Mark Allen Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 If you're curious to hear a first hand opinion on the the first images off the "mysterium" sensor - check out Mike Curtis's latest blog entry: http://www.hdforindies.com/ direct link: http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/08/hd4nds-...-mike-sees.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arni Heimir Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 If it materializes, I think it could be the DV revolution all over again. But most filmmakers are doggedly conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 6, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 6, 2006 It's not the sensor so much that is the challenge, it's recording the data, especially if it is 4K. Look how many years it took for 4:4:4 HD to become (barely) practical -- and I have yet to be able to do it on any of my HD productions. With indie people having troubles wrapping their heads around recording the 720P output of the HVX200 to P2 cards or Firestore devices, imagine them handling 4 to 6 times the data, every day, day after day. All-4K workflows aren't even common in major Hollywood studio productions yet. I suspect most indie people will be using the RED camera as a 1080P camera given the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rizos Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I especially like the part where the authur says he examined the picture at one foot, on 30 inch cinema display, and saw no trace of gain/grain/noise. That link is nothing more than a solicitation for more deposits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) It's not the sensor so much that is the challenge, it's recording the data, especially if it is 4K. David... you are too funny. Wasn't it you who said earlier that the sensor was impossible? If it wasn't you, please forgive me. I heard it 10,000 times. It is so hard to keep track. We still have our hands full. David is right. This is a tough project. Just the way we like it. But the biggest hurdle WAS the sensor. And we are excited to show what we are seeing from it. Jim Edited August 7, 2006 by jannard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allen Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 Knowing David from the forums and once in person, whatever he said was probably very conservative and polite - at most cautionary - unlikely inciniary. I actually think that the resolution people choose to shoot at will depend on if there is a super nice codec that can be handled by the post production process - that said - I think if the 1080 looked great, the indies would still be thrilled. arnih - I'm hopeful and excited about the camera's future - but I don't know if it would be "the DV revolution all over again" because for most people $17,500 plus lenses is still going to be way out of the realm of possiblity. And most of the people doing DV movies are really not in the "rental" mindset. I don't think most of them realize how much more there is to a movie than the camera. For the people who shoot regular enough though the price is just in the realm of a purchase instead of rental. My reservation number is 89 (would have been lower had I been at NAB and not working) - and everytime I have to rent a camera now I shake my head thinking "Boy - if I only had this camera already." (And then I think... "Damn, I'll have to buy a tripod and a fluid head.... and should I buy some track... geeze... what about...?" ;) I think if they achieve their goal they will for a time own a huge segment of the professional demographic (professional meaning a production where people are being paid for their work). I would imagine that many TV shows that had a meeting about switching off film or that are already on HD would convert. I would imagine nearly every indie movie with a remote budget will convert. I don't think, though, that it will be in the hands of filmmakers who are doing movies like "Tarnation" - but definitely the choice of people doing films like "Me, You and Everyone We Know" (and all the InDigEnt movies if they are still making them.) So more of a professional's revolution than a cultural revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2006 I don't know whether I said the sensor would be hard to make or not, but I don't think I said that. I've generally held the position that the real problem is real-time processing and recording of large amounts of high-resolution data. Of course you have to get the sensor to work too. But for years now, the question you always hear is "hey, how come I can take a 8-megapixel (or whatever) picture with my digital still camera but they can't make a video camera with that sensor?" And the answer is generally "try taking that 8 MP picture 24 times a second and record it in real time... and then record & store 86,400 frames at 8MP each for every hour of footage in the course of a day of shooting. And then do that for 20 or more days in a row..." I guess one of the questions on everyone's mind is how can you get such a sensor, which tend to be rather expensive to make, to be made cheaply enough to keep the cost of the camera at $17,000? I suspect the sensors