So yeah, Kodak...
So yeah, Kodak...
Nope, this is not a problem not for us that spent the 80's and 90's mostly buried inside computers.....
Most of your file-incompatibility issues are solved quite easioly by one piece of software : ditch those MickeySoft programs and move over to opensource SW, personally I have fled ship and uses OpenOffice this SW will let me open PDF-files, most backward compatible SW I have, It will let me edit and save PDF-files, open more MS Office files than Bill Gates ever wanted and ask no questions. And it will let me save files in umpteen formats that mickeysoft haven't ever heard of....
In other words its your responsibilty to keep up with the times, I have never had problems like you describe.
Try costing some industrial grade SAS drives for a redundant SAN, which is the kind of technology you want for commercial archiving to disk, and then get back to me.
You are seriously underestimating storage costs for an industrial installation.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone remember the high end DSLR Kodak marketed a few years ago? I believe they OEMed the bodies from Sigma.
For some reason it never really caught on. It was touted by some as the a digital camera that finally equaled film in quality. (Haven't we heard that one a few times?) Anyway, it could be considered as one abortive attempt by Kodak to get into the digital camera game in a serious way.
This link has the history, for those who need the entertainment:
They made them in Canon & Nikon mount. 14n/14c
Bodies were sigma I believe.
It was one of the first full frame 35mm sensors (14 mp) and although it showed promise certain aspects were fumbled like software and they had a lot of problems when first launched.
I remember a PopPhoto COVER that touted it as equivalent to 35mm film.
edit: I think they used a Nikon N80 for the Nikon version and sigma made the Canon mount version but don't hold me to this ;)
The Kodak 14n used a Nikon body based on the N80 film body, while the Canon version used a Sigma body and was called the SLR/c. There was also an SLR/n that was an improved version of the 14n (fixed some sensor issues the original 14n had).
I had a 14n for several years. I bet all the guys saying it sucked never actually owned one. It DID have the best color that I have EVER seen from any digital camera. EVER. I preferred film for black and white, but while I had the 14n, I stopped shooting color film entirely.
As far as rivaling medium format, it depends. It came damn close to 645. It beat the hell out of any 35mm film for resolution. I don't think it would beat a larger medium format like 6x7 or 6x9. It was close to 645.
The 14n files converted to black and white very nicely; it was easier to get good black & white from its files than from any other digital I have used.
Wasn't perfect though. The 14n had some serious flaws that made it useless for some things. In low light, requiring long exposures, the images often had weird lines and strange noise defects. It also required you to go in the menu and specify what lens you were using or else you'd get weird color shifting that people dubbed the "Italian Flag" effect. This is because you'd get a picture that was strongly red on one side and green on the other, with the middle being normal. Like an italian flag!
It was an interesting camera. A deeply flawed design that gave unmatched quality when used within the range of things it worked well for, and when you jumped through the hoops it required (like the lens settings). I recently bought my first digital camera in several years, a Canon 5D mkII. I need it for some commercial work I'm doing, where the client demands digital. Its a nice camera, takes great photos. The 14n had better color though. I miss it sometimes. I'm still shooting BW film in 35 and 6x6. Will probably still shoot some color transparency in 6x6. Color is still a little better and detail resolution better than the 5DII.
Here's some 14n images.