Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nikon Unveils a Camera With Built-In Projector

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the carousel-of-tomorrow dept.

Media 108

All the gadget blogs are covering Nikon's new S1000pj digital camera with integrated projector. Reader Sabre Runner recommends Engadget's writeup, which goes like this: "The Nikon Coolpix S1000pj has gone from crazy rumor to seemingly-real to whoa-here's-the-press-release in record time — the compact cam with the integrated projector was just officially announced, along with the three other cams we saw leaked earlier today. Leaked specs for the S1000pj were dead-on: a 12.1 megapixel sensor with ISO 6400 sensitivity mounted behind a 5x wide-angle zoom lens with five-way VR stabilization, and that LED-powered projector that'll put up a 40-inch image for slideshows complete with music, effects, and transitions. We're a little less excited about the $430 list price this thing will carry when it hits in September, but on the whole it's a pretty terrific idea and we're completely intrigued — looks like we'll be saving our pennies this month."

cancel ×

108 comments

More details (4, Informative)

AncientPC (951874) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949625)

Specs here [dpreview.com] .

A demo video [nikonusa.com] (at the bottom).

This camera seems targeted at those who store all their pics in the memory card.

Re:More details (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28949633)

Warning - don't click on the above - its goatse.

Re:More details (4, Informative)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949715)

Interesting, TFA says "ISO from 100-6400 at full resolution"; ...but dpreview.com says "ISO 3200 and 6400 are available only for image sizes of 3M (2048 x 1536) or smaller."

For some reason, I tend to trust dpreview more, considering ithey have much more experience reviewing cameras of all kind.

I'd also like to know how good the projector quality is... I mean some projectors can display at 1080p, while some can barely do a blurry VGA. Considering the size of the camera, even projecting images at VGA would be a big accomplishment.

Re:More details (5, Funny)

DigitalCrackPipe (626884) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949829)

I'd also like to know how good the projector quality is...

What, you don't trust the marketing video? It clearly showed a stable, properly keystoned image at high resolution despite the fact that the actor was shaking the camera wildly and projecting from an angle. Pretty awesome technology if you ask me.

Re:More details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28949999)

Whoops, clicked 'Redundant' when I meant to mod 'Funny'. Darned system doesn't have a submit button...

Re:More details (1)

electrostatic (1185487) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950287)

We are to assume image stabilization works both ways.

Re:More details (4, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950387)

Heh, watch the video, stabilization definitely doesn't work that well.

Speaking of bidirectionality, it's a shame they couldn't get the projector to throw through the camera lens, so you could adjust throw length (zoom) and focus. That would have made a much stronger argument for integrating the camera and projector IMHO; surely the optical elements and zoom mechanism are the most expensive thing in a camera.

Re:More details (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#28953483)

I remember a video on slashdot a while back with some big-name company demonstrating this very technology. And yes, it was "that good", though far away from a consumer-end product

Re:More details (1)

Zashi (992673) | more than 4 years ago | (#28957229)

Depending on the micro-projector technology used, it may very well not need to be focused.

The PicoP uses DLP and a laser to project images that are in focus at any distance.

Re:More details (1)

SmlFreshwaterBuffalo (608664) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950389)

That would be a very poor assumption. I hope that no one gets fooled by it, but at the same time, I know someone will.

Re:More details (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 4 years ago | (#28955785)

Also I noticed that the anti-red-eye technology not only removed the fake daytime devil-like redeye, but it turned the little girls grimace in the 'before' shot into a big wide smile in the 'after' shot.

The technology of today truly astounds me.

Tom...

Re:More details (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28949905)

I'd also like to know how good the projector quality is... I mean some projectors can display at 1080p, while some can barely do a blurry VGA. Considering the size of the camera, even projecting images at VGA would be a big accomplishment.

VGA, ten lumens, 30:1 contrast ratio, 5" to 40" image with projector at a distance of 10" to 6.5'. [imaging-resource.com]

Re:More details (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950455)

Ahh, camera obscura.

Re:More details (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#28954873)

Wait ... 10 as in ten lumens?! Isn't that output inferior to this [wikimedia.org] device? Are the Luis XIV style whigs coming back into fashion too?

Re:More details (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28955563)

If you want decent runtime from the tiddly little Li-Ion pack that you can actually shove into a point and shoot, you get lousy brightness.

If you were willing to refill your camera with lamp oil every hour, or replace the carbon arc electrodes at the end of the day, you could have all the brightness you wanted...

Re:More details (2, Informative)

demonbug (309515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949923)

According to the specs in the DPReview article, the projector is "VGA Quality", so I guess that would mean 640 by 480. Not great, but pretty impressive for a $430 camera. Light output is listed as only 10 lumens, so probably need a pretty dim setting for it to work well.

Re:More details (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950253)

The image quality from compacts above ISO 400 is useless anyways, so the maximum is rather arbitrary. You could probably simulate a high ISO by grossly underexposing and then boosting the gamma in postprocessing.

Re:More details (1)

dwywit (1109409) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950311)

Ah, memories - push-processing. Underexpose by 1 stop and add 30% to time spent in the developer bath.

Now get off my lawn, it's time for my nap.

Re:More details (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951057)

That's just because Nikon hasn't figured out how to do that. If you look at some of the samples that DPReview has with recent Canon DSLRs with cranked up sensitivity, it's surprisingly good.

Canon EOS 500D / Review Sample [dpreview.com] Is a pretty good example at ISO 1600. You can see the degradation, but it's pretty good overall. It's still not really a good substitute for a tripod, but it's definitely acceptable for many things.

And no, you can't really simulate high ISO like that, you can sort of do that with film, but digital doesn't really work like that. The maximum number ISO is usually decided upon based upon what kind of Signal to Noise ratio you're able to get. As the gain is upped the significance of the noise gets larger and at some point it degrades the quality to the point of being completely unrecognizable. But, the reason why you're suggestion doesn't really work is that the information has to be recorded in the first place and if you're trying to boost gamma in post production rather than boosting sensitivity during production, there's just not going to be enough information to work with the camera just won't have the dynamic range to handle it.

Projectors are just one of those things which companies shouldn't even think about building until they get the rest of their ducks in a row. Full HD video isn't bad in a DSLR provided that the camera functions properly first and that the video actually integrates in a way that works as well.

Re:More details (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951253)

If you look at some of the samples that DPReview has with recent Canon DSLRs with cranked up sensitivity, it's surprisingly good.

I said "The image quality from compacts above ISO 400 is useless anyways."

But, the reason why you're suggestion doesn't really work is that the information has to be recorded in the first place and if you're trying to boost gamma in post production rather than boosting sensitivity during production, there's just not going to be enough information to work with the camera just won't have the dynamic range to handle it.

That's right, it doesn't really work... for exactly the same reason ISO 6400 in a compact doesn't really work.

Re:More details (2, Informative)

Octorian (14086) | more than 4 years ago | (#28955325)

That's just because Nikon hasn't figured out how to do that. If you look at some of the samples that DPReview has with recent Canon DSLRs with cranked up sensitivity, it's surprisingly good.

Of course Nikon has figured out how to do it. The parent was talking about P&S cameras, which have tiny sensors, and are always crappy at high ISOs. Look at the recent Nikon DSLRs, and they're also pretty good. Actually, I think the current king of high-ISO performance is the Nikon D3 and D700 (both full-frame sensors), but Canon's full-frame DSLRs are also probably pretty good.

Re:More details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28951765)

> but dpreview.com says "ISO 3200 and 6400 are available only for image sizes of 3M (2048 x 1536) or smaller."

It really does not matter either way. Neither iso 3200 or 6400 are usable on a point and shoot camera for anything bigger than a favicon.

Combine the S70 OLED screen features (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949765)

with the 1000PJ and then it would be much more interesting.

I was really interested in the PJ after viewing the S70 video above it but lost that interest when I saw that the PJ lacks the innovative S70 features

video ad is blatantly faked (4, Interesting)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949699)

It's obvious from how the photographer holds the camera with an unsteady hand and the projection is perfectly still, for example. Who, but Nikon, knows how far the product is from reality?