in the Genesis, D20, and Dalsa cost a lot more than that. From what I gather, there is a high defect rate in sensor-making that requires economies of scale to keep the prices reasonable, and film cameras don't follow those sorts of economic models generally. And then the other question is how do you develop a 4K recorder that holds any decent amount of footage and make that cheaply enough to be sold to someone who only wants to pay $17,000 for a camera? I don't think anyone's questioning your ability to ultimately build a 4K camera, Jim, just that you could make and sell such a thing at those prices and see a profit. I also question the current tubular shape of the camera from an operator's point of view, but until you design all the internal elements, I assume that the outward shape is in flux so for now, I'm not sure it matters. Well, best of luck to you. Whatever comes of this venture, I'm sure it will push the industry forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Lasky Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I don't know whether I said the sensor would be hard to make or not, but I don't think I said that. You may not have said it, but I certainly did. Making digital cinematography sensors is hard. Really goddam hard. Good on 'em if they have a working 4K sensor, take it from me, they ain't easy to make. And you are correct: recording, storing and manipulating 4K data isn't easy either. Again, take it from me, I do it EVERY DAY. Alan Lasky DALSA Digital Cinema Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 With the RED camera you have lots of options for the data stream. RAW 4k if you choose the best and most difficult trick, 2K (easier to deal with) and various compression schemes and sizes that make the data much easier to handle. You are not stuck with the hose in the fully open position. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Mastrogiacomo Posted August 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2006 With the RED camera you have lots of options for the data stream. RAW 4k if you choose the best and most difficult trick, 2K (easier to deal with) and various compression schemes and sizes that make the data much easier to handle. You are not stuck with the hose in the fully open position. Jim Jim, Good luck with your camera. I really hopes it works and makes all the other manufacturers take note. There is nothing like competition to drive the industry forward. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Lasky Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 RAW 4k if you choose the best and most difficult trick, 2K (easier to deal with) and various compression schemes and sizes that make the data much easier to handle. You are not stuck with the hose in the fully open position. Yes, useful compression for production is a very difficult problem indeed. When I was a student at MIT's Media Lab many, many years ago we saw what the fourier transform, discrete cosine transform, and wavelet transform can do to images. Great for transmission, not so much for production and manipulation. These are all really, really difficult problems and there is no magic leprechaun that can solve them; just hard work and sweat. Alan Lasky DALSA Digital Cinema Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2006 The trick is to not use so much compression that it negates the point of shooting & recording more resolution, plus screws up your post color-correction needs. This is why I suspect most indie people will end up opting to work at 1080P resolution out of convenience's sake if they are trying to do the post themselves on a home set-up. Most people who want the higher quality from shooting 2K or 4K are also going to want the higher quality from recording with a minimal amount of compression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim Murdoch Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 David... you are too funny. Wasn't it you who said earlier that the sensor was impossible? If it wasn't you, please forgive me. I heard it 10,000 times. It is so hard to keep track. We still have our hands full. David is right. This is a tough project. Just the way we like it. But the biggest hurdle WAS the sensor. And we are excited to show what we are seeing from it. Jim Here's the $4,096 Dollar question Jim: What exactly do you mean by "4K"? Do you mean your raw CCD sensor has 4,096 x 2,304 pixels or thereabouts? (Which is the same as a 12.6 Megapixel still camera sensor but masked for 16 x 9) "Raw" as in the sensor itself without any colour masking. Given that in the world of film scanning "4K" means 4 thousand Red, 4 thousand Green and 4 thousand Blue samples across the width of the film, to be a true "4K" sensor it would need to have at least 12,288 pixels across its width. But I get the impression you mean 4K Bayer masked, which in practical terms would be closer to 2K RGB. (Which is still better than the bloody Dalsa which with most 35mm lenses is only going to be able to use around 3K of its touted 4K due to vignetting effects). And please don't send us any bloody 30 megabyte .tiff files of images which are about the equivalent of a 4 megapixel digital still camera JPEG compressed to about 600K! Don't get me wrong; an under-$20K 2K digital video camera would still be an incredible achievement; I just wish you'd tone down the hype a notch. I don't know why you aren't pitching these as surveillance cameras, surely that would be a much more lucrative market! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim Murdoch Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) I especially like the part where the authur says he examined the picture at one foot, on 30 inch cinema display, and saw no trace of gain/grain/noise.That link is nothing more than a solicitation for more deposits. Panavision's John Galt told me the same thing about Genesis images blown up to IMAX size! Yeah, there's no grain or noise; you could also get that by fiddling with the focus knob! No grain or noise, no fine detail either! Bollocks! Edited August 7, 2006 by Jim Murdoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanan DaSilva Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 We still have our hands full. David is right. This is a tough project. Just the way we like it. But the biggest hurdle WAS the sensor. And we are excited to show what we are seeing from it.Jim Congratulations on you sensor results, Jim. Having been through the excitement phase before, it only fair to warn you that first time sensor results are very much like beginners luck in Vegas. It's sucks you in with it's beauty and then it hits you later with the a myriad of problems to fix and work around (let alone the rest of the camera). Unless you're super lucky (likely you are :), the sensor is really one of those never ending hurdles. Welcome to the 4k sensor junkie club. Lot's of highs and lots of pain :) Deanan Dalsa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim Murdoch Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 You may not have said it, but I certainly did. Making digital cinematography sensors is hard. Really goddam hard. Good on 'em if they have a working 4K sensor, take it from me, they ain't easy to make. And you are correct: recording, storing and manipulating 4K data isn't easy either. Again, take it from me, I do it EVERY DAY. Alan Lasky DALSA Digital Cinema I've heard that for every PV Genesis sensor that worked, they had to throw away 600 faulty ones. So all else being equal, if your chances of getting a contiguous patch of 12 million pixels all working is one in 600, what are your chances of getting a contiguous patch of 48 million all working (which is what you'd need for a true 4K RGB camera)? A: 600 x 600 x 600 x 600 x 600 = about 129 billion! Ah exponential nature, she can be such a bitch!! I've heard that for every PV Genesis sensor that worked, they had to throw away 600 faulty ones. So all else being equal, if your chances of getting a contiguous patch of 12 million pixels all working is one in 600, what are your chances of getting a contiguous patch of 48 million all working (which is what you'd need for a true 4K RGB camera)? A: 600 x 600 x 600 x 600 x 600 = about 129 billion! Ah exponential nature, she can be such a bitch!! Sorry, that's 600 x 600 x 600 x 600! Not as hard as you thought :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanan DaSilva Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Given that in the world of film scanning "4K" means 4 thousand Red, 4 thousand Green and 4 thousand Blue samples across the width of the film, to be a true "4K" sensor it would need to have at least 12,288 pixels across its width. But I get the impression you mean 4K Bayer masked, which in practical terms would be closer to 2K RGB. (Which is still better than the bloody Dalsa which with most 35mm lenses is only going to be able to use around 3K of its touted 4K due to vignetting effects). Since this is one of those continuing troll type questions, I'll take the bait. The lenses that tend not to cover are the wides at about 24mm and below(say on the Ultra Primes). Likewise, with a larger sensor, the FOV is different, so a 20mm at ~55deg in acad 1.85:1 is about equivalent to using a 32mm in on the Origin (52.8 deg at 1.85 subtended out of the 2:1). With the 1.85:1 extraction you get 3789x2048, you cut off the sides which means you can then go down to a 20mm lens (or ~76deg FOV which is something like a 16mm academy fov). The MasterPrimes have even better coverage but we've been waiting for our sets for 8 months now so we haven't been able to fully test the coverate. Of course, if you're shooting for a 2:35 extraction, then the vignetting is even less of an issue because you're chopping off even more of top/bottom. The increased size of the sensor pixels also improves the dynamic range which in my opinion is far more important than meeting arbitrary pixel counts or even resolution for that matter. I'd take a 4k bayer sensor with more dynamic range any day over a 2k cosited (ala foveon) sensor with less dynamic range and clipped highlights. For those that want to shoot the full frame, we're building two different custom types lens sets based on still camera lenses that have full coverage. Without mentioning names, you probably already know who else has been building most of their prized lenses out of stills