Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Future, When?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 1:35:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?

1- connection to PC wireless
2- 10 or more meg pixels
3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps
4- 0 light picture (night vision)

More about : future

Anonymous
October 11, 2004 5:13:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Duram wrote:

> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?
>
> 1- connection to PC wireless

Technology is there and already in common use (Bluetooth)... someone
must have built it into a camera by now.

> 2- 10 or more meg pixels

12MP and higher pro dSLRs have been available for a while.

> 3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps

That's what video cameras are for (and most do 740x480 or better).

> 4- 0 light picture (night vision)

Sony had a camcorder a few years ago that did this. Actually, it was
IR-sensitive. It was quickly pulled from the market but it effectively
had "x-ray vision" - it could, in some circumstances, "see" through
clothing. These units are collectors' items now.
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:11:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Duram wrote:
> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?

> 1- connection to PC wireless
If you count IRDA, my wrist camera has been doing this for a while.

> 2- 10 or more meg pixels
Available for years using a scanning back.

> 3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps
And more, if you use a dedicated digicam that costs a few hundred
dollars/euros.

> 4- 0 light picture (night vision)
Why wait? Stick an NV scope on the front of your current camera.

As for what you are forgetting - how about multispectral sensors - each
pixel sensitve to 32 or more wavelengths of light. Each camera a multi
megapixel spectrophotometer! Say goodbye to metamerism due to sensor or
light problems.

Extend that to IR and get the visual equivalent of digital ICE - a
sharpening channel for landscapes that cuts through haze, or go the other
way to a UV channel that gives you an edge in distinguishing subtle
differences in flower and other colors.

How about a variable resolution sensor designed to maintain the same real
megapixels as you zoom or resize the raw image after the face, or a non
planar sensor to get rid of chromatic aberration, larger zoom ratios, and
simpler optics. New roles for camera (storage, power, smarts) and lens
(image capture, autofocus, etc). Now you can run two lenses at the same
time on one camera - no more missed sports shots because you zoomed in too
tight. Or slave multiple cameras to one lens to take advantage of different
camera processing and capture specializations.

Stereo or three lens imaging to capture surfaces rather than images, and the
ability to rotate the scene afterward, or machine or mold a solid model of
the subject after the fact. Encode Z (distance) information in each pixel,
and use that information to move people and objects around, add or delete
them, from a shot..

Real time, high resolution, omnidirectional, multi-spectral movies of any
event anywhere, all available on the Internet at the click of a button. Not
just a webcam at the top of the Eiffel tower, but pay $5 an hour to really
*be* there. Move around, look where you want, wait for a parade, or the
airplane you happen to be in, to fly by, and take pictures, videos, or
whatever you want. Get on your own roof, and tune in to a picture of
yourself waving from the nose camera of one of the many airliners flying
over your city.

Every pet collar has realtime GPS and continuous remote imaging
capabilities. Yes, we put them on our kids too. Tiny, flying electronic
insects with remote visual and audio sensing capability, and people who are
savvy and educated enough to know how to protect our privacy, and use these
things the way they should be.

Pay $1000 for a month of piloting your own rover on the surface of Mars,
with resolution and sound so flawless you can feel the thin wind blowing
through your hair. Meet with several friends on Mars and participate in
your own geological experiment or exploration. Martian geocacheing, by
Jupiter!

Now many of these are things we may all live to see, and personally, I
can't wait!
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
Related resources
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:44:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:

> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?

Specifing the cost is one useful parameter.

> 1- connection to PC wireless

Nikon D2H has had this for 6 months or so. The new Canon 1Ds mark-II will also
have it.

> 2- 10 or more meg pixels

The Canon 1Ds, Kodak 14n, and Mayima ZD are greater than 10 megapixels, plus
several scanning backs for medium format. However, I suspect the megapixel
race will peter out shortly.

> 3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps

I believe some cameras have this (but not the ones mentioned above). Get a
regular DV camcorder to record movies.

> 4- 0 light picture (night vision)

From a physics standpoint you need some amount of light to record any picture.
I'm sure the military has had it for awhile.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 4:11:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:

> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?
>
> 1- connection to PC wireless
> 2- 10 or more meg pixels
> 3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps
> 4- 0 light picture (night vision)

They're all here now. The third primarily in video cameras, not still
cameras. The fourth primarily in surveillance equipment more than
still cameras.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 5:17:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 11 Oct 2004 07:44:26 -0400, Michael Meissner
<mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:

>"Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:
>
>> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?
>
>Specifing the cost is one useful parameter.
>
>> 1- connection to PC wireless
>
>Nikon D2H has had this for 6 months or so. The new Canon 1Ds mark-II will also
>have it.

The same wireless will also work on the 20D and EOS 1DMark2
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in news:b7lad.707032$gE.252954
@pd7tw3no:

> Technology is there and already in common use (Bluetooth)... someone
> must have built it into a camera by now.
>
>

Bluetooth is too slow. But ordinary Wireless lan will do.
And some has just that.

/Roland
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:05:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WiFi would probably kill a camera battery in half an hour though.

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957FD68987377klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in news:b7lad.707032$gE.252954
> @pd7tw3no:
>
> > Technology is there and already in common use (Bluetooth)... someone
> > must have built it into a camera by now.
> >
> >
>
> Bluetooth is too slow. But ordinary Wireless lan will do.
> And some has just that.
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:26:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I know that the Canon unit has its own battery supply, and dones't use
the camera's battery.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:17:36 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>WiFi would probably kill a camera battery in half an hour though.
>
>"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns957FD68987377klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>> Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in news:b7lad.707032$gE.252954
>> @pd7tw3no:
>>
>> > Technology is there and already in common use (Bluetooth)... someone
>> > must have built it into a camera by now.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Bluetooth is too slow. But ordinary Wireless lan will do.
>> And some has just that.
>>
>> /Roland
>
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:56:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in news:7-ydnXGwg6rERvfcRVn-
rg@golden.net:

> WiFi would probably kill a camera battery in half an hour though.

Probably - but it will take 100 hours with bluetooth to
transmit the same amount of pictures :) 

You don't need to have the WiFi on all the time - just during
the transmissions.


/Roland
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:56:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have equipment with both i/f. Bluetooth has great potential but they
dropped the ball developing it so far. It is definitely slower but lower
power also. If mine loses connection for one packet it has to be restarted
etc. What a pain! I have read they intend to rebuild it and improve it to
where it should be. WiFi is defintely taking over for most apps now.

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957FDF3302A19klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in news:7-ydnXGwg6rERvfcRVn-
> rg@golden.net:
>
> > WiFi would probably kill a camera battery in half an hour though.
>
> Probably - but it will take 100 hours with bluetooth to
> transmit the same amount of pictures :) 
>
> You don't need to have the WiFi on all the time - just during
> the transmissions.
>
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 11:01:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:
> > Technology is there and already in common use (Bluetooth)... someone
> > must have built it into a camera by now.
>
> Bluetooth is too slow. But ordinary Wireless lan will do.
> And some has just that.

Canon's US$1,300 (Japanese list price) wireless unit for the 20D, 1DM2, or
1DsM2 transmits at 54 mb/s, which should give an actual data transfer rate
of 3 MB/s, about 5 seconds for a 1DsM2 RAW file. (Assuming mb is bits and
you get 50% of the channel for data.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 11:07:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Duram wrote:
> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?
>
> 1- connection to PC wireless
> 2- 10 or more meg pixels
> 3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps
> 4- 0 light picture (night vision)

Video with your wishes have most latest cameras. Like Canon S1 IS, than one
of Samsung models etc...
Night vision is available on some digicams.
Why would you need 10 M or more? Only thing we do need is improvement of
noise - lowering it.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 11:11:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:
>
>> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?
>>
>> 1- connection to PC wireless
>> 2- 10 or more meg pixels
>> 3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps
>> 4- 0 light picture (night vision)
>
> They're all here now. The third primarily in video cameras, not still
> cameras.
Video cameras doesn't have 640x480 @30 fps, but a bit bigger size (i think
576x544) with 25 fps or 23.9 appr...depends on PAL or SECAM format. Still
cameras (newer better ones) have usually 640x480 @ 30 fps
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 1:03:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SleeperMan <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> "Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:
>>
>>> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?
>>>
>>> 1- connection to PC wireless
>>> 2- 10 or more meg pixels
>>> 3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps
>>> 4- 0 light picture (night vision)
>>
>> They're all here now. The third primarily in video cameras, not still
>> cameras.
>Video cameras doesn't have 640x480 @30 fps, but a bit bigger size (i think
>576x544) with 25 fps or 23.9 appr...depends on PAL or SECAM format. Still
>cameras (newer better ones) have usually 640x480 @ 30 fps

You're forgetting HDTV

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 3:34:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ray Fischer wrote:
> SleeperMan <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> "Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:
>>>
>>>> Is it coming? When? What am I forgetting?
>>>>
>>>> 1- connection to PC wireless
>>>> 2- 10 or more meg pixels
>>>> 3- video with 640*480 pixels 30 fps
>>>> 4- 0 light picture (night vision)
>>>
>>> They're all here now. The third primarily in video cameras, not
>>> still cameras.
>> Video cameras doesn't have 640x480 @30 fps, but a bit bigger size (i
>> think 576x544) with 25 fps or 23.9 appr...depends on PAL or SECAM
>> format. Still cameras (newer better ones) have usually 640x480 @ 30
>> fps
>
> You're forgetting HDTV

HDTV is more or less forgotten format, at least through analog transmission.
Digital TV is more like it...
!