Adverts are all faked - it's traditional (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949993)

Cue the jokes. But when has advertising ever been honest? Did you know that there is a profession called "food sculptor" whose job it is is to carefully assemble food for advertising photography? That jucy hamburger patty is actually a cold item painted with glycerin.

As for "how far the product is from reality" that can be anything from "available now" to "let's drum up interest and see if it's worth paying R&D for this idea".

It's old news in the technology industry, too -- iirc IBM announced the OS/360 system one full year before the first example was shipped (and in response to a new CDC 6000 series computer that had just hit the market). This tradition goes back to when the first priest had to market the first pharaoh. Get over it.

Re:Adverts are all faked - it's traditional (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950289)

I'm glad people complain publicly so I can make informed buying decisions. This would be impossible if everybody just bent over as you advocate.

Re:Adverts are all faked - it's traditional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28952927)

Get over it.

Anybody "getting over it" is a fool.

Marketers, fine, upstanding citizens that they are (NOT!), need to be called on it every single time they do something like this, so that honest people can gang up on them i.e. kill their sales.

I'd say kill them too but unfortunately we live in more civilized times.

Re:video ad is blatantly faked (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950241)

If that advert ever makes it to TV or print, they'll run a disclaimer in fine print saying "simulated image"

I'm a little more skeptical of their claim of slideshows with music.
Has anyone ever used a pocket-sized camera that came with a speaker which wasn't utter crap?

Re:video ad is blatantly faked (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28956445)

Somebody has already posted this, but it's VGA (640x480) video at 10 lumens.

As a projector, it sucks, but coming from a $430 camera that would just about hold its own on its other merits, it's a handy little feature.

Tags (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949753)

These tags may be the least useful yet, in terms of their original use for searching the archives.

Laser pointers! (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949779)

And you thought laser pointers were annoying at the $1 movie theater! Wait'll this technology becomes commonplace.

Re:Laser pointers! (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949955)

No worries - the theaters already bludgeon people to death if they come anywhere near with a digital camera, so you should be safe.

Re:Laser pointers! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28949973)

Go to watch a family friendly movie with the kids... Oh what's this? Surprise! It's a 40-inch Goatse plastered on the wall.

Re:Laser pointers! (2, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950211)

Ten lumens. The only way that projector will annoy you in a movie theater is if the idiot operating it is pointing it at your face.

Re:Laser pointers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28953177)

...from the seat next to you.

Re:Laser pointers! (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950393)

I see the Nikon is going to use an LED projector, but one other interesting solution is laser-based projectors, which this website claims are always in focus:

http://www.microvision.com/showwx/experience.html [microvision.com]

I would expect them to have better contrast too.

Re:Laser pointers! (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950647)

Sure, but they just figured out how to do real green lazers (by 'just' I mean this last month), and the fake green lazers they've been using are energy and space hogs. LEDs are cheap, small, and they work.

I don't think they want this to compete with real projectors, they just want to add a feature to the camera that many will find useful: The ability to immediately show the pictures to a group of people. I can see plenty of times when that would have been useful, even if the quality wasn't top-notch.

Re:Laser pointers! (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#28952437)

Has Microvision ever shipped a consumer product? Still waiting on the wearable display glasses from the 90's.

Re:Laser pointers! (1)

Philip_the_physicist (1536015) | more than 4 years ago | (#28954433)

Illegal in some places. Any laser-based projector is illegal in some places under offensive weapons laws, unless it is so dim as to be almost useless, or it is mains powered (this is the case in South Aus.). This even applies to some Class I lasers. This is a shame,s ince the technlogy is nice, but then we aren't allowed 18+ rated games either because of the same AG.

Re:Laser pointers! (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28954973)

10 lumen can't do anything on a movie theater screen. It is absolutely nothing.

