After inventing first digicam, Kodak still recovering from late-entry to market
posted September 11th 2005 7:00PM
Hindsight is 20/20, which is why it's so easy to claim that Kodak, inventors of the first digital camera (a 0.1 megapixel beast that makes your cameraphone look like a Hasselblad), made a huge blunder in its meandering transition from film to digital. In Thursday's USA Today that camera's inventor, Steven Sasson, reveals its humble beginnings as well as the reason Kodak waited to make its play in digital. Sasson jury-rigged his 8-pound monster in 1975 from a variety of off-the-shelf components including Fairchild Semiconducter's new CCD chips. The first pic he shot took 23 seconds to register on cassette and another 23 to output to a television monitor. Negative feedback he got from his superiors on the cumbersome setup and poor-image quality kept Kodak from releasing a consumer digital camera until 2001, although their research did much to help Japanese manufacturers take an early lead with their own models. Since then, Kodak has managed to catapult to number one in U.S. digicam sales, although 100,000 employees have lost their jobs since 1988 as a result of film's decline.
Update: You all were right and the USA Today/Engadget collaborative was wrong. Kodak released their first consumer digital camera, the DC40, in 1995, and not 2001 as the post claims.
Thats because of Kodak as a name-brand. Susie household goes to buy a digital camera. She sees Sony, her TV company, Nikon, most likely never heard of it, Casio, they make those cheap watches, and Kodak...the film she has been using since a child...which do you think she will pick?
I don't get it.... I bought a Kodak DC210+ in 1999, and it was definitely marketed as a consumer camera. It wasn't even the first Kodak consumer digital camera.
raindog: It's very simple. The USA Today author of that article does not, in fact, know anything about digital photography, or Kodak.
I had a Kodak DC40 camera in 1995 or 1996. VGA resolution, around $700 or so, serial output, no LCD, no zoom. Expensive, sure, but it was about as consumer level as you could get.
At the time, Kodak also made high end modifications of Nikon and Canon cameras. Kodak didn't ignore digital, they just didn't do that well at it for awhile.
Just to let you guys know, you botched the URL on the pic. It says "invalid URL" whenever I click on it.
And Kodak was also behind the first Apple Quicktake Cameras...
gopi - I noticed the same thing - this will most certainly be a correction in tomorrow's USA Today
Look at the guy's smile in the picture. It's like he's thinking, "What a giant mound of crap this thing is."
#6: I'm sure all inventors think that when they create their clunky first generation inventions.
I too had a Kodak DC40 in 1996 and it was defintely a consumer digital camera... bought at Egg Head. And now that I live in the Land of Kodak (Rochester, NY) I feel that it is important that people understand that they were definitely in the digital camera market atleast 5 years before this article says so. Damn you USA Today.
Being from Rochester, I can attest to the nervousness of the employees since 1988. My father has been fortunate enough to dodge each round of layoffs so far. They actually shut down his section of research and development, which dealt with developing various chemicals that went into film. Kodak has almost completely given up on the development of new film products. They kept my dad to work on OLEDs for cameras and even larger screens for computers and TVs.
I am dumber for having actually clicked on that link. guess my ancient dc60 (may have been a dc65? can't remember the model) that I had in the mid 1990s didn't really exist. why is it that technical writers for major newspapers are so inept? that a major newspaper can publish an article with facts that patently false is amazing. my mom would have caught that one and she's pushing 60 (and also used consumer kodak digital cameras in the '90s)
Kodak is just another incompetent American company.
its pretty stupid for usa today not to get their facts straight.. and engadget is even dumber for copy/pasting an article they obviously didnt double check.
hey, engadget.. if you're gonna rip off stuff from other websites, can you at least make sure the stuff written on there is correct?
referencing = ripping off?
Tell me more.
It has that IBM boss in the 1940s saying that "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" (near enough) feel about it.
Yes, I have a Kodak next to me right now, and im certain my dad bought it before 2000. And he bought the kodak for the reasons #1 posted.
