DCS ProBack Problems / Kodak Management

In October I bought a DCS Proback 645M from Roberts Imaging in Indianapolis (sold as a Demo with a 1 year warranty) after having gone to photo plus and specifically asking a Kodak digital rep at the show if it can handle lots of flare, including shooting into the sun (a lot of my work involves intentional flare).

He said yes I could shoot into the sun with no problem, so I bought the back.

When I started using the back, I found it has major blooming problems (if I shoot into the sun or have a specular reflection in the frame (ie: anything as low-powered even as a specular reflection in glass from an on-camera flash set at 1/16 power as a fill light in open daylight) I get a 10-15 pixel wide vertical column of white pixels, eminating from the reflection up all the way to the top edge of the frame.

When I contacted Kodak about this, they told me 2 things:

1) The Proback is out of warranty (I immediately called Roberts about this and they have offered to cover the warranty on the back for the year as promised, although it's not a factory warranty but a retailer warranty. For what it's worth, they seem to be telling the truth- the back only had 480-odd actuations when I bought it). Kodak keeps referring me back to Roberts (who have said from the outset that Kodak had told them they could sell it with a 1 year warranty) and Kodak will not take any responsibilty.

2) According to Kodak, the blooming is completely normal and the Kodak rep I talked to at photo plus should not have made that claim. In fact they went so far as to say that I "will need to speak with the person that told this to him. It is not a Kodak claim and this type of problem can be reproduced with our other cameras." (I'm not sure how they expect me to find out which of their many, many employees was the one I spoke to). They even condescendingly wrote:

"The cure for this is issue to properly expose the image." (which I found particuarly insulting, considering the back is marketed specifically at professionals). This isn't an intuitive problem either, considering my Canon digital point and shoot handles flare better than the proback. I'd think for several thousand dollars more, they would make a product that can handle a wider dynamic range than consumer-level digital cameras.

In any case, the issue here seems to me to be the claim their rep made that I could shoot into the sun with the Proback. Maybe I'm crazy here, but it seems to me if their rep makes a claim at a major trade show, Kodak should not only stand behind their rep, but also behind the professionals that spend thousands of dollars on their products (especially as large an investment as a Proback). I'd say that at least an "we're sorry" is in order, much less honoring a warranty to cover the piece of equipement one of their authorized retailers sold me, or at least offering to work with Roberts on the issue (ie: selling Roberts an extended warranty to cover my Proback).

Anyway, the point of this post isn't just to compain about Kodak's inflexible management. I was wondering if anyone else has had similar experiences with Kodak's customer support, or if anyone has any suggestions how to go about getting an acceptable outcome from this.

Also, on the technical side if anyone knows of any way of reducing this effect, any and all suggestions are very much welcome and appreciated.

-AF

P.S.- For clarity's sake, I'm posting the full response from Kodak about the blooming in this email for anyone considering buying a Proback (or anything else from Kodak).

Also some samples can be seen here:
http://www.alexfreund.com/proback_samples

----------------------
KODAK'S RESPONSE:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you concerning your DCS ProBack.

Below is some information I have compiled for your perusal:
Below is some information from our camera engineer:

I have evaluated the customer images and reviewed the artifact with engineering. The issue in the customer image is called "Blooming". It is caused by the image being significantly over-exposed. The first thing I notice as I looked at the three images is that the white (overexposed) streak is not in the same location in each image. This would rule out an imager issue. The second thing is that the white streak always eminates from a point source of light. The point source of light is significantly over exposured which is what is causing the white streak. If you take an RBG reading of the source of light you will see that the reading has max'ed out (> 255). This max'ing (over-exposure) causes the memory location for these pixel to overflow. This overflow of data cause the surrounding pixels value to increase, in this case since the over exposure is so high, the next pixel reach max as well and so on for the rest of the column. If you look close you will notice that as !

you get further and further from the light source the intensity of the white streak is getting lower until near the edge of the image the color is almost on target (but not quite). The cure for this is issue to properly expose the image. I know sometimes easier said than done. But it is the over exposure of the point source of light that is causing the problem. The back is working properly.

Below is some information from one of the product specialists:
"at Photo Plus he was told he could flare the imager with no problems"

1) If someone from Kodak told him it would work with massive flaring, cusotmer will need to speak with the person that told this to him. It is not a Kodak claim and this type of problem can be reproduced with our other cameras. Sometimes you will get the flare with the white band through the image, sometimes it will just give you the flare. Moving your point of view a little will usually make the difference.

Warranty:

2) If the dealer claims the camera is under a year warranty customer will need to go back to them about it. Warranty on demo units is 18 months from when it was installed to the dealer. In this case the warranty was over in Dec. 2003.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

Regards,
Aaron M
Kodak Professional

I have shot into direct sun with several cameras with both film and digital. If you do not protect the lens glass from being hit by direct sunlight this will occur. You can avoid this when shooting into the sun by using a proper lens hood, scrim or bellows. It's not the cameras job to eliminate lens flare it's the photographers.

alex freund said:

P.S.- For clarity's sake, I'm posting the full response from Kodak
about the blooming in this email for anyone considering buying a
Proback (or anything else from Kodak).

Also some samples can be seen here:
http://www.alexfreund.com/proback_samples

----------------------
KODAK'S RESPONSE:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you concerning your
DCS ProBack.

Below is some information I have compiled for your perusal:
Below is some information from our camera engineer:
I have evaluated the customer images and reviewed the artifact with
engineering. The issue in the customer image is called "Blooming".
It is caused by the image being significantly over-exposed. The
first thing I notice as I looked at the three images is that the
white (overexposed) streak is not in the same location in each
image. This would rule out an imager issue. The second thing is
that the white streak always eminates from a point source of light.
The point source of light is significantly over exposured which is
what is causing the white streak. If you take an RBG reading of
the source of light you will see that the reading has max'ed out
(> 255). This max'ing (over-exposure) causes the memory location
for these pixel to overflow. This overflow of data cause the
surrounding pixels value to increase, in this case since the over
exposure is so high, the next pixel reach max as well and so on for
the rest of the column. If you look close you will notice that as !
you get further and further from the light source the intensity of
the white streak is getting lower until near the edge of the image
the color is almost on target (but not quite). The cure for this
is issue to properly expose the image. I know sometimes easier
said than done. But it is the over exposure of the point source of
light that is causing the problem. The back is working properly.

Below is some information from one of the product specialists:
"at Photo Plus he was told he could flare the imager with no problems"
1) If someone from Kodak told him it would work with massive
flaring, cusotmer will need to speak with the person that told
this to him. It is not a Kodak claim and this type of problem can
be reproduced with our other cameras. Sometimes you will get the
flare with the white band through the image, sometimes it will just
give you the flare. Moving your point of view a little will
usually make the difference.

Warranty:
2) If the dealer claims the camera is under a year warranty
customer will need to go back to them about it. Warranty on demo
units is 18 months from when it was installed to the dealer. In
this case the warranty was over in Dec. 2003.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

Regards,
Aaron M
Kodak Professional

Click to expand...

alex freund said:

P.S.- For clarity's sake, I'm posting the full response from Kodak
about the blooming in this email for anyone considering buying a
Proback (or anything else from Kodak).

Also some samples can be seen here:
http://www.alexfreund.com/proback_samples

----------------------
KODAK'S RESPONSE:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you concerning your
DCS ProBack.

Below is some information I have compiled for your perusal:
Below is some information from our camera engineer:
I have evaluated the customer images and reviewed the artifact with
engineering. The issue in the customer image is called "Blooming".
It is caused by the image being significantly over-exposed. The
first thing I notice as I looked at the three images is that the
white (overexposed) streak is not in the same location in each
image. This would rule out an imager issue. The second thing is
that the white streak always eminates from a point source of light.
The point source of light is significantly over exposured which is
what is causing the white streak. If you take an RBG reading of
the source of light you will see that the reading has max'ed out
(> 255). This max'ing (over-exposure) causes the memory location
for these pixel to overflow. This overflow of data cause the
surrounding pixels value to increase, in this case since the over
exposure is so high, the next pixel reach max as well and so on for
the rest of the column. If you look close you will notice that as !
you get further and further from the light source the intensity of
the white streak is getting lower until near the edge of the image
the color is almost on target (but not quite). The cure for this
is issue to properly expose the image. I know sometimes easier
said than done. But it is the over exposure of the point source of
light that is causing the problem. The back is working properly.

Below is some information from one of the product specialists:
"at Photo Plus he was told he could flare the imager with no problems"
1) If someone from Kodak told him it would work with massive
flaring, cusotmer will need to speak with the person that told
this to him. It is not a Kodak claim and this type of problem can
be reproduced with our other cameras. Sometimes you will get the
flare with the white band through the image, sometimes it will just
give you the flare. Moving your point of view a little will
usually make the difference.