If you go up there, front of screen, it can change but of course, hospital expenses resulting from that action would easily compare to a pro Barco projector which can actually feed it ;)

Ah yes, just after Kodak discontinues Kodachrome (4, Interesting)

hoarier (1545701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949793)

The hell with projection. One great feature is the Smile Timer. The press release enlightens us:

Smile Timer automatically releases the shutter when the subject smiles

I'm British (a limey, a whingeing pom), so that's something that never happens. This Smile Timer technology should spread to areas where cameras really matter: I'd like to break into some ATMs.

Screw smiles - it removes scars (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950089)

From the specs:

An additional feature enables users to 'airbrush' someone's face using the Skin Softening function to reduce the appearance of blemishes.

Nikon's Smart Portrait System with Skin Softening
Face-priority AF helps produce more satisfying portraits by adjusting focus and exposure for as many as 12 faces in the framed shot. Skin Softening function detects and analyses a framed subject's skin, and then adjusts smoothness to produce enhanced results. Smile Timer automatically releases the shutter when the subject smiles, while its Blink Proof function shoots two sequential frames, then saves the one in which the subject's eyes are widest open. Blink Warning presents an alert when it suspects that someone in the shot has blinked. In-Camera Red-Eye Fix automatically corrects any perceived red-eye effect before saving the image to memory.

Finally! Just what we need in a consumer model camera.
Nobody will look anything like themselves ever again. [antiyawn.com]

Re:Screw smiles - it removes scars (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 4 years ago | (#28955027)

Why bother with all this run-time photographic manipulation and fakery? Just preloaded the camera with a few thousand photos of people more attractive than you, doing exciting things you can't do, at interesting places you've never been, expressing emotions that neither you, nor they, were having.

Then every time you press the camera's 'shutter release' it time stamps one and another happy, but much improved, memory is captured for eternity. "This is me with someone who looks like Halle Berry abseiling down an Inca temple last summer. I remember it well. You can tell what fun we had by the fixed grins on our faces."

not sure what the use is ... (3, Interesting)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949807)

Projectors take a lot of power, so you will not be able to use this feature for a long time. In the spec sheet they claim projector life of one approximately hour which will probably translate to 30 min max in real world use and on a full charge. But since you need to take pictures with the camera before projecting them you will probably end up with no more than 10 min of real use before your batteries are dead.

Some electronic devices do not translate very well into wirelessness. Projectors are a prime example.

I'll tell you what the use is (3, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949987)

The use is when you take a bunch of pictures and videos at the baby shower in the morning then bring them over to grandmas house who could not make it.

Instead of being greeted with a blank stare when you ask "where's your laptop so I can show you the pictures", you just beam them onto the wall.

Grandma is happy she can see the pictures / video right away, and you get back into the will.

Re:I'll tell you what the use is (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950407)

Or...you could just save the $400 and take YOUR laptop over to grandmas. It probably has better than VGA resolution too.

This is about as gimicky as it gets. They should spend the R&D on less noisier sensors. I had a coolpix and it had the noisiest sensor I've ever seen and it broke after a two weeks with nary a single drop. The powershot that replaced it was rock solid till I dropped it from about 20 feet. I wouldn't want to drop my fz28, but it does take some pretty nice pictures and cost me a lot less than another useless POS, I mean P&S.

Re:I'll tell you what the use is (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950745)

Yeah, but this is a great feature. You take a great photo at the bar, and instead of passing the camera around to all your drunk buddies with greasy fingers, you can just shine the photo on the wall. I was in the market for a new digital camera, and this plus the vibration reduction makes it the ultimate bar camera. A separate LED projector like this ALONE cost $299 just a couple of months ago. $400 for a camera you will probably have for 5 years and take thousands of photos isn't a bad deal, since you never have to pay for film or processing. $400 might seem a little steep to you, but I usually take 10,000 pictures with one camera before I wear some part out of it and/or it becomes obsolete (about 5 years for a pocket-sized camera in my case, and I'm pretty rough with them).

Re:I'll tell you what the use is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28950975)

Yeah you're right. I can save the $400 and take my .... my .... errr. Ok so I can spend $300 on a camera and spend $900 on a laptop (can't be a netbook grandma doesn't want to squint), and then go over to grandmas.