Anyway, i dont really think that was the point of engadget posting this article, i mean, look at the size of that camera! Its huge! But strangely its retroly beutiful. I wish i could see a photo from it
Anybody have a link to a picture from this camera?
It kind of sucks that they didn't post a sample of that camera's output but I suppose this was a fluff piece and not a technical article.
That being said, I was mulling over a similar situation last week:
I'm guilty (as I'm sure lots of others are) of assuming that a particular technology will never exist or never be small enough to fit in a laptop or never become cheap enough to be come ubiquitous.
Example: DVD writers were introduced as $1000 devices that could write single-sided discs slowly. In a few years, they have turned into $35 devices that can write double-layer discs extremely fast. They have also shrunk enough to be stuck inside of a sub-notebook. In fact, they have shrunk enough to fit inside a tiny video camera.
With an analogy like that, it can be applied to pretty much anything. As long as the market wants a particular technology it can be made better, cheaper, faster, and smaller.
I don't blame the Kodak execs for shunning this technology. In 1975 there wasn't ANY of the tech we take for granted today. You couldn't take your 1 gig SD card out of your camera, put it in your USB 2.0 media reader, import the 5 megapixel images to your 3 gigahertz computer, edit them and then print them out on your photo quality 6 color inkjet printer. You had a 2 mhz Altair with 256 bytes of ram that you had to put together yourself!
Given the state of computer technology back then - where you generally had to code your own OS just to use your computer - there's almost no way to be forward thinking enough to say, "We should back this tech because we'll be come filthy rich!" They were probably thinking, "We make a shitload of money selling paper, processing film and chemicals, lets torpedo this and stick to what we know because that makes bucks."
I was just as amazed when CD burners came out and were shrunk down to fit inside a laptop and how a digital camera could be so small as to fit inside a cell phone. Although I always thought that 640k wasn't enough for anyone.
In Sept 1994 I took my 2nd gen Apple Quicktake camera on vacation to Hawaii. It had no removable media so I took along an Apple Duo laptop with it's dock and an NEC Multisync 17" monitor (both of which I had fitted into a cardboard box blown full of foam). I would roam around with the Quicktake taking pictures in sets of 16 high rez 640x480 pictures and then pull the Duo out of a back pack and DL them images out of the camera. When I'd get back to the Ritz Carlton (Kona and K'annapali) I'd put the Duo in it's dock and view my daily take using the NEC.
One after noon I got jumped by a more brawn than brains type whom thought I'd been shooting pictures of his bikini clad girlfriend. He wanted my film and was confused when I patiently explained I had no film. As I explained how the camera worked I "slipped up" and told him one down side was I had to get the pictures out before the batteries went dead (a lie) and he then promptly demanded my batteries. He triumphantly returned to his girlfriend with the 4 AA batteries and later that day I was viewing a couple choice shots... :-)
The image sensor, image processor and image compression format were all Kodak, and there were several prominently placed Kodak logos involved with the device. When Kodak introduced their own camera the next year (DC40) Apple exited the market.
I also had one of the first gen Apple Quicktakes and used it during 1993 to snap pix. It also was based on a Kodak sensor, processor and file compression but its 640x480 high rez mode wasn't err very 640x480-ish...
In August, 1981, Sony released the Sony Mavica electronic still camera, the camera which was the first commercial electronic camera. Images were recorded onto a mini disc and then put into a video reader that was connected to a television monitor or color printer.
I used to work for Kodak and was let go as a result of one of the many downsizing in 2004. Kodak is not an incompetent company!! It was a haven on earth.. The company promoted people on merit and treated their employees extremely well. Yes, times are tough all over and technology is changing rapidly. Kodak has always been on top; it will be no different for digital.
I used to work for Kodak and was let go as a result of one of the many downsizing in 2004. Kodak is not an incompetent company!! It was a haven on earth.. The company promoted people on merit and treated their employees extremely well. Yes, times are tough all over and technology is changing rapidly. Kodak has always been on top; it will be no different for digital.