glass for many many years. Just curious Jim, do you have 4K bayer image and 4K film scan that shows that a 4K bayer looks like 2k? Alternatively, how about a 4K bayer image next to a 2k film scan or a ~2k 3ccd Viper image that shows the 4K bayer image to look the same as the 2K image? Am I on crazy pills or is it not obvious that a 4k "bayer" sensor is just that and that's why it's called a 4k sensor? It's not called a 4K with three samples per pixel sensor, is it? And what about importance of luminance information versus chroma information or a good bayer reconstruction algorithm or the broad spectral response of each biased pixel that is so easy to ignore when saying 4k bayer = 2k rbg? Gonna have to update my crazy pills perscription... BTW, I've always wondered why no one mentions the lenses in most "4K" scanners adding yet another layer of lens degradation when talking about "true 4K". Deanan Dalsa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanan DaSilva Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I've heard that for every PV Genesis sensor that worked, they had to throw away 600 faulty ones. So all else being equal, if your chances of getting a contiguous patch of 12 million pixels all working is one in 600, what are your chances of getting a contiguous patch of 48 million all working (which is what you'd need for a true 4K RGB camera)? FYI, it's next to impossible to get a perfect sensor. There will always be dead pixels, hot pixels, or weak pixels that have to compensated for (within reasonable limits of course). Don't forget, your true 4K camera is now recording 3x times as much data as the 4K bayer camera and 3x the data on your servers and 3x the data in your archives. In our case, we go from ~400MB/s at 24fps to ~1200MB/s (16bit bayer vs 16bit RGB). If we're lucky, we'll see a true rgb 4k sensor in 5 years or so and by then shooting 1200MB/s will be a piece of cake :) Deanan Dalsa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim Murdoch Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) Since this is one of those continuing troll type questions, I'll take the bait. Excuse me; in normal Internet Forum parlance a "Troll" is somebody who posts statements he doesn't really believe, simply to get a rise out of more "serious" posters. To me the mixing of the terms "4K" as in "4K scanned film" and "4K" as in "a 4K Bayer-filtered sensor" is at best misleading, and at worst downright deceitful. I believe that most emphatically. ust curious Jim, do you have 4K bayer image and 4K film scan that shows that a 4K bayerlooks like 2k? Alternatively, how about a 4K bayer image next to a 2k film scan or a ~2k 3ccd Viper image that shows the 4K bayer image to look the same as the 2K image? Well, as it happens, no I don't. But then, I'm not trying to flog the technology; you are. Over the last 20 years or so I've been subjected to numerous eye-rollingly-bad demonstrations of supposedly "better than film" HD demonstrations. They all said much the same things. As I've yet to see any Origin footage up on the big screen; I suppose you expect me to reserve judgement. Like I did with the Genesis, even though from day one I couldn't see what was going to make that camera so much better than its predecessors. Put up or shut up. And what about importance of luminance information versus chroma information ora good bayer reconstruction algorithm or the broad spectral response of each biased pixel that is so easy to ignore when saying 4k bayer = 2k rbg? OK, so why did Sony/Panavision go to so much trouble to avoid doing that with the Genesis? They could have had the same sized chip with a smaller number of much bigger CCD elements, which would have improved both the manufacturing yield and the sensitivity, or they could have had a much higher-definition camera using the same chip. Oh I see, their algorithms aren't as good as yours. BTW, I've always wondered why no one mentions the lenses in most "4K" scanners adding yet another layer of lens degradation when talking about "true 4K". Well, could it have something to do with the fact that a telecine lens doesn't really go anywhere during its operational life, it doesn't need anything more than a fairly elementary focussing mechanism since it's only ever focussed on one thing, and it doesn't get banged around in a flight case or dropped by hung-over camera assistants, so its original precision manufacture tends to remain where it was set. Also it doesn't need to be particularly fast, and so it can be optimized for best image quality. In any event, the losses in the lens would be pretty insignificant compared to what is lost in the optical low-pass filter that both telecines AND video cameras use. FYI, it's next to impossible to get a perfect sensor. There will always be dead pixels, hot pixels,or weak pixels that have to compensated for (within reasonable limits of course). Deanan Dalsa I am well aware of that. A "workable" sensor means basically: "one that can be made to work" by using whatever lookup-table jiggery-pokery is available to the manufacturer. Have you ever seen what comes off even a standard definition sensor when all the "makeup" is removed? You certainly can apply