Fears about Kodak filing for Bankruptcy

[gregbradley]

You better buy your dream astro camera soon otherwise there is a chance you'll need a chip from some other manufacturer.

Almost all astro cameras are using Kodak CCD sensors.

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbu...nkruptcy-fears

Sensors from other manufacturers like E2V, Fairchild are very expensive.

Greg.

[Marke (Mark)]

There is still Sony

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Kodak !! Jeez, almost unbelievable to me, really. A brand since 1888 !! And 19000 employees. I think the earth moved, no joke.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Marke

There is still Sony

Yes that is true. But Sony seem to specialise in smaller chips. I know they have a 10mp chip now but I don't know how it stacks up against the Kodak chips. I suspect not well. Kodak do 9 and 5.5 micron pixelled chips mainly. The 9 micron pixelled cameras are superb for astro. So is teh 8300 and possibly the other 5.5 micron pixelled chips. Sony though - don't they make like 3.5 micron pixelled cameras? This may be good for planetary but probably not very good for the "average" scope which seems to run best on 9 microns and faster scopes - 5.5 microns.

Small pixels mean higher noise, lower sensitivity, lower well depth (how quickly they overexpose) and poor matching of optics to seeing for the average user who has average to poor seeing.

9 microns works for everyone as witness the STL11 and the huge number of superb images with every scope known to man. The 8300 chip is proving to be good with a large number of scopes (not all) and the ST10 was supreme for many years.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Marke

There is still Sony

Originally Posted by GeoffW1

Kodak !! Jeez, almost unbelievable to me, really. A brand since 1888 !! And 19000 employees. I think the earth moved, no joke.

Well lets hope its all hype. Huge companies like this have a way of persisting even when in trouble.

I guess the shift from film to digital hasn't been as smooth as it could have been.

Greg.

[marki]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Sony though - don't they make like 3.5 micron pixelled cameras? This may be good for planetary but probably not very good for the "average" scope which seems to run best on 9 microns and faster scopes - 5.5 microns.

Small pixels mean higher noise, lower sensitivity, lower well depth (how quickly they overexpose) and poor matching of optics to seeing for the average user who has average to poor seeing.


Greg.

Greg are you reffering to mono only? Sony make a 14.2 mp chip with 5 x 5 um pixels, the ICX 453 has 7.8 x 7.8 pixels, ICX 493 has 6 x 6 and ICX 429 AL has 8.6 x 8.6. The Sony chips are much cleaner and many users don't bother with darks, it is the Kodak chips which have a lot of noise. If Kodak does go down the Sbend I imagine sony would pick up the slack anyway.

Mark

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by marki

......... The Sony chips are much cleaner and many users don't bother with darks, it is the Kodak chips which have a lot of noise. If Kodak does go down the Sbend I imagine sony would pick up the slack anyway.

Mark

Due its small pixels., that 14.2mp Sony sensor is no where near as large as say a KAF16803. (approx 22mm vs 38mm). Well depths are also lacking.

I'm also of the opinion Sony's lack of noise is artificial...Sony chips constantly bleed charge to achieve this.

I've yet to be shown how a thermally liberated electron can be distinguished from the photon liberated variety. At least with Kodak chips you get the option of deciding what to do about the signal + noise.

(..plus why oh why, do Sony only publish "relative" QE specs...or has that changed recently?)

Kodak going broke would be a very sad day for amateur CCD imaging.

[OzRob (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Kodak going broke would be a very sad day for amateur CCD imaging.

Hopefully that side of the business is profitable. If so someone will buy it should the company be liquidated.

[marki]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Due its small pixels., that 14.2mp Sony sensor is no where near as large as say a KAF16803. (approx 22mm vs 38mm). Well depths are also lacking.

I'm also of the opinion Sony's lack of noise is artificial...Sony chips constantly bleed charge to achieve this.

I've yet to be shown how a thermally liberated electron can be distinguished from the photon liberated variety. At least with Kodak chips you get the option of deciding what to do about the signal + noise.

(..plus why oh why, do Sony only publish "relative" QE specs...or has that changed recently?)

Kodak going broke would be a very sad day for amateur CCD imaging.

Peter they are 24 x 16 with a well depth of 32ke so much of what you say is true, however, having used chips from both manufacturers the Sony is definately less noisy then the Kodak regardless of the means they have used to achieve that. Problem with the Sony's is they dont make useful sized chips in mono and you are stuck with a OSC. Like you I don't want to see Kodak disappear but it will not be the end of the amature imaging world if they do.

Mark

[Alchemy (Clive)]

Supply, demand .

If kodak goes under someone else will fill the gap, plus if it's liquidated the chip side of the business will be up for grabs by someone.... Thats what liquidation does sells off useful parts of a business to the highest bidder.

SPC in sheparton is closing, but you will still be able to get canned peaches from brazil, or some other third world country. ( not ideal I know )

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by marki

Greg are you reffering to mono only? Sony make a 14.2 mp chip with 5 x 5 um pixels, the ICX 453 has 7.8 x 7.8 pixels, ICX 493 has 6 x 6 and ICX 429 AL has 8.6 x 8.6. The Sony chips are much cleaner and many users don't bother with darks, it is the Kodak chips which have a lot of noise. If Kodak does go down the Sbend I imagine sony would pick up the slack anyway.

