Fuji and Kodak
- Thread starter Peter C.
- Start date
I dunno. I think it's a bit skewed. They talk about Fuji winning an Oscar for technical achievement. Kodak has nine including the one that they got the year after Fuji's win. EDIT actually looks they have 35 oscars! https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/awards and 13 Emmys.
Guess what their most recent Emmys was for?
"2000-01 Eastman Kodak Company - For development of 24P video."
https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/awards
I was friends with people at Kodak. They made some stupid decisions...Like Fuji they attempted to diversify. It's just they bet on the wrong things. At least Fuji was making lenses that could be used on digital cameras.
The story my former Kodak sales rep told me about was printers. Kodak went all in on printers. Figuring they knew a few things about color technology. They neglected to realize all the money was in the ink, not the printer itself. They had someone else making their ink for them and focussed solely on making the actual printers...that used someone else's ink.
The same rep told me that when Kodak went bust, the ONLY division that was actually profitable was the motion picture imaging division. They were trying all these idiotic things and they were all failing. Kodak had a zillion patents and were early pioneers in digital imaging, but they squandered their advantages. I mean Dr Bryce Bayer was working FOR KODAK when he came up with the BAYER CFA for CMOS sensor design. CMOS BAYER sensors were patented and invented by Kodak.
Some of the first digital VFX and post / cinema scanning workflows were from Kodak made Cinesite labs. These were like photo labs but for filmmakers. They had custom scanners and they also invented a codec for scanning motion picture which was still kind of used until recently called "Cineon".
They made the first digital SLR too. The Kodak / Nikon DCS100.
So I'm not really buying the "Fuji was technically better" argument. They survived the transition better for sure, because Kodak was more interested in how well known their brand was instead of actually making stuff they could sell. Kodak was the most recognisable brand in the 80's and 90's. They got obsessed with their own name. They ended up thinking they could leverage their brand awareness as a label for things like home blank VHS tapes they never made or sunglasses or any junk that they didn't make but could be branded as Kodak. They never made any of this stuff, they just licensed the brand, like it was a lifestyle. They ate themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_Bayer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cineon
http://www.nikonweb.com/files/DCS_Story.pdf
Guess what their most recent Emmys was for?
"2000-01 Eastman Kodak Company - For development of 24P video."
https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/awards
I was friends with people at Kodak. They made some stupid decisions...Like Fuji they attempted to diversify. It's just they bet on the wrong things. At least Fuji was making lenses that could be used on digital cameras.
The story my former Kodak sales rep told me about was printers. Kodak went all in on printers. Figuring they knew a few things about color technology. They neglected to realize all the money was in the ink, not the printer itself. They had someone else making their ink for them and focussed solely on making the actual printers...that used someone else's ink.
The same rep told me that when Kodak went bust, the ONLY division that was actually profitable was the motion picture imaging division. They were trying all these idiotic things and they were all failing. Kodak had a zillion patents and were early pioneers in digital imaging, but they squandered their advantages. I mean Dr Bryce Bayer was working FOR KODAK when he came up with the BAYER CFA for CMOS sensor design. CMOS BAYER sensors were patented and invented by Kodak.
Some of the first digital VFX and post / cinema scanning workflows were from Kodak made Cinesite labs. These were like photo labs but for filmmakers. They had custom scanners and they also invented a codec for scanning motion picture which was still kind of used until recently called "Cineon".
They made the first digital SLR too. The Kodak / Nikon DCS100.
So I'm not really buying the "Fuji was technically better" argument. They survived the transition better for sure, because Kodak was more interested in how well known their brand was instead of actually making stuff they could sell. Kodak was the most recognisable brand in the 80's and 90's. They got obsessed with their own name. They ended up thinking they could leverage their brand awareness as a label for things like home blank VHS tapes they never made or sunglasses or any junk that they didn't make but could be branded as Kodak. They never made any of this stuff, they just licensed the brand, like it was a lifestyle. They ate themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_Bayer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cineon
http://www.nikonweb.com/files/DCS_Story.pdf
Last edited:
Peter C.
Veteran
The conclusion was that you had two companies good at making film. Fuji was able to recognize that they would need to diversify into other business to survive, while Kodak double down on imaging and sold off their divisions..
The money was in selling the consumables whether that be film for cameras or ink for printers. There are many big companies like Kodak who aren't able to change with the times.
The money was in selling the consumables whether that be film for cameras or ink for printers. There are many big companies like Kodak who aren't able to change with the times.
I disagree. Kodak was trying to diversify. They just blew it. They just went with using their BRAND as the thing they were trying to sell.