correction on a pixel-by-pixel basis but that limits the dynamic range of the sensor, as you will be well aware. But it's nice to get all these dirty little secrets out in the open isn't it? Takes some of the mystery out of why Digital Cinematography hasn't exactly set the world on fire :P Edited August 7, 2006 by Jim Murdoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Lasky Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Algorithms. "Put up or shut up." Whatever. Let's see what else might be "setting the world on fire," Shall we: _______________________________________________ Kodak Posts 2Q Loss, Will Cut 2,000 Jobs AP NEWS WIRE Aug 2, 2006, 10:24 Eastman Kodak Co. posted its seventh quarterly loss in a row on Tuesday and moved to axe 2,000 more jobs as it continues to move away from its waning film business, reports the Associated Press. Its shares tumbled nearly 14 percent to their lowest close in 15 years. Due to $214 million in restructuring costs, Kodak lost $282 million, 98 cents a share, in the April-June quarter, close to double its loss of $155 million, or 54 cents a share, in last year's second quarter. Stung by a continuing rapid slide in sales of silver-halide film, Kodak's revenues fell 9 percent to $3.36 billion from $3.69 billion a year ago. Excluding one-time items, Kodak lost $54 million, or 19 cents a share. With digital-imaging sales now outpacing those from film, paper and other chemical-based products, the 126-year-old company is trying to find ways to spin out larger profits from its dominance in the digital imaging market. Kodak said Tuesday it is shifting manufacturing of digital cameras to Flextronics International Ltd. and transferring 550 employees to the Singapore-based company. Those will be among 2,000 jobs that Kodak is aiming to eliminate by the end of next year ? on top of 22,000 to 25,000 jobs already targeted since January 2004. Kodak did not disclose where the other layoffs would be made, but analysts think most are associated with its tightening of global sales operations and its $1.8 billion buyouts last year of Canada's Creo Inc. and Sun Chemical Corp.'s 50 percent stake in Kodak Polychrome Graphics. Kodak's stock fell $3.05, or 13.7 percent, to close at $19.20 on the New York Stock Exchange ? its lowest close since it finished at $19.17 on July 24, 1991. More than 50 percent of the shares are owned by long-term institutional investors. In the quarter, overall digital sales rose 6 percent to $1.83 billion, while revenues from film, paper and other traditional, chemical-based businesses slumped 22 percent to $1.52 billion. Profits from digital businesses totaled $4 million, compared with a $25 million loss in last year's second quarter. Kodak reaffirmed that it expects to post an overall operating loss of $500 million to $850 million in 2006 and earn $350 million to $450 million from digital operations. But it lowered its forecast for digital sales growth to around 10 percent from a range of 16 percent to 22 percent. Kodak predicts that by the end of next year the majority of its restructuring costs will be behind them. Kodak has already cut 20,500 jobs, including 1,630 in the quarter. The shutdown of film and other manufacturing operations looks likely to drop its global work force below 50,000, down from 75,100 in 2001 and a peak of 145,300 in 1988. The company acknowledged in 2003 that its analog businesses were in irreversible decline and outlined an ambitious strategy to become a digital heavyweight in photography, medical imaging and commercial printing by 2007. __________________________________________________ Let's enter the real world of shareholders, quarterly loss sheets, and 'institutional investors.' As my Jamaican friends say, Jim: "Soon come." Alan Lasky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted August 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2006 The lenses that tend not to cover are the wides at about 24mm and below(say on the Ultra Primes). This is not an insignificant limitation. A sizeable number of filmmakers do the bulk of their work at that angle and wider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2006 A very simple de-Bayering algorithim would just end up with half as many pixels for green info and a quarter for red and blue, but apparently you can do better than that with a smarter algorithim since there is some residual color info for the other two colors at each pixel site, plus one can make good guesses as to the pixels color by looking at the surrounding pixels. Panavision's chip, since it is made up of RGB stripes, does use a simple algorithim for extracting the three colors, hence why a 12MP sensor is only designed to yield a 2MP image per color (4:4:4 HD.) Anyway, the Dalsa has a 4K Bayer-filtered sensor and they process the output to end up with 4K RGB and they do it with an algorithim that calculates the missing color info at the pixel site, so I can live with their claim of it being a 4K camera, although "practically" speaking, it may or may not be more like a 3K image -- but it really depends on how you define "resolution" at that point. I suppose you'd have to shoot a rez chart under three different filters and