Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,891   Posts: 1,520,856   Online: 1209
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    According to the material safety data sheets for the K-14M (K-Lab) developers, the color developer is CD-3 for the magenta developer and CD-4 for the cyan developer.

    http://www.siri.org/msds/gn.cgi?query=k-lab

  2. #22
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,323
    Currently Kodak and Agfa are sueing each other in several cases on claimed patent infringement.
    A court decision on the whole complex has been made and Agfa won but Kodak is appealing.

    (Kodak stated that Aga was violating 7 of their patents. It is about X-ray films, more precise on a antihalation techniqe for dubblesided films with intensifyer screens [anti-crossover] by means of employing tabular crystals.)

  3. #23
    accozzaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sweet home Toronto, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by John Shriver View Post
    No, the lawsuits by Berkey et. al. were brought on anti-trust grounds. Remember that Kodachrome isn't sold with processing included in the US due to anti-trust suits, there was a consent decree in 1955. It was claimed that Kodak was trying to monopolize film processing by bundling processing with Kodachrome.

    There were anti-trust lawsuits about the C-41 process, by large labs who were blindsided by the change from C-22 to C-41. Due to the higher temperatures and shorter times, the labs had to buy new equipment. Again, it was argued that Kodak was changing the developing process just to torture independent processing labs, forcing them to make large capital purchases. Kodak was really just trying to make better film, and the matching processing.

    Remember that at the time, Kodak really was the largest processor of color film in the US. (They were just a bit player in B&W.)

    Remember also that Kodak did lose a patent lawsuit with Polaroid. There's good arguments that the case was lost due to the judge ignoring the technical arguments. Basically, the judge felt "Polaroid invented instant photography, so ipso facto Kodak is violating their patents, even if they have not violated any claims." Patent lawsuits are often handled abysmally by the courts, it's really a complete gamble to participate in one. (This is one of the reasons US Patent law is such a mess, and Patent Trolls are such a problem.)

    (I don't know if Kodak had lost the Polaroid patent case when they decided to punt on further uses of CD-6.)

    So, at any rate, Kodak was intimidated by the anti-trust lawsuits, probably particularly the C-41 one, and chickened out on using CD-6 in RA-4 and E-6. A shame.

    Thank you. This answer makes sense and helps me understand what was going on that precipitated litigious action.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Eastman/Kodak has been involved in patent disputes continuously since at latest 1889 (maybe even earlier), and not just because of other people's/company's envy of their succes.
    Eastman knew a trick or two himself when not wanting to reinvent the wheel (and/or pay for it) was concerned. I'm sure the company carried on in his spirit for a long while.

    What should also not be forgotten about patents is that they very rarely contain correct detailed descriptions of how things are done.
    They are not meant to allow other companies to have a look in, but quite the opposite: to shut other companies out. So (apart from describing in length why the claims made are not already "prior art") they more often than not paint the broadest possible picture of the genius of a certain idea (mentioning every imaginable way an idea could be applied), while deliberately providing incorrect details.
    Or in other words: patents are part of business tactics. Not scientific or historic documents.

    Sometimes it doesn't need law suits to stop something dead in its tracks. Disc film, for instance, though making a great start, was effectively 'killed' because photofinishers did not like to have to invest in more equipment.
    It may even be suggested that the only practical purpose disc film served was to force photofinishers to invest in new processing machines.
    APS also held no advantage for photographers, so could also be construed as an attempt to 'help' the photofinishing apparatus market along a bit.
    Last edited by Q.G.; 07-18-2009 at 03:17 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,915
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinz_Anderle View Post
    According to the material safety data sheets for the K-14M (K-Lab) developers, the color developer is CD-3 for the magenta developer and CD-4 for the cyan developer.

    http://www.siri.org/msds/gn.cgi?query=k-lab
    I would be careful about this page or the MSDS data.

    The first 6 yellow developers listed used CD-4 and the 7th used CD-6 so something is wrong with the list somehow.

    PE

  6. #26
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,915
    Images
    65
    Some additional notes here:

    1. It is illegal to make a false or misleading statement in a patent. You can paint with a broad or narrow brush describing the invention, but it must be correct. It must work for all cases described as well.

    2. APS was a combined attempt of Kodak, Fuji and Agfa to develop a new format identical in size to the then-common digital image sensors, so that digital and analog could be as compatible as possible in lens, camera and print formats. In fact, the APS format was compatible with TV, HDTV and Widescreen so it was pretty much an attempt to match Hollywood and TV formats as well. The plans included talking still photos and 3D photos which I have seen. It all died stillborn.

    PE

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I would be careful about this page or the MSDS data.

    The first 6 yellow developers listed used CD-4 and the 7th used CD-6 so something is wrong with the list somehow.

    PE
    Kodachrome home processing would of course require some experimentation on exposed b & w film, which CD would work best ;-)

    Another question in regard to the original patent: already the Ektachrome E-4 process had replaced reversal light exposure by chemical fogging with tert-butylaminoborane; the K-14 patent gives borohydride as the reagent. Now the first is said to be quite toxic, and has been replaced in E-6 by borohydride, but the latter may generate explosive hydrogen upon decomposition or accidentaly with acids, so that both compounds may not be available to the darkroom amateur.

    Would it make sense to expose the cyan- and yellow-processed film with broad-spectrum white light to achieve the reversal exposure for the magenta development? For a (hypothetical) micro-K-Lab, red, blue, and green or white LEDs might provide suitable light sources for the dedicated reversal exposures.

  8. #28
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinz_Anderle View Post
    Kodachrome home processing would of course require some experimentation on exposed b & w film, which CD would work best ;-)

    Another question in regard to the original patent: already the Ektachrome E-4 process had replaced reversal light exposure by chemical fogging with tert-butylaminoborane; the K-14 patent gives borohydride as the reagent. Now the first is said to be quite toxic, and has been replaced in E-6 by borohydride, but the latter may generate explosive hydrogen upon decomposition or accidentaly with acids, so that both compounds may not be available to the darkroom amateur.

    Would it make sense to expose the cyan- and yellow-processed film with broad-spectrum white light to achieve the reversal exposure for the magenta development? For a (hypothetical) micro-K-Lab, red, blue, and green or white LEDs might provide suitable light sources for the dedicated reversal exposures.
    Yes.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Some additional notes here:

    1. It is illegal to make a false or misleading statement in a patent. You can paint with a broad or narrow brush describing the invention, but it must be correct. It must work for all cases described as well.
    That's why we get things like:
    "Well, the patent shows CD-4 being used for Cyan and Magenta, but I was told it was CD-3 in K-14. Now, I am confused as well. [...]"


    A patent is there to prevent competitors from doing stuff you do not want them to do.
    Holding a patent by no means means that you, the holder of the patent, are doing what it says in the patent.

    That too is why they typically contain phrases like:
    "Although we have described our invention with particular reference to [...], our invention is in no way limited to this method."
    or:
    "We have described certain preferred embodiments of our invention, but it is to be understood that certain modifications [...] may be made within the full scope of the appending claims."

    Keep it broad and vague, so it covers as much as possible.
    Much more than you will be doing, but (hopefully) enough of what your competitor might be doing.

    And don't give vital details away. Patents are like contracts: they are there because they will be broken.
    And you do not want to help your competitors to the results of your research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    2. APS was a combined attempt of Kodak, Fuji and Agfa to develop a new format identical in size to the then-common digital image sensors, [...]
    Your comment is about 5 years out of synch with events.
    At the time, it was still about that long before sensor sizes became "common" at all.

    APS was more an attempt to sell new equipment to people who already had things that did what they wanted.
    Both consumers and the photofinishing industry.
    Last edited by Q.G.; 07-18-2009 at 12:06 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    By the way:

    The one and only original Kodachrome patent:
    US 1,196,080.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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