Re:I'll tell you what the use is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28951673)

$30 photoframes at Wal-Mart given to Grandma at Christmas beats this, and she gets to keep them on there (on her USB that you also gave her).

Re:not sure what the use is ... (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950157)

Cruel, horrible pranks or revenge. That's what the use is.

Use your imagination for two seconds: Crowd + Projector + Compromising Photos = Lulz / Humiliation

(Not that I condone its usage as such, or would do such a thing.)

Re:not sure what the use is ... (4, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950319)

Are you kidding, a 10 minute limit on home picture shows is a godsend and should be mandated by law.

Re:not sure what the use is ... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28956511)

Just plug in the charger.

Gimmicky (0)

o TINY o (1611133) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949867)

Gimmicky What can I say more?

Re:Gimmicky (4, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950169)

So were early digital cameras.

Give it 10 or 15 generations.

Re:Gimmicky (1)

o TINY o (1611133) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950361)

Very true - Although by the time I see this actually being useful, I imagine other technologies rendering this obsolete.

Re:Gimmicky (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951891)

Very true - Although by the time I see this actually being useful, I imagine other technologies rendering this obsolete.

Which technologies, and why?

Re:Gimmicky (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28952099)

Very true - Although by the time I see this actually being useful, I imagine other technologies rendering this obsolete.

Which technologies, and why?

Obviously, the combination cellphone-dishwasher, and the electric kettle with built-in microwave oven.

- RG>

Re:Gimmicky (1)

qopax (782239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28952179)

A projector that might see more uses than just showing photos. i.e. one built into a small laptop/netbook.

Re:Gimmicky (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | more than 4 years ago | (#28953865)

Why? You take pictures at a party, or you've taken pictures earlier in the day, and you want to show them to your mates. Which is better, to have them all crowd round and try and see them on the 2" display on the back of the camera, or displayed on the nearest wall so that they can see them clearly.

This is not about not having a laptop handy, or showing grandma, it's about showing stuff you just took before you get the chance to upload them from the camera.

expect a lot more of this (2, Interesting)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949875)

From what I see on Global Sourcing [globalsources.com] LED based projector technology is getting cheaper and more common. Cameras, especially Digital SLRs (which this isn't) normally have space for larger battery packs than other handheld devices. So this seem like a natural fit.

Re:expect a lot more of this (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950003)

Man, I get heckled on a lot of AV forums when I suggest I want Nikon to fix the video issue with their bodies before I upgrade and you want them to put a projector in the body, I don't think their core audience for dSLR's will like that. I want to get more MP (my old D40 only does 6MP but at very good ISO sensitivity), the GPS tagging feature, and usable video. No I don't consider 5 minutes of motion jpeg to be usable video, if Nikon were to come out with unlimited (ok limited to 2GB) 1080p24 H.264 video like Canon has and I'd pre-order.

Re:expect a lot more of this (5, Informative)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950213)

Ok, a few things to note:

The D40 uses a very old sensor (the one used in the D50 and D70). It's now two generations old, so if you upgrade to a D5000 or D90, you will notice a quality improvement, even in the ISO sensitivity. This is where Nikon has been the past few years, investing in decent high-ISO abilities. Now ISO 1600 on crop and ISO 6400 on full-frame Nikon cameras is clean enough to use for large prints.

The 5Dmk2 can only do 1080p for 12 minutes. This is to escape the EU regulation requiring a tax on video cameras, which are defined as any electronic device that can record video for 30 mins in one go. The tax is between 4.9 and 12.5%, and this is on top of VAT/tax you pay for in the EU anyway. Obviously the last thing Nikon or Canon want to do is fall under this tax, as it'd make their camera rather expensive.

If you want to record up to the file-system max, which is about 4GB, then you're limited to a shade under 15 minutes anyway, since the 5dmk2 records 1080p at 4.8 MBytes/sec. The D5000 could reach near 30 mins; recording at the 720p, 24fps option goes at 2.3 MBps which would give you near 29 minutes, if it were not for the artificial limit. The same could be said of the D90, which records at 1.7MBps, giving you near 40 mins; again, save for the limit. (Figures for the D300s are not out yet)

Re:expect a lot more of this (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950583)

The 5Dmk2 can only do 1080p for 12 minutes. This is to escape the EU regulation requiring a tax on video cameras, which are defined as any electronic device that can record video for 30 mins in one go.

