

 

[stratman50th]

Attraction sponsorship would do nothing to benefit Kodak. Moreover, paying more money for something devoid of any return would probably hurt the company even more. We may as well slap a Polaroid sponsorship on Space Mountain.

Kodak wasn't just "late to the game" - as we can see that they may have been the victim of intellectual property violations (to be determined) - but they also had to compete with pre-existing strong brand names that were more closely related to the manufacture of camera equipment. A similar analogy might be Universal trying to compete with Disney. Even though Universal offers an excellent, newer product, the majority of consumers still opt for the Disney product. More often than not, "first to market" wins the game, and other companies were already in the market with famous camera brand recognition.

When consumer-level digital cameras started to see significant sales volume, the motion picture industry and prosumer-level photographers continued to opt for film because digital resolution, although cost efficient, was still inferior to celluloid. Over the past decade, however, we started to see some great improvement in digital resolution that outperformed the capabilities of film.

Analog photography/cinematography is endangered (but not extinct). It would be a real pity for photogs worldwide if the only celluloid to remain on the market is an overpriced inferior quality product

Agree completely. Very sad that Kodak didn't invest in Printer photo paper to compete with HP. They had paper technology but just didn't market it..

 

[SMS55]

So sad. Kodak is an iconic American company. Times change, but it is sad watching it die a slow death. I hope that Kodak can turn themselves around.

UNfortunately I think they are on borrowed time. With the move to digital they have taken a major hit and with smart phones having picture capabilities that rival consumer cameras I see even the camera becoming extinct. Companies that deal exlcusively with cameras will not survive.

 

[Timekeeper]

UNfortunately I think they are on borrowed time. With the move to digital they have taken a major hit and with smart phones having picture capabilities that rival consumer cameras I see even the camera becoming extinct. Companies that deal exlcusively with cameras will not survive.

I can say, with certainty, that dedicated cameras will not become extinct. This is due to the physics of photography. Any photo enthusiast has a "full frame" camera on their wish list, if they don't already own one. This is because the size of the sensor in a camera is just as important (if not more so) than the megapixel resolution when it comes down to the quality of the end product, not to mention the quality of the lens and glass elements that can never be incorporated into a compact phone.

A 10 MP DSLR will produce a better image than a 50 MP smart phone. The size of a smart phone's image sensor will always be confined to the size of the smart phone, and as a result, will always be limited in quality, regardless of how many megapixels can be squeezed onto the tiny sensor. Granted, smart phone images are pretty good, but the caveat is that they are pretty good for a phone.

So long as consumers desire both compact size smart phones *and* high quality photography options, the dedicated camera will never go extinct. :sohappy:

 

[epcot85]

Attraction sponsorship would do nothing to benefit Kodak. Moreover, paying more money for something devoid of any return would probably hurt the company even more. We may as well slap a Polaroid sponsorship on Space Mountain.

I wasn't posting this because I think keeping JII with Dreamfinder and Figment would have saved the Company, I was making the point that if you believe in Karma they are getting theirs for destroying one of our beloved attractions. I also hope Kodak can pull through, and while they have sponsored other things the Image Works if done properly could have been a strong advertising tool for new products..

 

[Timekeeper]

I wasn't posting this because I think keeping JII with Dreamfinder and Figment would have saved the Company, I was making the point that if you believe in Karma they are getting theirs for destroying one of our beloved attractions. I also hope Kodak can pull through, and while they have sponsored other things the Image Works if done properly could have been a strong advertising tool for new products..

Theme park attraction sponsorship won't make or break such a huge (albeit shrinking) company with a preexisting legacy. As much as we would all like to see a new Image Works, on the hierarchy of variables that benefit a company's commercial success, sponsoring a new Image Works is at the bottom of the list (and doesn't really belong on the list to begin with). As I mentioned above by way of example, we could have Polaroid sponsor Space Mountain, but given the nature of their products and the consumer marketplace, that wouldn't resurrect them.

Same goes for Milli Vanilli's sponsorship of a new Wonders of Life :lookaroun

 

[epcot85]

Theme park attraction sponsorship won't make or break such a huge (albeit shrinking) company with a preexisting legacy. As much as we would all like to see a new Image Works, on the hierarchy of variables that benefit a company's commercial success, sponsoring a new Image Works is at the bottom of the list (and doesn't really belong on the list to begin with). As I mentioned above by way of example, we could have Polaroid sponsor Space Mountain, but given the nature of their products and the consumer marketplace, that wouldn't resurrect them.

Same goes for Milli Vanilli's sponsorship of a new Wonders of Life :lookaroun

Once again...I wasn't posting because I think that attraction sponsorship would've saved Kodak from their current problems...I wish people would read the whole post and title before.."commenting"..oh well :brick:

 

[Timekeeper]

Once again...I wasn't posting because I think that attraction sponsorship would've saved Kodak from their current problems...I wish people would read the whole post and title before.."commenting"..oh well :brick:

...the Image Works if done properly could have been a strong advertising tool for new products..

Strong advertising that would have been ...pointless? epcot85's "could have been" remark suggests that sponsorship of a successful attraction area "could have been" beneficial. Alas, it wouldn't have.

I wish authors would read their own post before "commenting" ..oh well :brick:

 

[stratman50th]

I can say, with certainty, that dedicated cameras will not become extinct. This is due to the physics of photography. Any photo enthusiast has a "full frame" camera on their wish list, if they don't already own one. This is because the size of the sensor in a camera is just as important (if not more so) than the megapixel resolution when it comes down to the quality of the end product, not to mention the quality of the lens and glass elements that can never be incorporated into a compact phone.

A 10 MP DSLR will produce a better image than a 50 MP smart phone. The size of a smart phone's image sensor will always be confined to the size of the smart phone, and as a result, will always be limited in quality, regardless of how many megapixels can be squeezed onto the tiny sensor. Granted, smart phone images are pretty good, but the caveat is that they are pretty good for a phone.

So long as consumers desire both compact size smart phones *and* high quality photography options, the dedicated camera will never go extinct. :sohappy:

You beat me to it. We have 3 smart phones in the family. We have two point and shoot cameras. In addition, my daughter has a Canon Rebel XT for school and I have Canon D-60. The D-60 was purchased not only for what I personally consider it's excellent still shots, but the capability of video with exposure, lighting, and lens options that are absolutely not possible with a smart phone, or even today's digital point and shoot video cameras.

 

[c-one]

Maybe having a quality attraction at Epcot with Dreamfinder and Figment would be a good thing now?...

Eastman Kodak fights for its future http://usat.ly/tQzcAn

Sponsoring another Disney ride wouldn't reverse Kodak's poor business decisions for the past 15 years. You know the saying about how the railroads went out of business because they thought they were in the railroad business, not the transport business? Yeah, that.

 

[c-one]

I can say, with certainty, that dedicated cameras will not become extinct. This is due to the physics of photography. Any photo enthusiast has a "full frame" camera on their wish list, if they don't already own one. This is because the size of the sensor in a camera is just as important (if not more so) than the megapixel resolution when it comes down to the quality of the end product, not to mention the quality of the lens and glass elements that can never be incorporated into a compact phone.

A 10 MP DSLR will produce a better image than a 50 MP smart phone. The size of a smart phone's image sensor will always be confined to the size of the smart phone, and as a result, will always be limited in quality, regardless of how many megapixels can be squeezed onto the tiny sensor. Granted, smart phone images are pretty good, but the caveat is that they are pretty good for a phone.

So long as consumers desire both compact size smart phones *and* high quality photography options, the dedicated camera will never go extinct. :sohappy:

I agree, but I do think that smartphones will be the (merciful) end to point-and-shoot cameras. The DSLR's are great for photographers, but the new iPhone takes photos that are better than most point-and-shoots. Now if only they'd figure out how to get zoom in an iPhone -- digital zoom doesn't count.

 

[scpergj]

Agree completely. Very sad that Kodak didn't invest in Printer photo paper to compete with HP. They had paper technology but just didn't market it..

I pretty much ONLY buy Kodak photo paper for my printer, and have for years. As far as I am concerned, they make the best product on the market.

 

[MarkTwain]

I agree, but I do think that smartphones will be the (merciful) end to point-and-shoot cameras. The DSLR's are great for photographers, but the new iPhone takes photos that are better than most point-and-shoots. Now if only they'd figure out how to get zoom in an iPhone -- digital zoom doesn't count.

Not necessarily. I can't stand carrying bags, and prefer touring places with only what can fit in my pockets. That includes Disney parks, foreign countries, cruises, etc. As a result, I'm restricted to ultracompact point-and-shoot cameras for my photos, but I try and compensate by selecting the highest quality ultracompact cameras I can find/afford.

They may not be DSLR quality, but I don't think you can get photos like these on an iphone either:

And as you said, the optical zoom issue is something that still needs to be worked out. Considering that optical zoom by definition refers to two lens moving a significant distance apart, that's something that might not make its way into a phone for a long time.

 

[c-one]

I stand corrected! I still think phones are replacing point-and-shoots for casual photographers, though -- the ones who previously bought cheap point-and-shoot cameras, and who bought disposables or Polaroids before that.

I agree that optical zoom will be tough to implement inside a phone (although with nanotechnology, who knows what's possible). I've been intrigued by those lenses that attach to your phone like a case, though.

 

[WDWFigment]

Not exactly on topic, but an iPhone can't compete with even high quality point and shoot cameras (think Canon G or S series) and a high quality point and shoot certainly can't compete with a crop sensor DSLR, let alone a full frame sensor DSLR.

Barring some amazing technological breakthrough (which, I suppose, isn't out of the question), the camera phone will never be an adequate substitute for real cameras...for real photographers. It just can't due to sensor-size.