Mark

Yes I was referring to mono.

Kodak also now are selling their True Sense one shot colour which sounds like they are a step forward from the Bayer Matrix one shot colour.

Perhaps its part of Kodaks problem. Sony make these little small chips that are probably great for Mobile Phone cameras where the massive demand is whereas Kodak make the big chips that are so good for astroimaging.

But that is a good point, someone else would simply buy the chip part of the business. But they may raise prices a lot if they did??

Greg.

[Marke (Mark)]

Actually Sony also makes chips for other manufactures such as Nikon
where they have been used in quite a few DSLR .

[gregbradley]

Its conjecture, but possibly part of the problem for Kodak as it is for all the DSLR makers as well, is that more and more people are using their mobile phone as their camera and not buying point and shoots as much anymore. Apparently this is the market trend. Makes sense. Mobile phone cameras are getting better with each new model.

DSLRs whilst hi-tech are also very bulky and inconvenient to lug around.

Greg.

[Marke (Mark)]

Actually my point was that Sony will make CCDs to order for 3rd parties
so in the absence of Kodak how ever unlikely there may still be options
and other companies may step up or buy Kodak's tech and continue production. Who knows we may end up with better cameras and a paradigm
shift

[gregbradley]

Good point.

Greg.

[Alchemy (Clive)]

Given technological advances are still happening at an advanced rate, even if kodak drops out, other companies chips will eventually supersede the quality and performance even if they are at a substandard now.

29 megapixel cameras are now or soon to be coming out, some of you have bought 16 megapixel cameras, it all changes so quickly.

[Peter Ward]

Sorry, I simply don't agree with "bigger, cheaper and better" being supplied by whom-ever might step into Kodak's commercial shoes...well apart from the cheaper bit

Some technologies are very vertical...and in case your name is Gilligan, you could be excused for missing the bean counter induced demise of, well let's take aerospace, the SR-71, Concorde and Space Shuttle...with zippo following in their footsteps.

Your average Joe just doesn't need a 39Mp sensor. Those that do ( have a real need...eg. medical imaging ) might soon find themselves paying a truckload more for some very specialized technology... They can afford it.
Just look at the prices Fairchild and similar are charging already.

As for backyard astronomer-imagers.... Interesting times ahead....

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Sorry, I simply don't agree with "bigger, cheaper and better" being supplied by whom-ever might step into Kodak's commercial shoes...well apart from the cheaper bit

Some technologies are very vertical...and in case your name is Gilligan, you could be excused for missing the bean counter induced demise of, well let's take aerospace, the SR-71, Concorde and Space Shuttle...with zippo following in their footsteps.

Your average Joe just doesn't need a 39Mp sensor. Those that do ( have a real need...eg. medical imaging ) might soon find themselves paying a truckload more for some very specialized technology... They can afford it.
Just look at the prices Fairchild and similar are charging already.

As for backyard astronomer-imagers.... Interesting times ahead....

Peter, Peter. Your reply here is to say the least short sighted. If a market exists for CCD's in the sizes manufactured by Kodak I feel sure someone somewhere will fill the void and not at the prices asked for by Fairchild etc. The market will eventually settle whatever the end result of the proposed Kodak demise. Kodak are far from basic in their pricing of CCD's as it stands today and I am certain some Chineese company is already looking at the demise of Kodak and planning their own move into this market. Kodak were not making these CCD's because there was no margin in their manufacture but quite the opposite and be it Sony or some as yet unknown group, the legacy of the Kodak CCD development and patents will be sold on to someone who can see value in it.
Prices may vary a bit but in the end it will stabalise where ever the market dictates.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Hagar

Peter, Peter. Your reply here is to say the least short sighted. If a market exists for CCD's in the sizes manufactured by Kodak I feel sure someone somewhere will fill the void and not at the prices asked for by Fairchild etc. ......

Sorry, that's a crock.

There are simply not that many 6" or larger wafer IC foundies..a requirement for big chip CCD's...on planet earth. There are graveyards full of superior technologies that simply didn't make it due market forces.
(BetaMax, Commodore Amiga to name a couple)

Chinese technology...is frankly not cutting edge. Maybe in time...but I'm not getting any younger.

Kodak supply sensors for a wide array of applications. Astronomy, unfortunately is not part of the "wide" bit.

The fact that we still have CCD's rather than all CMOS is something to be thankful for.

As for the Astronomy market...To put this into persepective:

A medical imaging firm (who will remain nameless) wanted some back- illuminated sensors a few years back...couldn't get them through normal production, so the purchased *the entire CCD foundry*... got all the sensors they needed.

If you were an astronomy equipment supplier....well that was just tough....get to the back of the queue

I am of the firm opinion that Astronomy is way too vertical a market to create demand for bigger-better-cheaper sensors. At best we can only hope to hang off whatever market is willing to pay the bucks for bigger/better sensors.

So guess we'll agree to dis-agree

[gregbradley]

Whatever the outcome it may be prudent to plan that big chip camera sooner rather than later just in case of a negative outcome. I am sure Kodak can't live off selling patents forever.

Greg.