NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/alt/cdrom/2342

Text File | 1992-07-22 | 5.3 KB | 116 lines

Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!jay
From: [e-mail] (Jay Jungalwala)
Subject: Re: Kodak Photo-CD conference
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Eastman Kodak
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 13:00:27 GMT
Lines: 104

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I can imaging the cost of developing Photo-CD must have been high,  but I
>still believe that realistic pricing would expand the market for the dev.
>kit.  At 100 UKP (ish),  I'd be willing to buy it and play just to see what
>it could do,  at 695,  no way.

   Well got to remember also that Kodak is sort of new at this Software
stuff also.  They will learn!  I talked my supervisors yesterday about
the idea of FTP access for more information and stuff like that, and they
told me something along the lines that it is Marketings decision, and
they dought that Marketing has any clue what 'ftp' is!  Thus the chances
of it happening are  . . . . nil.

>>>- There is no visual mark on the CD itself to use as a reference number.  If
>>>  I go to a photo library and digitise their million images,  they are never
>>>  going to be able to keep their 10,000  discs in order.  If I take 10 out of
>>>  their library and take them out of the cases,  how can you tell which is
>>>  which without using a PC?
>>
>>Ahh... this is your first mistake.  All Photo-CDs will have a 12 digit
>>barcode on them.  Printed on the inner ring of the disc, and burned onto the
>>disc.  They will also have an IndexPrint in the jewelbox with the discID
>>printed on the index print.  We have taken many precautions to ensure that
>>what you mentioned above doesn't happen.
>
>Sorry Jay,  not quite what I meant.  I would require a printed reference on
>the disc itself saying something along the lines of :-
>
>    P-and-S Image Library, images 90071 - 90203

>or somesuch.  A barcode is fine,  but a filing clerk faced with reading lots
>of them,  and then referring to a printed (computerised?) list relating
>barcodes to image numbers would still be most unhappy.  In the case of a
>photo library the index sheet would be of marginal use (no-one is going to
>visually scan the index sheets of 10,000 discs looking for pictures 'on
>spec').


No the bar code number is also in numeric text also around the inner hub.
(i.e. 123456789012) And the last 4 digits are BOLDED.  And also printed on
the IndexPrint (sleeve of jewelbox).  Thus it is just a matter of matching
the correct disc with the correct jewelbox.

>Don't have one I'm afraid.  That was a comment more directed towards a
>merging of the flexibility of CD-I and the image quality of Photo-CD rather
>than a technical comment on playback capability.

   Well that right now is farther then you think.  I have seen some
pretty incredible demos so far, so wait people . . wait!  )-:

>>>- The workstations (particularly the scanner) is a heavily manual operation.
>>> The figures seemed to be that you could expect to process 100 images an
>>> hour.  Using the prices in the last paragraph, what's the payback time on
>>> a 75,000 UKP imaging setup?  > > >That's about it for the moment.
>>> A summary would be :-
>>
>>Ahh... but that was because you were seeing a manual gate I am sure.  Wait
>>until we release the 'Autogate'.  Our "goal" will be about 13 roles of 24 Exp.
>>an hour, which will inprove throughput by far!
>
>Now you mention it,  yes,  something along those lines *was* mentioned .. but
>the equipment cost was higher (another 10k - 15k UKP ??).

   Yea so what?  For 4 times the throughput you are getting a hell of a lot
more for the money.  Plus the photo-finisher will just pass the costs onto
you guys. (-:

>>   Oh come on, we have to say things like that.  We are a large huge machine,
>>we would not fulfill our oversized company obligations if we didn't.  Plus
>>we are still in major development, and things sometimes just don't get out on
>>schedule, thus we have to say things like that to keep interest.
>
>I know,  my comment was a sign of frustration.  It was as though the
>conference was held a month early (presumably due to dates being shifted
>for marketing anouncements).

   Well I wouldn't exactly say that.  We shipped Version one right on time.
(We are very proud of that fact!)  Version two . . ehhhh we can do it, but
I guess it is just a matter of us all not reading so much news and actually
doing work! (-:

>>   Almost everything else you said was correct and right on the nose.  There
>>is still much more in developemnt that still has not been released to the
>>public, which has even made me say, "Damn that is cool!"  I would love to
>>tell you all about it, but I think I would soon be looking for a new job.
>>(-:  Damn . . . I hate keeping secrets!
>
>Come on,  whisper it quietly!!!  :-)

   Ok . . . Photo-CD will take over imageing as we know it. (-:  Sorry!

>Thanks for the comments Jay,  much appreciated.
>

Hey anything I can do to help, until I get fired for opening my big mouth!
(-:

Jay

--
----- |   |  ____ ----- _____       _____  |\   Jay Jungalwala
|___| |___|  |  |   |   |   |       |      | \  [e-mail]
|     |   |  |  |   |   |   |  ==== |      | /  [phone]
|     |   |  |__|   |   |___|       |____  |/   Rochester, NY