Kodak picture CD, what's the gen?

  Bargee 19:38 29 Jul 2003

Recently caught the last few nano-seconds of an advert on telly which featured the Kodak logo and mentioned picture CD.

Haven't seen it since, what's it all about? I presume it's connected with film processing.

Anyone know the who, what, where?


  GANDALF <|:-)> 19:51 29 Jul 2003

They copy your prints from negatives onto a CD that can be viewed on a computer.


  Stuartli 20:05 29 Jul 2003

Kodak's PhotoCD facility has been available for several years - if you take a film (or digital memory card) in for developing at participating outlets, you can also order a CD-ROM containing the photographs.

You can view them on your computer, as stated, or reorder prints from the CD-ROM. There are also a variety of untilities provided on the disk.

I have one of the Kodak CD-ROM cases in front of me (styled like a DVD case) which is about three years old - it claims that a protection system, PictureGuard, protects against fingerprints and scratches and gives an estimated lifetime of 100 years or more.

  spuds 23:17 29 Jul 2003

If you have a local Asda store, and they have a photographic department. I would suggest that you have a word with them, as they also do this type od CD transfer procedure on site. John Lewis website also as a photo software download, which is very good. You can place your photo details onto this software, adjust it to suit your needs, then bingo, sent it via the internet for later home mail delivery.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 23:20 29 Jul 2003

Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to use a digital camera?


  POLECAT2 23:45 29 Jul 2003

Depends on how much photography you do.
The cost of a picture cd is about £1 to £2 over the cost of normal processing depending on where you go to get your pics processed - plus you still get your prints as well. A digital camera costs about £200 to get anything decent plus a photo quality printer, paper @ £10 for 20 sheets, ink £8 a shot for my Canon ( 4 cartridges needed), and then print quality is nowhere near as good as my old SLR ( Canon RT ) Saw some prints from a mates 5 mp digi camera printed on top quality photo paper & latest printer ( Epson I think ) still not as good as my 14 year old Canon.

  Newuser1241 00:34 30 Jul 2003

regardless of all the hype, 35mm film absorbes more data than any of the digital cameras around, and when blowing photo's up i.e. selected areas will allways be superior in quality.

That said, you can get very good results with digital cameras even those below 2meg if you dont enlarge too much and have a good printer.

Advantage of digital cameras are that they allow instant review of the shot so you can delete if no good, on printing can crop and adjust photo to get it right. Ultimately it is not quality that dictates if you go digital but the degree of control it gives. Our first camera a 1.3 meg kodak gave surprisingly good shots even blown up well above recommended levels.

Kodak disc gives ytou best of both worlds I suppose in that 35mm neg to take in detail then digital transfer to allow you to work with the shot should you want to.

  Stuartli 09:38 30 Jul 2003

35mm film is capable of producing far, far superior resolution than 90 per cent of digital cameras on the market, that's why film scanners cost so much compared to a standard flatbed type.

But, like digital cameras now, the resolution of film has been improved steadily over many years, the latter also combined with a steady increase in available speeds.

Even so a slow speed film, especially a black and white version, will normally produce the very highest possible resolution providing the lens is good enough.

I use both types and for sheer speed and convenience of seeing the results the digital camera is unbeatable; however, printing costs are high if you use your own printer and materials.

But once multi-million pixel digital cameras become the norm at reasonable prices (and it's something that's not all that far away), then many will give up their film equivalents.

I've just seen some 12x10 prints taken by a wedding photographer using the latest (and expensive) Canon professional digital camera.

They are quite superb and the detailing is exquisite - yet even so you can work out that they were taken with a digital rather than film camera.

  Bargee 11:35 30 Jul 2003

Thanks for all of that. I thought the ad might have been something new, but it appears to be for an existing service.

I want to retain the advantages of both camera types and as I posess a Fuji 4900 digital & Olympus OM4Ti, I thought it would be great to have my 35mm on CD instead of getting a dedicated film scanner. Although, knowing me, I'll probably buy one anyway!

Cheers all.

  Newuser4165 11:44 30 Jul 2003

Negatives are only scanned in at around 1000dpi for a picture cd whereas a dedicated film scanner can scan at around 2800dpi.
It is easy to tell the difference between the two if you print them out - not so easy to tell the differnce onscreen due to the 72dpi screen resolution.

  Bargee 10:54 31 Jul 2003

A good point Newuser4165, so it looks as though I might as well save my couple of squids a throw & proceed direct to a 2800dpi film scanner. I'll give one of these CDs a whiz anyway.


This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Moto G6 Play Review: First Look

iPad 9.7in (2018) review

Comment bloquer les pop-up sur Android ?