Mama, Don't Take My Kodachrome Away

[dales]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/05 ... chaper_11/

Kodak heading to Chapter 11

Film dinosaur slain by digital demon

By Chris Mellor • Get more from this author

Posted in Business, 5th January 2012 20:11 GMT


Analysis It's not what you'd call a Kodak moment: Eastman Kodak, the very image of film-based photography, is heading for the Chapter 11 knackers yard because its management, despite the most visible and public threat imaginable from digital photography, has failed to get Kodak out of the digital trap.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Kodak, a company was synonymous with photography during a good part of its 131 years of existence – it had a 90 percent share of US photo-film sales in 1976 – is preparing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy if it can't make survival cash by selling off its patent portfolio, itself a pathetic last act for the once-mighty company.


<snip>

How the mighty have fallen.


IDIOTS!

[loCAtek]

Damn! I remember when the National Parks had signs at the scenic spots that read, 'Kodak Moment'.

[Sue U]

It's my fault. I have a nice 35mm camera that I haven't used in about 7 years. (Although I was always partial to Ektachrome myself.)

[loCAtek]

I've used mine a little more recently, but I always preferred Fuji.

[dales]

It's my fault. I have a nice 35mm camera that I haven't used in about 7 years. (Although I was always partial to Ektachrome myself.)

Ektachrome was a "faster" film (ASA 160/400) than Kodachrome (ASA 25/100).

I've shot thousands of 35mm slides back in the day and used both.

I was also partial to Agfa and Fuji when I wanted to achieve a different color balance.

Kodak really dropped the ball and relied upon past glories and was too late to adapt back in the last century to the emerging digital revolution. Their fault and no one else's.

[quaddriver]

I dunno, its hard to be a film maker when no body is using film. Should they have started making ccd chips?

Ive been scoring antique cameras that 10 years ago would fetch hundreds, for $1-2 at auctions because with no film (polaroid included) the casual collectors cant test them to say they have, and the hard core collectors, already have 3.

Kodak started a foray into PCs in the 80's with a really decent (for the time) machine my college got a zillion of, but that business reinvents itself every 18 months. they wer ethe last to source offshore...lost their shirts. they lost out on printers, copiers....

just another market that technology shitcans by its very nature.

Digi cams have come a long way, but even cheap 35mms take better pics, digi recording repalced analog tape and we have crappy color balance, motion and pixellating, digi music replaced analog and now the best recordings on the best machines sound like you got bad signal transistors...the list goes on.

[thestoat]

Digi cams have come a long way, but even cheap 35mms take better pics, digi recording repalced analog tape and we have crappy color balance, motion and pixellating, digi music replaced analog and now the best recordings on the best machines sound like you got bad signal transistors...the list goes on.

I'm not sure these statements are true and they certainly don't paint the full picture. Here's my HO

1. Digi cams have come a long way, but even cheap 35mms take better pics
I disagree - decent digital SLRs take great pics. Even if the quality of the physical film was so much better (and I don't think it is - development on them effectively stopped a long time ago while CCD tech has been gathering pace for many years), there is the whole apparatus (camera internals) to consider,which have only been developed and improved upon with new cameras.
Don't forget: the average bloke in the street can easily copy a digital pic without loss of quality and the average bloke in the street can easily store a digital pic without loss of quality - not so analogue.

2. digi recording repalced analog tape and we have crappy color balance, motion and pixellating
Film gets damaged and degrades, introducing its own problems.
Don't forget: the average bloke in the street can easily copy a digital movie without loss of quality and the average bloke in the street can easily store a digital movie without loss of quality - not so analogue. And try seeking to a specific place with an analogue recording - digital is so much nicer and easier!