If it can only do 12 minutes, and the regulations specify 30, then that is most definitely *NOT* the reason. (If it was 29 minutes, I might be inclined to agree with you.)

Most likely the 12 minute limit is hardware based - my guess would be after that you exceed the onboard buffer, and it can't transfer to storage fast enough.

recording at the 720p, 24fps option goes at 2.3 MBps which would give you near 29 minutes, if it were not for the artificial limit.

Uhh - yeah.. last time I checked, 29 was less than 30.

Re:expect a lot more of this (1)

etnoy (664495) | more than 4 years ago | (#28952333)

The limiting factor is usually the sensor getting warm, that's why you'll only be able to record 12 minutes of video. The digital sensors still have a long way to go before they get really usable. For instance, all DSLR:s that I know of still uses a mechanical focal plane shutter. The best reason not to do any movie recording at all is to reduce dust that gets stuck on the sensor.

Re:expect a lot more of this (1)

Bandman (86149) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951443)

Let me be the first on record as saying if I could somehow hack a D90 screen on my D50, I would do it in a heartbeat. The D50 body was so perfect that they killed it and broke it in two, in order to create the crippled D40 and the somewhat usable D80 (though the 80 has a newer sensor, but not as good as the 90). I don't ever want to have to give up my D50. The only thing it lacks is the ISO sensitivity of the newer models.

Re:expect a lot more of this (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#28953339)

This is where Nikon has been the past few years, investing in decent high-ISO abilities. Now ISO 1600 on crop and ISO 6400 on full-frame Nikon cameras is clean enough to use for large prints.
Out of curiosity, is it real ISO levels that high, or faked, hacked ISO levels that high? My camera does up to ISO400, and a couple months after it came out, they released a new model that does ISO800. The sensor is identical - it was just a slight firmware adjustment that allowed it to run in noisy-as-hell mode. I think it's native ISO is either 50 or 100.

In other words, uber-ISO numbers don't matter unless they really have improved the light sensitivity of the sensors.

Re:expect a lot more of this (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#28955607)

The 'native' max ISO on crop body Nikons is currently 1600 and you can do a digital push to 3200 at the cost of significant noise. The noise floor on the D40 is actually better than most of the crop bodies that followed it at its native ISO range but newer sensors have a higher native ISO so they will be less noisy where there is overlap (ie pushing the D40 is more noisy than not pushing the weaker sensor on newer models).

RickRolltime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28949961)

I call dibs on the first one so I can be the first person to project the first rickroll using them.

Re:RickRolltime (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951759)

I call dibs on the first one so I can be the first person to project the first rickroll using them.

Come on, this is Slashdot. Be creative Hack into Nikon's production to program these things to always start out with a nice high rez goatse image.

Hack... (3, Interesting)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 4 years ago | (#28949979)

I doubt it'll be supported straight out of the box, but when someone hacks this thing to allow the camera and projector to work at the same time, I expect to start seeing all kind of creative shots.

Augmented reality... (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950069)

I doubt it'll be supported straight out of the box, but when someone hacks this thing to allow the camera and projector to work at the same time, I expect to start seeing all kind of creative shots.

Augmented reality will be even more fun when you can directly augment the actual reality. B-)

No pr0n joke yet ? (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950173)

How soon before someone puts up a seemingly perfect use of this camera for pr0n!

BITCRH (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28950177)

brain. It is the If 7ou move a table and shower. For chosen, whatever

Digital camera cost/feature ratio (1)

Announcer (816755) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950201)

I cannot even remember when I bought my first digital camera, (early 2001?) but I paid MORE than $430 for it. It's a Sony, with 3.2 megapixels. No audio, and very low-res "movies". Devours AA batteries. 1" built-in LCD screen. It still takes great pix, so I'm still using it.

We've come a long way. A similar camera nowadays is built into a cheap cell phone!

Don't forget where we're coming from... (3, Insightful)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950215)

Anyone complaining about the projector quality should stop and think for a moment...

It's a VIDEO PROJECTOR....on a COMPACT CAMERA....and it's the FIRST ONE...a cool moment in gadget history. Video projectors use to be three tube CRTs and weighed at least 40 pounds for a portable. You had to spend an hour waiting for it to warm up and performing tube alignment, keystone, etc. (been there, done that in 'the olden days' of multimedia presentation)

Yep, it's going to be very low power. Projectors are battery hungry. Yep it's going to be low resolution at first (640X480) but it's way better than nothing! That instant-review might be very useful, even at low resolution.

Yep, the badly produced PR video is faked. (why not just have the guy set it down on the table first?) but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it works, since it will be sold as a consumer product fairly shortly. They can make the projector image stabilization feature come later. :)

Re:Don't forget where we're coming from... (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 4 years ago | (#28952699)

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

Had to throw that out there.

Yeah, this won't be great (at least at first), but it will surely be better than trying to have 5 people hunker around your 4 inch screen trying to look at a pic.

Wait... What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28950231)

So I can project a picture on the wall...
Can I then (simultaneously) take a picture of the projection?
And can I then project the picture of the projection of a picture?
And can I then take a picture of the projection of the picture of the projection of a picture?

My brain hurts.

A PDA function would be nice, with Greenscreen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28951031)

It sure would be nice if they prolong the value of their hardware by opening the firmaments to allow further integration and extendability. I bought one of those earlier Sony Mavica cameras, you know the ones with the integrated 3.5" 1.44MB floppy-disk drive, and I sure would appreciate some unique hardware allowing me to make more use of it as I would please. Better would be this tool simply integrated or cross-bred with one of those nice Car GPS units with Cardbus and integrated USB2, so it can have the PDA function and allow me to triangulate to it to discover who stole the thing.

So long as this isn't a cell phone or anything with that high-frequency crud like wifi or bluetooth, because God help us if it becomes another cancer-causing device. High-frequency radio-propogation technology makes my ear turn red and swell just from using it for 5 minutes in every hour.

Practical joke possibility (1)

marciot (598356) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950235)

I like it how the projected image comes out of the lens you ordinarily take pictures with. This makes this camera a great practical joke: get everyone to pose for a photo, have them say "cheese" and when they do so, blind them with the projector.

Re:Practical joke possibility (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950317)

"Blind"? The projector is rated at ten lumens -- that's slightly dimmer than a one-watt incandescent bulb. You'd be better off using the flash.

I could have used it (2, Informative)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950255)

I just photographed a small jazz combo playing at a local art gallery. Given the number of people passing my camera around to have a look at the pictures, it would have been extremely handy to have this device there.

And FYI, if memory serves, it has image stabilization and a small stand for when it's being used as a projector.

Time to iphone it up (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950339)

Put it in an iphone, maybe then I'll buy it.

The Megapixel myth....12.1 is really 3MP (0, Troll)

KPexEA (1030982) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950453)

Since each pixel is not a true "Color" pixel but can only see intensity it really only sees 3MP of true RGB color.
Only 1/4 of the pixels see red, 1/4 see blue and 1/2 see green.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter [wikipedia.org]

Re:The Megapixel myth....12.1 is really 3MP (2, Informative)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950721)

Your garbage is more of a myth than what you accuse the Bayer sensor of.

Bater sensors offer full luminance resolution. Chroma resolution varies but is less important. The common rule of thumb is that a 12MP Bayer sensor offers comparable overall performance to an 8MP full-color sensor, much greater than the 3MP you claim. There is boatloads of test data available if you would simply look with an open mind.

Re:The Megapixel myth....12.1 is really 3MP (1)

KPexEA (1030982) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951697)

Wow, my first time ever called a Troll.
Can you post some links explaining how it compares to 2/3rds in full color? I tried googling but couldn't find anything.
Thanks

mod 3own (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28950535)

we don't sux0r as 80s, DARPA saw BSD

Obvious Solution (1)

tiger32kw (1236584) | more than 4 years ago | (#28950917)

It may drain the battery but uhh...

You could just plug it in for your long slideshows :)

External inputs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28951067)

Perhaps in the future, they'd allow for composite/component/VGA/DVI/HDMI/etc. inputs? It'd be a great, compact solution for those who also carry around laptops and wish to do an on-the-spot video or presentation.

I know there are dedicated nano-projectors coming out soon, but this would be a boon for the all-in-one lovers.

An Incredible Advance (1)

alexfinch (615554) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951173)

This is quite an incredible advance if you ask me. For the average user, this is a piece of technology that they would be able to use and enjoy very easily.

Yeah, But... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951259)

Yeah, all fine and good, but what's it's battery life?

And does it use cheap NiMH AA cells, or some propitiatory battery that costs tens of dollars to buy a spare?

Re:Yeah, But... (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951503)

Yeah, I hate it when they try and appease me with those propitiatory [wordreference.com] batteries. They could at least send flowers as well.

Re:Yeah, But... (1)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28952177)

Heh, I've never found NiMH AA's to be cheap either! If it comes with a battery and its rechargeable, that's fine with me, by the time the battery wears out, I will long have upgraded cameras.

Re:Yeah, But... (1)

itsme1234 (199680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28953855)

Heh, I've never found NiMH AA's to be cheap either!

What is your definition of cheap? AFAIK the very best NiMh nowadays are Sanyo 2700 (for raw capacity). Probably Sanyo Enelooops are the best (or one of the best) for low self discharge. You can get them around 10$/10EUR (US/Europe) for a 4-pack - that would be usually from Amazon (or reliable ebay sellers) and includes usually shipping (if you order enough from Amazon for example, but that shouldn't be a problem).
Is 2.50$/EUR per NiMH AA so much of a problem?
Sure, if you need to pay retail to the only shop in some turist place you get shafted with a 50$ price for a couple NiMH and a basic charger. Have you looked how much it would cost there to replace your LiIon battery (not that they're likely to have the right one for your camera)? With AAs you have any time the option to just buy a couple alkys and be on your way immediately.

Re:Yeah, But... (1)

vintagepc (1388833) | more than 4 years ago | (#28954091)

I was able to get a set of 4 2450 mAh AAs for about the same, CAD. Granted, not as high capacity, but more than enough for just about anyone's needs, especially considering that it's quick to charge and carry a second pair.

Re:Yeah, But... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28956833)

No kidding. My first digital camera came with a rechargeable battery and it apparently spoiled me to the notion, because I was outraged when I bought my second digital camera and discovered it didn't come with one.

Of course, it came with a "lithium digital camera battery", but that's not a rechargeable battery (something they apparently assumed I knew, because it wasn't until I opened the box and read the instruction booklet that I discovered that lithium-ion batteries are rechargeable (and lithium batteries aren't). Boy was I pissed. As far as I'm concerned, a "digital camera battery" should be by definition rechargeable, same as you'd expect a laptop battery or a car battery or a cellphone battery or... well, you get my point.

Help me Obi Wan Kenobi... (3, Funny)

psydeshow (154300) | more than 4 years ago | (#28951421)

Whoever tagged this "youremyonlyhope" is a genius!

I resolve right now to buy a video camera with a built in hologram projector, just in case I'm kidnapped by the Empire.

You fAIL it (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28952117)

Nikon, head in the sand, 64-bit. (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 4 years ago | (#28956517)

So, will this be yet another in a long, illustrious line of great products that Nikon refuses to make 64-bit drivers for [photo.net] ?

Until they get their act together and pull their heads out of the sand with regard to 64-bit support, I will continue to recommend that people stay far away from Nikon.

(angry Nikon owner)

Re:Nikon, head in the sand, 64-bit. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28956865)

It saves to an SD card. I'm sure you can find something 64-bit compatible that reads SD cards.

Re:Nikon, head in the sand, 64-bit. (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959887)

It saves to an SD card.

Great! Except when you want to shoot tethered. Then you discover their Control Pro [nikonusa.com] software doesn't work.

So... you were saying?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...