Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
From: pands@cix.compulink.co.uk (P & S Ltd - Accounts Dept)
Subject: Re: Kodak Photo-CD conference
Reply-To: pands@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:39:33 +0000

I'm afraid that I can't thread replies to Usenet messages properly yet,
so ..

jay@ssd.kodak.com writes ..
>In article <memo.530482@cix.compulink.co.uk> pands@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>>- The developers toolkit is one of the stumbling blocks.  The price quoted
>>  was 695 UK pounds (a little over 1300 US dollars at current exchange rates)
>>  which seems ludicrously high.  Kodak weren't able to give me a justification
>>  for the price,  other than "if you want to access the images on disc,  then 
>>  you need the toolkit".  The software is available for the mac and for
>>  Windows 3.  But,  bear in mind that the current price for the Microsoft
>>  C/C++ compiler is under 230 UKP,  and you get a damn sight more for your
>>  money.  Oh yes,  almost forgot,  support costs an extra 395 UKP per year,
>>  and is done via Compuserve (very expensive in the UK).  Howabout Internet
>>  access,  guys?
>
>   Yea, I think it is a bit overpriced too, but I don't make the prices
>around here! )-:  But you also have to remember, there has been a lot
>of money dumped into this project, and they need to have the feeling that
>they are making something back!
>

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.

>>- The ability for the CD to hold heavily edited images (the image shown was
>>  a combination of 3 separate groups of people in one final frame) with no
>>  visible degradation is a potential problem.  Currently,  photographs are
>>  accepted as strong evidence in a court - after this thay can't be!  I could
>>  produce an image to prove that you were handling large drugs shipments.
>>  Paranoid?  I'd like to believe so,  but these days I almost expect that to
>>  happen.
>
>   No not really, just don't show the image on a Photo-CD.  Plus this is
>no reason not to have Photo-CD or editable images.

Perhaps it was a mistake to put this comment in here.  I agree that this
worry isn't a valid reason against Photo-CD,  and (I assume) any printed
picture would betray its origins easily enough.

>>- 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').

>> Next year, Photo-CD and CD-I  seem set to merge, I'd guess that would help.
>
>HUh?  Well on my CD-I player I can play Photo-CDs, I don't know about yours.
>

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.

>>- 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 ??).

>> I'd like to get some feedback from a Kodak employee about this (and *please* 
>> don't use the "come back at the end of August and we will be able to tell you 
>> more" comment that was used in Hemel Hempstead!)  
>
>   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).

>   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!!!  :-)

Thanks for the comments Jay,  much appreciated.

--------------------------< Who 'zat >-----------------------------------
    Paul Wilson,  P-and-S Ltd, P O Box 54, Macclesfield, SK10 5EH, UK
                     pands@cix.compulink.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom