Kodak demolishes building, cameras still kinda suck
By Ryan Block 
posted Jul 1st 2007 3:16AM
posted Jul 1st 2007 3:16AM
posted Jul 1st 2007 3:16AM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
bad joke, but good to get out of the realm of "iNews"
Best headline ever, lol.
Now I'm off to bed. Goodnight.
Everytime someone I know buys a non-disposable kodak 'digital camera' ... I cringe
but then I smile at idea of fairies floating around in their head sprinkling pixie dust.
I don't understand how this is relevant to the iPhone.
@ Dan.
Best comment ever!
that Kodak vid is pure gold.
I like Kodak. They do some killer R&D but they aren't exactly my first choice in digital cameras.
Very beautiful old over engineered building, they do not make them like they used to. It should have been turned in to apartments instead of being demolished. I also suspect it's replacement is already been built somewhere in Guangdong Province, China. America loses, Sad...
lmfao@your username. Irony is amusing.
It would be kind of hard to turn a building that is in the middle of an industrial park into apartments. Coming from someone who has lived within 5 miles of Kodak Park all my life, its nice to see them clearing space...but sad at the same time as that was once "the" place to work...now it's the place to get laid off from.
I am from Pittsburgh, some of the old Heinz Factory building are very similar and still they managed to convert them in to apartments. Yet they also produce Heinz products just a windows view away from your loft. The same has also been done with old General Mills red brick factories.
I cannot find it, but there are pictures on Wiki of the old General Mills Factory conversion.
My design teacher would yell anytime somebody said they wanted to "blow up" a picture.
I agree that kodaks current line of digital cameras are now quite on par with the rest, but i still have a lot of respect for them, they WERE pioneers.
I meant "not on par".
"Hey, so we blew up this building, so, like, check out our new printers, okay?"
WTF?
Kodak knows very well that their digital camera are crap. They use Nikon cameras.
http://www.kodak.com/US/images/en/corp/1000nerds/mackson/richard2.jpg
This is one of the cameras used to capture the implosion, shown on the image gallery page linked at the bottom of the page in Engadget's "Read" link.
Kodak and Nikon have been sharing technologies and parts for quite some time now. This doesn't come as a big surprise, as the first DSLRs Kodak made were 35mm Nikon cameras with a Kodak digital back. Seeing Nikons around the Kodak Park is nothing new to Rochestarians.
This is slightly off topic, but Kodak also provides Leica with the image sensor for the M8.
Yes, Kodak and Nikon have had a LONG relationship in integrating Kodak digital technology into Nikon SLR bodies.
I was a 19-year Kodaker, including a stint in the old Federal Systems Division in the 2nd half or the 80's, where the first quasi-commercial DSLR was born. I worked with the guy who worked on the first few units, where he hand-soldered early surface mount components on the first few units.
The back of the Nikon was removed and a Kodak 1MP sensor (cost: $15K) was mounted on the back. Additional electronics were packaged and mounted on the bottom of the camera, like a power-winder. A cable tether ran from the camera to more electronics in a roughly 14"x6"x2.5" (IIRC) package, which you slung over your shoulder. It contained the HDD and a dial-up modem (again, IIRC). I do know that at least one of these early units was sent up on a Space Shuttle mission.
That's a Nikon F4. It's not digital.
(But Kodak digicams do suck... no argument there).
murray: Don't I look stupid noww :$?
Is this a threat? Buy one of our "new all in one printers" or we blow something else up??
obviously they'd be using film cameras :)
come back, kodachrome!
What?
Every single news channel yesterday showed footage of the implosion non-stop... they even had live video of the people wandering around afterwards... Don't you love Rochester?
But turning it into apartments probably wasn't possible... the building itself was, I'm sure, but there's no way it would be convenient for the people living there. It was in the heart of the "Kodak district."
I live in Rochester and they're demolishing the building for no reason other than to get the buildings off the tax books. They couldn't turn the buildings into condos because it's till in the middle of the sprawling complex called Kodak Park which is a secured facility. The area is probably way too polluted for condos anyway. Kodak used to be the major employer in Rochester 55,000. Now they're 2nd behind the U of R (University/Health Care)
Some of the folks that were downwind of the implosion caused a small stampede trying to get out of the way of the dust plume.
Okay there are a couple things wrong with this description of what happened. To begin with, the two buildings brought down this weekend, 9 and 23, have been abandoned for years and have been dangerous for numerous reasons. It costs more to insure and have these huge buildings sitting around empty than to bring them down like Kodak has been doing for years now. It is not to "celebrate" a line of printers. Yes there were banners placed on the buildings but that was not the sole purpose of the implosions.
Regarding Eric's comment about Rochester people wandering around afterwards. If there were big implosions in your town would you not go watch them? You would not have any interest in seeing it happen in the slightest? Besides people watching just because they are implosions, many many of the people there were previous employees of Kodak who worked in the buildings. Some people spent most of or their entire career in the buildings so I think there is no problem with people being interested in the implosions.
And yes I was there Saturday morning watching the first implosion.
It's a Kodak moment.
Chick has a nice ass.
Totally agree PEZ..
Why doesn't she have shoes on?
It blowed up good. It blowed up real good!
I was there at the implosion. In the viewing area, they had a tent with the new all-in-one inkjets. The guy demoing the printers incorrectly told me that Mac drivers were not out yet.
What? Kodak cameras suck? I have a great Kodak camera that has won me several photography contests. I can't believe Engadget, of all blogs, would say that!
I live in Rochester NY in Greece, about 5 miles from the building... I was not there when they blew it up :-( and I'm glad it's going! It was an eyesore... And it was to expensive for Kodak to pay for.
Nuff Said
~Eric~
eric2a@gmail.com
I always disliked kodak cameras until I actually bought one. My girfriend and I are both super happy with it. 10x zoom in a good looking compact for cheap. (plus its got bluetooth for syncing with our laptops and sending party photos to friends phones)
Ryan,
Tom from Kodak here, author of the post you referenced.
Re: "...we're most disappointed by the fact that Kodak didn't seem to find any irony in a photography company blowing something up."
True, I resisted the urge to go with the easy puns that can explode from an event like this (doh! I just did it). My colleague did not resist this urge to go there in his post: http://richardmackson.1000nerds.kodak.com/default.asp?item=636710
Re: "cameras still kind of suck"
Well, I obviously have a different opinion than yours on that one ;-) The lead image in this album
was taken with a Kodak C875. I would rather let the image speak to that issue!
http://www.kodakgallery.com/cornpoppy/implosion
Thanks, tom
"Kodak seems pretty friggin proud of the fact that they imploded an old facility Saturday for no other reason than to "highlight" its EasyShare All-in-One printer line"
A quick glance at any of the hundreds of stories about the demolition would have revealed the reasons for taking down the two buildings. Is Ryan Block's comments on Kodak cameras equally as uninformed?
"Is Ryan Block's comments on Kodak cameras equally as uninformed?"
You are aware which site you are on, correct? This is Engadget after all. Where every story comes with a cow lick sized grain of salt, each author with more chips on their shoulder than a Dorito bag, each story is written with the grammatical competence of a 3rd grader, and research, whats that?
Then again, it is a blog, not a news site.
Kodak's older P&S's sucked. But their newer stuff (within the past year or so) has gotten really good. Not to mention they're competitively priced. I don't particularly like Sony camera's, but we all must be the exception to the rule.
In 2005, "Sony still led in sales of point-and-shoot cameras, with shipments of 12.32 million units, for 17.2 percent of the market. Canon and Kodak again were second and third, respectively, with 11.19 million units and 15.7 market share and 8.63 units and 12.1 percent market share."
Um, yeah. That's not "irony".