separate it into 4K RGB files and compare the resolution difference per channel. But the truth is that film does not create images on each color layer of equal sharpness -- you scan the red info on film at 4K but it's not going to be as sharp and detailed as the 4K scan of the green or blue info. So is 35mm film truly "4K" for each color just because each color can be scanned at that resolution (or higher)? Even 4:4:4 HD photography generally yields sharper images when shot under red lighting. At some point, "practical" resolution can't be measured by pixel count anyway, but by things like MTF. I've seen 4K scans of 35mm 5248 (100T) compared to the Dalsa, shot outside, with frame enlargements to look at fine edge detail and grain, and practically speaking, the detail level is similar, which ultimately is what matters. So it's a 4K Bayer sensor that creates 4K RGB files and yields similarly detailed images as 35mm, whether or not is is technically a "4K image" (which technically it is). The ONLY thing you can really compare to that makes sense to settle this debate is a 4K Bayer-filtered image to something shot with separate RGB 4K sensors (or at least, make an all-green filtered 4K sensor) to measure the LOSS in resolution when de-Bayering the Bayer-filtered sensor image compared to not having to de-Bayer it. And there probably IS some loss in comparison, but I doubt it is by 50% if the algorithim is good enough. Right now the only camera with 4K pixels devoted to green info is the new Olympus prototype (which is still half the info for red and blue) so I suppose one could do a shoot-out comparing the green resolution in the Dalsa to the Olympus... it would be an academic exercise, but why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted August 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2006 FYI, it's next to impossible to get a perfect sensor. There will always be dead pixels, hot pixels,or weak pixels that have to compensated for (within reasonable limits of course). Deanan Dalsa One of the issues with the high resolution sensors are "dead pixels' caused by cosmic rays or energetic particles, that might be encountered when air-shipping the sensors/cameras during periods of intense solar storm activity or solar radiation storms: http://www.sec.noaa.gov/NOAAscales/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Johanson Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Algorithms. "Put up or shut up." Whatever. Let's see what else might be "setting the world on fire," Shall we:_______________________________________________ Kodak Posts 2Q Loss, Will Cut 2,000 Jobs AP NEWS WIRE Aug 2, 2006, 10:24 Eastman Kodak Co. posted its seventh quarterly loss in a row on Tuesday and moved to axe 2,000 more jobs as it continues to move away from its waning film business, reports the Associated Press. Its shares tumbled nearly 14 percent to their lowest close in 15 years. Due to $214 million in restructuring costs, Kodak lost $282 million, 98 cents a share, in the April-June quarter, close to double its loss of $155 million, or 54 cents a share, in last year's second quarter. Stung by a continuing rapid slide in sales of silver-halide film, Kodak's revenues fell 9 percent to $3.36 billion from $3.69 billion a year ago. Excluding one-time items, Kodak lost $54 million, or 19 cents a share. With digital-imaging sales now outpacing those from film, paper and other chemical-based products, the 126-year-old company is trying to find ways to spin out larger profits from its dominance in the digital imaging market. Kodak said Tuesday it is shifting manufacturing of digital cameras to Flextronics International Ltd. and transferring 550 employees to the Singapore-based company. Those will be among 2,000 jobs that Kodak is aiming to eliminate by the end of next year ? on top of 22,000 to 25,000 jobs already targeted since January 2004. Kodak did not disclose where the other layoffs would be made, but analysts think most are associated with its tightening of global sales operations and its $1.8 billion buyouts last year of Canada's Creo Inc. and Sun Chemical Corp.'s 50 percent stake in Kodak Polychrome Graphics. Kodak's stock fell $3.05, or 13.7 percent, to close at $19.20 on the New York Stock Exchange ? its lowest close since it finished at $19.17 on July 24, 1991. More than 50 percent of the shares are owned by long-term institutional investors. In the quarter, overall digital sales rose 6 percent to $1.83 billion, while revenues from film, paper and other traditional, chemical-based businesses slumped 22 percent to $1.52 billion. Profits from digital businesses totaled $4 million, compared with a $25 million loss in last year's second quarter. Kodak reaffirmed that it expects to post an overall operating loss of $500 million to $850 million in 2006 and earn $350 million to $450 million from digital operations. But it lowered its forecast for digital sales growth to around 10 percent from a range of 16 percent to 22 percent. Kodak predicts that by the end of next year the majority of its restructuring costs will be behind them. Kodak has already cut 20,500 jobs, including 1,630 in the quarter. The shutdown of film and other manufacturing operations looks likely to drop its global work force below 50,000, down from 75,100 in 2001 and a peak of 145,300 in 1988. The company acknowledged in 2003 that its analog businesses were in irreversible decline and outlined an ambitious strategy to become a digital heavyweight in photography, medical imaging and commercial printing by 2007. __________________________________________________ Let's enter the real world of shareholders, quarterly loss sheets, and 'institutional investors.' As my Jamaican friends say, Jim: "Soon come." Alan Lasky Who can we believe? I seem to recall John Pytlak saying that Kodak sold more film recently than ever before. It seems to me that the massive sales of film are the only thing keeping Kodak afloat. If they had to rely solely on their digital camera and sensor sales, they'd be far worse off than they are now. But naturally the crAP articles never mention that. Instead, they are always VERY obviously biased against film. What's dragging Kodak under? Not their film sales, but rather their insane expenditures to "go digital". Besides, even if Kodak is going under, I'm not surprised. I completely stopped using Kodak still film more than a year. I chose instead to use FujiFilm's still film products. In my opinion, their still film is superior and is significantly less expensive. For the price reasons alone, I'm surprised anybody buys Kodak still film anymore. FujiFilm also cares enough about their still film market to keep it updated with their latest technologies from motion picture stocks. They also don't discontinue great films left and right (which Kodak has always been doing, even before the "digital revolution"). FujiFilm continues to beat Kodak still films in every respect; whether it be image quality, speed, full product lineup, etc. Anyway, back to the Dalsa sensor. As Jim Murdoch has mentioned a few times, you're not going to get all of the supposed "4k" image size off of that sensor due to the oversized chip. Second, due to the fact that it is Bayer sampling, it is NOT going to give true 4k resolution anyway; even if you could use the whole chip. Simple physics and math dictate that the sensor can provide ABSOLUTELY no more than approximately 3k resolution under the most ideal conditions and no less than 2k under the worst conditions. Get your terms straight. It's ignorant people like you that created the megapixel myth that led people to believe they'd get more detail from their digital cameras than they are actually ending up with. And now thanks the blind acceptance of the term "megapixels" being used for Bayer-based sensor produced images, we now seem to be permanently stuck with a misleading term. And now the "digital revolution" is trying to drag a misleading term into the motion picture indutry. A color-blind photodiode is NOT a pixel; no matter what kind of color interpolation algorithm you try to use on it. Next up, let's consider the effect of that high-strength low-pass filter being used on the Origin. That has a far greater effect on sharpness and image quality than a film scanner lens will ever have. Oh, but that's right, you MUST have that low pass filter to quite literally blur the Bayer pattern induced artifacts out of the image. Even in spite of that, I can still quite easily see Bayer-demosaicing artifacts. And that brings up another point. Has anyone else noticed how inferior Dalsa's demosaicing algorithm is compared to Canon's, for example? I can quite easily see Bayer demosaicing artifacts in spite of their heavy low-pass filtering. At least Canon's images have edge artifacts that are more natural; such as edge halos rather than "color sparklies". I cannot believe how readily some people accept Bayer-based image sensing. Is that really the best electronic technology can provide after all this time?! "Dalsa: Fidelity Beyond Film"... What a joke! -Ted Johanson PS. How convenient that Dalsa could only post 2k latitude test images on their website. Their excuse is probably "4k images would be too big to download and we need to maintain full image quality by not compressing the images". JPEG compression is not a concern when all you are doing is displaying pre-corrected latitude tests. In reality, their "4k" latitude test images would really show off how noisy that sensor gets when underexposed. It's already blatanly obvious in the 2k samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted August 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2006 Ted: Yes, 2005 was a record year for Kodak motion-picture FILM volumes (well over 10 BILLION feet). And today, over half of Kodak's revenue is from DIGITAL imaging. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I can't speak to your experience in still films, but I do know that Kodak continues major R&D investment in motion-picture film technology, and has usually led the way in introducing improved film technologies (colored coupler masking, DIR couplers, high temperature processing, T-Grains, 2-electron sensitization, etc., etc.). We aren't "resting on our lauels" in film technology, and are one of the leaders in developing digital technology and applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts