Kodak Files for Bankruptcy Protection 1/18/2012

[kb3lms]

Why isn't Kodak known for film scanners? From what I see, they just never bothered.

100% correct. They have or had the technical expertise. Much of the imaging technology was invented or at least developed at Kodak. Their failures in bringing their technology to market is 100% mis-management and mis-marketing. The people at Kodak could accomplish incredible things but the management, well, you all see where that's gotten them.

[Photo Engineer]

We never ever made a scanner. Internally, we used KS Paul drum scanners. I can't even find a reference to them today. We scanned negatives for a wile with an internally developed scanner which was very very slow.

However, the laser printer is a high end scanner when you think about it.

PE

[kb3lms]

I thought film scanners were made by Kodak, but if they weren't they certainly could have been. But, really, I wasn't thinking about scanners specifically, I was more thinking about the "never bothered" part in general. Personally, I worked in digital imaging technologies for diagnostic imaging and I know quite in depth about the scanner and printer technology that we developed and designed. But our high-level managment always got stuck on the "doesn't sell more film" thing. Eventually, EK just bought out a company that had a so-so product that did what many people at EK had already long before figured out how to do, and do very well, when they were way too late to market because the marketing types could not decide what to sell because of the "it's not film" issue. It was a real shame because the technology had been 100% invented at KRL and was quite successfully commercialized by our largest competitor.

[GraemeMitchell]

We never ever made a scanner. Internally, we used KS Paul drum scanners. I can't even find a reference to them today. We scanned negatives for a wile with an internally developed scanner which was very very slow.

However, the laser printer is a high end scanner when you think about it.

PE

Not to disagree, but didn't they do the Kodak HR-500? It was sort of a precursor to the durst sigma 67 a lot of pro labs use now..

[lonepeak]

At the Sundance Film Festival, Kodak still sponsored a party a week after filing the bankruptcy. One could assume that they will continue to manufacturer motion picture film and hopefully others as well.

[Photo Engineer]

Not to disagree, but didn't they do the Kodak HR-500? It was sort of a precursor to the durst sigma 67 a lot of pro labs use now..

Well, as an addendum to my post above, Kodak did make a small print scanner that took standard color or B&W prints and scanned them. It was a closed unit with a roller transport and was about 4 x 5 x 3 inches in size. It connected to a parallel port. I guess it sold for about a year due to its rather specific target and inflexibility. I have one, and it did a good job for its intended limited target.

I don't remember the number on this product, as it is tucked away somewhere.

PE

[MattKing]

We never ever made a scanner.

PE

Sorry PE - the Kodak HR 500 Scanner:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/servi...?pq-path=13744

Although, strictly speaking, I don't know whether or not this might be a re-badged product manufactured by someone else.

There apparently were a number of other models as well: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/servi...th=13700/13702

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks Matt. I got that wrong, as the scanners that I searched for were not professional grade. These things are old in terms of hardware and software.

Sorry I missed these.

PE

[GraemeMitchell]

An updated prosumer HR-500 placed around $5k would very interesting for a lot of people I think.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

How about a scanner that makes a digital file of a negative or chrome, with enough resolution and dynamic range to make decent sized work?

I loathe scanning frames with my Epson to proof. It sucks donkey balls, but if I had something really fast, it would be completely different.