3. digi music replaced analog and now the best recordings on the best machines sound like you got bad signal transistors
No way. And many tests have been done comparing analogue music (via reel to reel, records, tapes, etc) against the humble ipod and the vast majority can't tell the difference (tests done in in high quality sound rooms - let alone in their car, house, bus, etc), and many of those that could preferred digital. And remember - this is comparing a £100 ipod with an analogue system costing much more.
Don't forget: the average bloke in the street can easily copy digital music without loss of quality and the average bloke in the street can easily store digital music without loss of quality - not so analogue, which will degrade. And in the real world, where we live, background noise is such that even if analogue was better, nobody would be able to tell. And try seeking to a specific place with an analogue recording 9remember fast forward on tape?) - digital is so much nicer and easier! And try carrying around 100,000 songs in high quality analogue...

[quaddriver]

Well these average blokes in the street certainly have an easier time of it, but that does not excuse the technology loss.

while digicams now operate in the 10-11mp range with affordability (mine is only 7.1) they still work on a finite set of pixels, whereas 'analog' (film) worked on the atomic level.

yes, copying and storing is easier, but copying and storing of grainy, non sharp images is still grainy, non sharp images.

film movies (which is what I meant about recording or even tape) have no counterpart in the digi world. That speed of light thiny allows us to shoot many many frames per second with no pixellating, which is governed by memory, buss and processor speed. Digital movies, tv, boradcasting are perhaps the WORST thing technology wise to happen. you cannot watch movies with dark scenes, you cannot watch movies with bright scenes, you cannot watch movies (or anything) with fast action. this is an improvement how? oh yeah, they can copy (pirate) and store (sell on ebay) movies easier.

As for music, all the 'tests' have shown is that people have blown out their hearing at eariler and earlier ages. you hear analog waves. always have, always will. It is why a piano is still preferred to an electric keyboard, even after 50+ years of development. digita storage is still at best a partial representation of this. I restore vintage audio equipment - stuff from the years when people gave a shit and it was the 3rd most expensive purchases they made. As such I attend, write about and review the equipment and sound quality. Todays utes, will never know a recording (of any music genre) that sounds like it did on stage, in the studio. R2R stuff, the mundane, at 19cm/s had a response to that of cds, without the 'pixellating' audio wise. 4 track phillips stuff (aka cassettes) did reach a nadir in the early-mid 90's with dolby b/c hx pro, a little late for the silver era, but this is only for the common man, high dollar units existed in the 70's and 80's that made the grade. vinyl, fuggetaboutit. A decent press on a great turntable was unmatched. speaks are about the only thing that got better, BUT they got rid of the low end preferring to fire the noise into the floor. just like in a concert right? Today those that know, prefer the constant rumblings of a valved class A amp over anything you can purchase. Me, being a solid state guy, prefer amps that require a periodic tuneup in the areas of voltage balance and idle currents that can give responses and distortion levels better (after 30+ years) than anything you are going to buy at best buy. (save perhaps the TOTL yamahas). CD players are a weird one, they finally got hte smoothing algorithms halfway decent, but the package is junk. essentially the motors in todays cd/dvd players go south in 2 years on average. but in a disposable society - who cares right? I leave you with this, aside from very ver yfew songs in which a telephone is in fact ringing (young lust, telephone line etc) a good recording, on an outstanding amp, into great speakers will have you reaching for the phone due to the artifacts in digital music. Cant get rid of them. This is what happens when you timeslice analog waves. And when you compress it (mp3, wma, whatever) it only gets worse.

[Sean]

I can only assume that your complaint about artifacts in digital audio when compared to analog audio was entirely tongue in cheek...

Although, I am in complete agreement when it comes to photography. It is unlikely that a digital image will ever be capable of recreating the perfect natural colour tones you can get with film.

[Joe Guy]

Although, I am in complete agreement when it comes to photography. It is unlikely that a digital image will ever be capable of recreating the perfect natural colour tones you can get with film.

Film photography increased in quality through time.

How could anyone believe that digital - or some new technology we've not yet developed - will never exceed the quality of film photography?

[Sean]

Film photography increased in quality through time.

How could anyone believe that digital - or some new technology we've not yet developed - will never exceed the quality of film photography?

Simply because of the techniques used Joe. Film photography recreates an image whereas digital photography copies them. Digital images attempt to recreate natural conditions artificially which is unlikely to ever be 100% accurate. It would be like saying that a painter could paint a scene as perfectly as a photograph without visible brush strokes etc (even on a microscopic level). The only advancements we have seen over time in digital photography have been in resolution. I expect that to continue.

I didn't mention a theoretical technology of the future either, just digital and film photography.

[Joe Guy]

I don't know, Sean.

"recreating" or "copying" an image is just a matter of semantics, in my opinion.

Unless you have an actual live scene, anything else is a copy, no matter what medium is used.

[Sean]

Not semantics Joe. Film photography uses light; the same medium used to create the live scene. Digital photograhy artificially colours pixels in an attempt to copy the hues and tones of the live scene. I wouldn't expect to get the same results from two such different techniques.

Film photography shows what it actually in the live scene. Digital photography shows what it perceives to be in the live scene. It may not sound like a big difference but it's an important one.

[Joe Guy]

I understand your opinion, Sean.

But, based on the leaps in technology we will undoubtedly be making, at some point the quality of a digitized photo in relation to a filmed photo will be indistinguishable.

It's already happened with music.

There are people who think analog music will never be improved upon and others who think analog has already been improved upon.

It's a matter of taste mixed with the inability of old timers to accept the fact that what they always believed is the best thing is not necessarily so nowadays.

[quaddriver]

I can only assume that your complaint about artifacts in digital audio when compared to analog audio was entirely tongue in cheek...

.

I can only assume you are stating you are hearing things?

You hear in analog every second of every day. If you are hearing artifacts, then see a Dr.

If you seriously want to discuss/learn something new, then hop over to the AK....you might even walk away with some decent equipment.

[Sean]

So we're talking about hearing rather than recorded sound now are we?

As for artifacts in analog sound recording, do a google search on 'hiss', 'pop' and 'click'. You might even learn something new.

[quaddriver]

So we're talking about hearing rather than recorded sound now are we?

As for artifacts in analog sound recording, do a google search on 'hiss', 'pop' and 'click'. You might even learn something new.

hiss pop and click are problems with the media. tape biasing and washing records remove this.

artifacts are transient sounds from the decoders failing to produce the desired result from the 0's amd 1's on the digital media, exacerbated by compression as I mentioned before.

[Sean]

Okay, so you've shown me that you don't actually know what sound artifacts are...

hiss pop and click are problems with the media. tape biasing and washing records remove this.

Would that be the analog media perchance?

Oh and do you really believe that you can effectively remove hiss, pop and click or otherwise re-master a recording using analog techniques without any adverse effect on the recording?

ETA: The usual argument from analog fanboys is that digital is too clean and clinical. I've never heard anybody try to argue the opposite before...

[quaddriver]

As I said, drop the tude cuz it will get you banned, come over to the AK, read a little. Not only do we discuss these things, and how to fix them, we most likely discuss these things with respect to what you have in your living room.

you would be wrong on your 'usual argument' quip.

btw - the 'audiophile' forums consider us 'low fi' (the best buy and ipod crap does not even count to them) and they dont use digital EITHER.

Of course it is kinda humorous that you correctly use the analog vs digital in your discussion of photos, but fail on audio....

so cmon over....join in the fun. You dont have to know the difference between class A or B or what IEC means or even how to measure DC offset (but it helps) to have fun.


NETA: all (sound wise) is for naught if your amp sucks btw. It is likely, your amp sucks. Dont feel bad, most by far do. the AK will give you buying directions as well. (for example, I own not 1 but 4 amps who have a phono section with 120db s/n - aka 120 decibel signal to noise ratio - from analog media. each are appx 30 years old) as for remastering without adverse effects....ever hear of the 'loudness war'?

todays records suck period. todays recordings of previous material suck worse.

[loCAtek]

Hey Fugi still has a blimp, man!





I have a personal picture of that, taken with Fugi film no less ...in Tokyo! B!tches!