Warranty:
2) If the dealer claims the camera is under a year warranty
customer will need to go back to them about it. Warranty on demo
units is 18 months from when it was installed to the dealer. In
this case the warranty was over in Dec. 2003.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

Regards,
Aaron M
Kodak Professional

Click to expand...

--

There are many "if"s about this. Are you able to return this back to the dealer, since the product is not able to perform to your expectation. The technical explanation is very valid, however. Have you tried developing the raw files with the new Photoshop Camera Raw? It may handle the data differently than Photodesk. Their chip performs differently in terms of contrast in other backs. So as the Philips chip in Leaf backs.

I am very disappointed in Kodak's Pro digital performance over all. Their business practices, marketing, products.

They ruled. RULED the film world for a very long time... whatever happened with that experience????

There is a link http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml
TonyK

Iusefilm said:

alex freund said:

P.S.- For clarity's sake, I'm posting the full response from Kodak
about the blooming in this email for anyone considering buying a
Proback (or anything else from Kodak).

Also some samples can be seen here:
http://www.alexfreund.com/proback_samples

----------------------
KODAK'S RESPONSE:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you concerning your
DCS ProBack.

Below is some information I have compiled for your perusal:
Below is some information from our camera engineer:
I have evaluated the customer images and reviewed the artifact with
engineering. The issue in the customer image is called "Blooming".
It is caused by the image being significantly over-exposed. The
first thing I notice as I looked at the three images is that the
white (overexposed) streak is not in the same location in each
image. This would rule out an imager issue. The second thing is
that the white streak always eminates from a point source of light.
The point source of light is significantly over exposured which is
what is causing the white streak. If you take an RBG reading of
the source of light you will see that the reading has max'ed out
(> 255). This max'ing (over-exposure) causes the memory location
for these pixel to overflow. This overflow of data cause the
surrounding pixels value to increase, in this case since the over
exposure is so high, the next pixel reach max as well and so on for
the rest of the column. If you look close you will notice that as !
you get further and further from the light source the intensity of
the white streak is getting lower until near the edge of the image
the color is almost on target (but not quite). The cure for this
is issue to properly expose the image. I know sometimes easier
said than done. But it is the over exposure of the point source of
light that is causing the problem. The back is working properly.

Below is some information from one of the product specialists:
"at Photo Plus he was told he could flare the imager with no problems"
1) If someone from Kodak told him it would work with massive
flaring, cusotmer will need to speak with the person that told
this to him. It is not a Kodak claim and this type of problem can
be reproduced with our other cameras. Sometimes you will get the
flare with the white band through the image, sometimes it will just
give you the flare. Moving your point of view a little will
usually make the difference.

Warranty:
2) If the dealer claims the camera is under a year warranty
customer will need to go back to them about it. Warranty on demo
units is 18 months from when it was installed to the dealer. In
this case the warranty was over in Dec. 2003.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

Regards,
Aaron M
Kodak Professional

Click to expand...

--
There are many "if"s about this. Are you able to return this back
to the dealer, since the product is not able to perform to your
expectation. The technical explanation is very valid, however. Have
you tried developing the raw files with the new Photoshop Camera
Raw? It may handle the data differently than Photodesk. Their chip
performs differently in terms of contrast in other backs. So as the
Philips chip in Leaf backs.
I am very disappointed in Kodak's Pro digital performance over all.
Their business practices, marketing, products.
They ruled. RULED the film world for a very long time... whatever
happened with that experience????
There is a link
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml
TonyK

Click to expand...

--

You are talking about expreams in terms of photographic expression, not just extreams of the chips ability to capture data. If you have to keep the back, you can clone out unwanted portion of the flare with ease.

That is what I hate about this digital hupla, you have to bend your creativity to the technology vs. the other way around. That is life????
Since when?
Tony K

Iusefilm said:

That is what I hate about this digital hupla, you have to bend your
creativity to the technology vs. the other way around. That is
life????

Click to expand...

You never had to relight or rethink a scene to keep it within the contrast or exposure range of chrome?

Never missed an animal shot at dusk because all you had in your camera was Velvia and 1/8th of a second just wasn't going to cut it?

Never had to CC film due to mixed lighting conditions?

Be it film or digital, one's creativity has always been tempered by the medium...

Hi Gary-

The issue with the back isn't flare- it's blooming. I want the flare (the optical phenomenon of light bouncing around in the lens before hitting the film/chip plane). What I don't want is the 10-15 pixel wide white column extending to the top of the frame. The back's job is (ideally) to acurately record the light hitting the chip at a given point.

Gary Holley said:

I have shot into direct sun with several cameras with both film and
digital. If you do not protect the lens glass from being hit by
direct sunlight this will occur. You can avoid this when shooting
into the sun by using a proper lens hood, scrim or bellows. It's
not the cameras job to eliminate lens flare it's the photographers.

Click to expand...

Hi Tony-

Thanks for the constructive thought here... it's hard to come by in these forums with all the people pounding their online chests.

I'm really just talking about having a device that can accurately record the light hitting it. Pretty much any film (within reason) would be able to record the effect of the light bouncing around in the lens before hitting the film surface, but for some reason, Kodak can't get it together.

I haven't gotten to the point of returning the back yet (I still have hope, for whatever reason), although I doubt that Roberts would take it back. I can imagine I'd likely get caught in a cycle of Kodak saying there's nothing wrong with the back (ie: there's nothing they can fix) and Roberts saying the back's not defective according to the manufacturer.

More than anything, I'd like to hear Kodak admit it's a design flaw and not "inherent in the medium" (it's not), but I suppose that's wishful thinking. I don't understand why people are willing to pay $12 grand for a digital back and then say "oh well, I guess that's just how it operates". Ford & Firestone can't get away with it, so why should Kodak be able to (other than the fact that the back isn't killing anyone)?

Anyway, they ruled the film world... what went wrong was that they keep discontinuing every good film that comes along (ie: VPS).

C'est la vie.

-A

PS- the samples are up now: http://www.alexfreund.com/proback_samples

Iusefilm said:

Iusefilm said:

There are many "if"s about this. Are you able to return this back
to the dealer, since the product is not able to perform to your
expectation. The technical explanation is very valid, however. Have
you tried developing the raw files with the new Photoshop Camera
Raw? It may handle the data differently than Photodesk. Their chip
performs differently in terms of contrast in other backs. So as the
Philips chip in Leaf backs.
I am very disappointed in Kodak's Pro digital performance over all.
Their business practices, marketing, products.
They ruled. RULED the film world for a very long time... whatever
happened with that experience????
There is a link
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml
TonyK

Click to expand...

--
You are talking about expreams in terms of photographic expression,
not just extreams of the chips ability to capture data. If you have
to keep the back, you can clone out unwanted portion of the flare
with ease.
That is what I hate about this digital hupla, you have to bend your
creativity to the technology vs. the other way around. That is
life????
Since when?
Tony K

Click to expand...

alex freund said:

Thanks for the constructive thought here... it's hard to come by
in these forums with all the people pounding their online chests.

I'm really just talking about having a device that can accurately
record the light hitting it. Pretty much any film (within reason)
would be able to record the effect of the light bouncing around in
the lens before hitting the film surface, but for some reason,
Kodak can't get it together.

I haven't gotten to the point of returning the back yet (I still
have hope, for whatever reason), although I doubt that Roberts
would take it back. I can imagine I'd likely get caught in a cycle
of Kodak saying there's nothing wrong with the back (ie: there's
nothing they can fix) and Roberts saying the back's not defective
according to the manufacturer.

More than anything, I'd like to hear Kodak admit it's a design flaw
and not "inherent in the medium" (it's not), but I suppose that's
wishful thinking. I don't understand why people are willing to pay
$12 grand for a digital back and then say "oh well, I guess that's
just how it operates". Ford & Firestone can't get away with it, so
why should Kodak be able to (other than the fact that the back
isn't killing anyone)?

Anyway, they ruled the film world... what went wrong was that they
keep discontinuing every good film that comes along (ie: VPS).

C'est la vie.

-A

PS- the samples are up now: http://www.alexfreund.com/proback_samples

alex freund said:

Iusefilm said:

There are many "if"s about this. Are you able to return this back
to the dealer, since the product is not able to perform to your
expectation. The technical explanation is very valid, however. Have
you tried developing the raw files with the new Photoshop Camera
Raw? It may handle the data differently than Photodesk. Their chip
performs differently in terms of contrast in other backs. So as the
Philips chip in Leaf backs.
I am very disappointed in Kodak's Pro digital performance over all.
Their business practices, marketing, products.
They ruled. RULED the film world for a very long time... whatever
happened with that experience????
There is a link
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml
TonyK

Click to expand...

--
You are talking about expreams in terms of photographic expression,
not just extreams of the chips ability to capture data. If you have
to keep the back, you can clone out unwanted portion of the flare
with ease.
That is what I hate about this digital hupla, you have to bend your
creativity to the technology vs. the other way around. That is
life????
Since when?
Tony K

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Now that you mention, could you fix the link? It did not work properly.

Michael, yes... digital is more flexable in areas where with film you had to do a little bit of thinking, which usually lead to craftmanship over time. Over a very long time.

All the guys in my studio had to rethink using very "narrow" exposer tolerances of their digital cameras vs. me who shot slides for a living. I had no problem adapting with the Pro Kodak cameras. Fuji was a different game, I am a beliver that that camera S1 hated me. It just performed better while the other guys used it.
Tony K

Ok ok... the link's fixed.

http://www.alexfreund.com/proback_samples

Also, when I consulted w/ Kodak's tech support (how I found out the camera's out of warranty) I FTPed them the RAW files, so it's nothing to do with the processing software (I use CS, Capture Studio, and Photodesk).

alex freund said:

Ok ok... the link's fixed.

http://www.alexfreund.com/proback_samples

Also, when I consulted w/ Kodak's tech support (how I found out the
camera's out of warranty) I FTPed them the RAW files, so it's
nothing to do with the processing software (I use CS, Capture
Studio, and Photodesk).

Click to expand...

--

Thank you, again it is very frustarating to deal with tech... the samples are speaking for themselfs, as described. The vertical burned out pixels just should not be there. Regardless of the direction the read occures, there is no reasons that the top of the image should contain maxed out data, when that in not occuring until much -much further on in the recording pixel data. But than I am not them, so it is not any useful to you.
With other Raw converter the result are the same?Tony K

Yep... it happens with all raw converters I've tried.

Like I said, the problem is on the RAW files so no conversion software will put back information that's just not there.
The problem is frustrating. Kodak's not-our-problem attitude is infuriating.

If nothing comes of this, I may just have to contact the press (you reading this post, Kodak?)...

No wonder their stock's tanking... maybe if they had products they could stand behind they wouldn't have investors running for the hills.

AF

Iusefilm said:

Thank you, again it is very frustarating to deal with tech... the
samples are speaking for themselfs, as described. The vertical
burned out pixels just should not be there. Regardless of the
direction the read occures, there is no reasons that the top of the
image should contain maxed out data, when that in not occuring
until much -much further on in the recording pixel data. But than I
am not them, so it is not any useful to you.
With other Raw converter the result are the same?Tony K

Click to expand...

alex freund said:

Yep... it happens with all raw converters I've tried.
Like I said, the problem is on the RAW files so no conversion
software will put back information that's just not there.

Click to expand...

The problems that occured to you reminds me to one of my first digi backs,
a CARNIVAL COLOR CRISP, 4 K-chip. (today IMACON).
When shooting a light source -like the sun in your case- the pixels "overload"
into a heavy blooming. Nothing could be done against this.
Since I use the next generation, a Imacon FlexFrame 4040, my problems
are gone.....blooming behaves as shooting on film.
--
Regards,
Peter B.
'Sorry for my poor English. I'm an alien.'

Peter Berressem said:

a CARNIVAL COLOR CRISP, 4 K-chip. (today IMACON).
When shooting a light source -like the sun in your case- the pixels
"overload"
into a heavy blooming. Nothing could be done against this.
Since I use the next generation, a Imacon FlexFrame 4040, my problems
are gone.....blooming behaves as shooting on film.
--
Regards,
Peter B.
'Sorry for my poor English. I'm an alien.'

Click to expand...

dear peter:

chip design is a matter but the hardware (electronic circuit)and software other than chip is important too, right? So your 4040 is use the 16mp kodak chip too but seems with much better results .

paulcat23 said:

dear peter:
chip design is a matter but the hardware (electronic circuit)and
software other than chip is important too, right? So your 4040 is
use the 16mp kodak chip too but seems with much better results .

Click to expand...

Hi paulcat,
I can't imagine Kodak doesn't use their own chips

As far as I am told, the electrical design "behind" the chips had changed sometime. The newer generations are able to conduct the overload, coming from far overexposure.
Maybe the DCS's lack of this chip design ?
--
Regards,
Peter B.
'Sorry for my poor English. I'm an alien.'