Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,986   Posts: 1,524,007   Online: 852
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 66 of 66
  1. #61
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak did not produce a peel apart product. It was produced internally but never sold on the open market.

    Kodak did produce Ektaflex C and R for prints. They were sold up until the end of the lawsuit with Polaroid.

    I ask one question here. Was the Polaroid win good or bad for us all using hindsight? Was the GAF / Pavell lawsuit good or bad for us all? IMHO, all of them were bad for all concerned.

    PE
    The real question is, would Polaroid have been better served by offering to licence the patent to Kodak, say for 25¢ per unit, so that the Kodak film would have been slightly more expensive then the Polaroid films, would have made Instant film more common, would have helped both companies to some degree. I've long thought that when a company starts using it's patents as a revenue stream, stick a fork in it, it's done.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    The real question is, would Polaroid have been better served by offering to licence the patent to Kodak, say for 25¢ per unit, so that the Kodak film would have been slightly more expensive then the Polaroid films, would have made Instant film more common, would have helped both companies to some degree. I've long thought that when a company starts using it's patents as a revenue stream, stick a fork in it, it's done.
    Kodak had worked out a settlement with Polaroid management, but Eddie Land vetoed it. Polaroid was paralyzed by fear of the rise of electronic imaging; they had more to loose than Kodak (at the time) because their business was based on instant imaging and electronic imaging offered that. They did produce some successful electronic imaging products (like film recorders), but although they developed several generations of digital cameras, they were afraid to bring them out until it was too late.

  3. #63
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,935
    Images
    65
    Referring back to the purchase of machines to pack film in a given format for instant cameras, you will find that you need a lot of money, space and trained operators. The coating machines must be different for each product as the coating layer and format is different. It is hard to describe these serious differences, but I can say that the Polaroid format at EK required 2 machines for pack assembly (a RAM and a FAM). The integral PR10 material was put together by an entirely different machine called a COMAM. I remember seeing dump trucks carrying away the parts of these machines as they were pushed out docking bays by heavy lifters in the building.

    Was the decision good or bad? If EK, Polaroid and Fuji had stayed in the business of instant imaging there would have been a race for better and better camera products and more competition with digital. After all, digital gives you an instant image but an analog instant image is a print that you can hold, share and scan! And within a year of that court decision, if it had gone for Kodak, there would have been an ISO 3000 print material and a lantern slide material. To this day, digital has difficulty making true slides. The Dmax and contrast is beyond most printers.

    PE

  4. #64
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Kodak had worked out a settlement with Polaroid management, but Eddie Land vetoed it. Polaroid was paralyzed by fear of the rise of electronic imaging; they had more to loose than Kodak (at the time) because their business was based on instant imaging and electronic imaging offered that. They did produce some successful electronic imaging products (like film recorders), but although they developed several generations of digital cameras, they were afraid to bring them out until it was too late.
    You know, thinking about it, instant prints would have worked well with digital, a printer, pulls the film in from the pack, under a 3 colour LED array then through the rollers, spits it out, you peel it apart, and you have a long lasting print from your digital image.

    I think both Polaroid and Kodak should have embraced digital, not by competing with it, in a market that was already owned by others, but by complementing it. How about this, you go to the photo store, for say $20 or so, you buy a special USB drive, you dump up to 36 images on it, put it in the enclosed mailer, and drop it in the mail. They go to Kodak, who prints them onto K25 film and mails you back 36 Kodachrome slides of your digital images. They then wipe the drives and repackage them for reuse.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    You know, thinking about it, instant prints would have worked well with digital, a printer, pulls the film in from the pack, under a 3 colour LED array then through the rollers, spits it out, you peel it apart, and you have a long lasting print from your digital image.

    Actually, the dye releaser technology that Kodak used in its instant film and Ektaflex material is used by Fuji in its Pictrography digital printers.

  6. #66
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    How about this, you go to the photo store, for say $20 or so, you buy a special USB drive, you dump up to 36 images on it, put it in the enclosed mailer, and drop it in the mail. They go to Kodak, who prints them onto K25 film and mails you back 36 Kodachrome slides of your digital images. They then wipe the drives and repackage them for reuse.

    Wasn't that the idea of the Photo-CD? Well,.. the other way round...

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin