Beta
×

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!

How the iPod Nano's Video Abilities Stack Up

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-equipped-for-one-night-stands dept.

Media (Apple) 216

andylim writes "Recombu.com has pitted the iPod Nano's video capabilities against an iPhone 3GS, a Nokia 5530 XpressMusic and Flip Mino HD. This simple test shows how the camera deals with motion, colour and audio. The iPod Nano's camera seems to offer a basic yet decent video experience and some might say delivers a higher picture quality than the iPhone 3GS's camera. What's interesting is how well it deals with close-ups."

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

make a real camera please (4, Interesting)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29420811)

I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple. Strap some proper optics to the iPhone platform and you've got a killer product: photos automatically GPS tagged and seamlessly uploaded in the background to your iphoto library, with support via apps for any kind of online hosting, plus specialty stuff like time lapse or other artistic/scientific needs. Full HD video of course, perhaps even with wifi streaming to an apple TV for instant nostalgia. Price it to compete with entry level DSLR and they would capture a huge chunk of market share overnight. Maybe not the volume of the cell phone market, but great margins.

Re:make a real camera please (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29420889)

I'm not so sure, considering that probably most people who are willing to spend the money on a DSLR camera, WANT a DSLR.
It likely wouldn't sell well enough to be viable as a product.

100% PURE AFRICAN NIGGER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421267)

I am all that is JIGABOO!

Re:make a real camera please (0, Redundant)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421331)

He said an entry level DSLR, which is in the 600-800 dollar price range. At that price point you aren't necessarily dealing with semi-pro or even hobbyists, youre just dealing with someone who wants a high quality camera. They may actually NOT want a DSLR due to the complex controls and whatnot.

Re:make a real camera please (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421373)

The DSLR I use sometimes for work has a full auto mode, it isn't that scary.

Re:make a real camera please (2, Insightful)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421375)

Thats when they go to the high end camera thats not a DSLR such as the new Cannon G11 [canon.com] . Suggested Retail price: $499.99 or the Powershot SX20IS at $399.99 Not as complex as a DSLR, but better than the cheap point and shoot they had before. If you're going to price it like a DSLR, you better be delivering a DSLR, there's a reason they're that expensive.

Re:make a real camera please (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421699)

Planty of professional work gets done on entry level DSLRs, which are also what a lot of hobbyists and students use, people with too much money tend to go for more.

Re:make a real camera please (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421595)

you're talking about macfags, they dont care if they buy shit as long as it looks hip

Re:make a real camera please (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29420893)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake

Re:make a real camera please (0)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421611)

As that's applicable? He's talking about throwing massive amounts of iPhone-type features at a real camera, not something made with 1992's technology. The Quicktake couldn't upload wirelessly to an iPhoto album, GPS tag them, and had no advanced camera features. This is a digital camera designed before Windows 95 hit the market that you brought up!

Re:make a real camera please (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421759)

You don't say?

Re:make a real camera please (-1, Flamebait)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 4 years ago | (#29420923)

I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple. Strap some proper optics to the iPhone platform and you've got a killer product: photos automatically GPS tagged and seamlessly uploaded in the background to your iphoto library, with support via apps for any kind of online hosting, plus specialty stuff like time lapse or other artistic/scientific needs. Full HD video of course, perhaps even with wifi streaming to an apple TV for instant nostalgia. Price it to compete with entry level DSLR and they would capture a huge chunk of market share overnight. Maybe not the volume of the cell phone market, but great margins.

For those of you wondering why there's an "Apple tax", you now know why; Its because idiots like this guy over here want ever little fucking nook and cranny put into a device and expect it to be dirt cheap.

Re:make a real camera please (0)

markringen (1501853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421171)

it's just good enough technology. but apple has some spiffy software, which could cause them to create an excellent digital camera.

Re:make a real camera please (2, Insightful)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421209)

I disagree. I would love to see some form of portable electronic NOT include a camera. I can't take a camera into work. That limits me to crappy cell phones. Now i'll have to worry about what mp3 player I can get too. Why does everything need a damn camera.

Re:make a real camera please (4, Informative)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421351)

The camera is almost always contained in its own module, meaning it can be removed for people in your situation. The only problem is the nano is not very easy to get into. The iPhone, however is a synch to open, so you could still use one and just pop the camera out.

Re:make a real camera please (2, Informative)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421421)

Not true. It's been tried. Still not allowed. The rationale is if I can take it out, I can just as easily put one back in. It's been beaten like a dead horse where I work (Defense Contractor). They trust us with a security clearance but not enough to think we won't put a camera back in after it's been removed.

Re:make a real camera please (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421591)

I know Apple has on their website a security document stating that all their computers have the ability to have the camera, wireless network, or Bluetooth antenna pulled for environments where devices like that are forbidden. Pretty much it states to take the device into an Apple facility and they do the rest.

Not sure if this is available for the Nano though.

Re:make a real camera please (2, Informative)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421623)

Missed the point again. This time I'll change my words. If the camera can be removed it means the camera can be reinserted, and thus not allowed on site. Unless they change the casing to have no cutout for a camera, I can't have it on site, no matter if I remove the camera, Apple removes the camera, or the director of security at the site removes the camera. If it has a slot to plug in a camera, and a cutout for the lens, it's a no go.

Re:make a real camera please (1)

riegel (980896) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421803)

So basically anything with USB or FireWire can't get in as well? It is trivial to add a camera to an "existing" USB port.

Re:make a real camera please (2, Informative)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421877)

Yes and no. Depends on what you mean. Mini USB ports allowed, cable or anything that plugs into a USB/Firewire port on a computer, No. So I can bring in a cell phone that charges through the Mini USB jack, but no accessories that plug into it and no cables to connect it to a computer. Anything with a standard male USB/Firewire is a no, CD's are a no. Basically nothing that can attach to the computers or network. And before someone mentions it, there is no wireless. Yes we do get checked everyday, by guards carrying assault rifles and handguns. You get caught with a camera/USB storage/cd/any other mode of connecting to the computers/network, the result is likely immediate firing, and most likely legal action resulting in serious jail time.

Re:make a real camera please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29422041)

Good god man, do you like work in area 51 or something?

Re:make a real camera please (1)

rivercityrandom (626724) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421525)

That might also void the warranty too, for those who worry about such things. But that is a legitimate point: why does a MP3 player need a video camera? I can somewhat see the use for a camera on a cellphone, as a means of visual communication (I'm still waiting for Dick Tracy-esque video chat on my phone) but my iPod nano is stuffed in my pocket pretty much all the time, and I only use it when I am exercising or on the bus. I don't take it places I want to record video of. For the price of an iPod, you can get a digital camera that takes much better pictures and video (and these days, probably plays MP3s too.)

Re:make a real camera please (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421513)

But you have an unique situation. Myself cameras on everything make my life in general easier. I'm not a photographer but taking pictures with a cell phone to put on Facebook, record odd happenings for use on a blog, etc.

Re:make a real camera please (2, Insightful)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421583)

Well that's your unique situation. My life doesn't involve posting pictures on Facebook or keeping a blog, therefore a camera on everything is of no added value to me.

Re:make a real camera please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421691)

I dont understand this myself. Where I work Im not supposed to have a camera either (its not really enforced, pretty much everyone has a cell camera), but I just dont get it. I could slurp more data off our intranet than could possibly do damage w/photos. Stupid rule.

Re:make a real camera please (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421249)

"I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple."

Why? So you could film yourself performing gay sex acts on Bahny Fwank?

Re:make a real camera please (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421257)

Strap some proper optics to the iPhone platform and you've got a killer product:

Ugh, no. "Proper" optics" would mean a much larger, motorized lens like on a dedicated digital camera. It would be fragile, expensive, and bulky on a device which is already expensive and bulky.

If you care about quality, buy a real camera, and be gentle with it. If you want a tiny, durable camera on a device rugged enough to be carried all the time, don't complain when it sucks.

Re:make a real camera please (2)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421343)

I would say the iPhone already competes in price with an entry level DSLR - without the good picture taking ability.

you can get that today (3, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421347)

I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple.

Samsung, Nokia, and several other manufacturers already offer 5-8 Mpixel cameras with smart phone capabilities. They have automatic geo-tagging and automatic upload. You can get these phones with Symbian, Android, Windows Mobile, and (soon) Linux/Maemo. You can program them in C, C++, Java, and, in some cases, Python and C#. Samsung even has HD video.

I don't see anything that Apple brings to the table. Apple's iPhone already costs more than twice than what those other phones cost, it's less capable, has worse battery life, can only be programmed in Apple-approved languages, and has severe restrictions on the kind of software you can write for it. And Apple's overall market share is small compared to Symbian.

Price it to compete with entry level DSLR

An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees).

Re:you can get that today (3, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421609)

I don't see anything that Apple brings to the table. Apple's iPhone already costs more than twice than what those other phones cost, it's less capable, has worse battery life, can only be programmed in Apple-approved languages, and has severe restrictions on the kind of software you can write for it. And Apple's overall market share is small compared to Symbian.

The real question about the market share of Symbian is, how many Symbian users *want* to be Symbian users? Out of the ~%47 or so, how many of them actually break into their phone's full features beyond camera, music and phone? Given the rates of users who are regular bluetooth users versus users who aren't, I'd be surprised if even 10% of Symbian users are of the variety, "Oh this thing? It's the crappy phone Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/Tmobile gave me for free."

An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees).

I sure hope you're not citing a number that's not USD. In USD, the cost for an unlocked iPhone is $599.

Re:you can get that today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29422101)

How about a camera that acts like an iphone dock. You slide in your ipod touch or iphone into the spot where the normal camera LCD is. With simple software you can control the camera and easily upload photos or use storage on the touch instead of a memory card. Also, to solve the problem of aftermarket protection screens etc. have the plug articulate so you can flip it out and rotate it to whatever angle. Both for ease of viewing, and compatibility with pretty much any size/gen ipod/iphone

Re:you can get that today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29422173)

Break into the `full features' of Symbian?

I tried hard to like S60 over the course of four years and two phones, but now have an iPhone 3GS. But even basic features like reading email messages that had been forwarded as attachment wouldn't work, and that was on a relatively high-end (for the time) business phone, the E61i.

The N900 would have been a choice phone for me, but apparent Nokia Singapore isn't bringing it in... go figure.

Re:you can get that today (4, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421703)

"An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees)."

Really? Can you move some at that price? I'll supply them to you for $1200. That's $200 you get to keep, for each one.

Re:you can get that today (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421711)

PS: I don't know what the OP meant by "real camera" but the Nokia et. al. high res camera phones aren't real cameras. They're camera phones with an insanely mismatched sensor.

Last time someone raised that point on here I put up a picture from a real camera sized to compare with his 5 MP Nokia shot. There was no comparison. Unfortunately I think I took it down.

Re:you can get that today (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421751)

I don't know where you checked, but the highest I've found it is 900$ for the 32GB, true it's still more than the Nokia 900, and it still competes with entry level DSLR, but your guesstimate is either "hey let's assume the GPB price will be the same in the US" or wild pulling out of ass.

Re:make a real camera please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421563)

Just make sure that you remember that they are GPS-tagged when you decide to sneak naked photos of a relative and upload to them to the internet 'anonymously'.

Re:make a real camera please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421571)

Perhaps a facility to automatically stream directly from the camera to someone's website? This would allow the device to work as a decent (albeit admittely expensive) wireless camera, and because the footage is stored offsite, a would be intruder wouldn't be able to find the VCR or DVR core to trash.

Re:make a real camera please (2, Informative)

Me! Me! 42 (1153289) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422019)

Stop with the recreational drug use!
You can't get even "entry level" DSLR quality from a phone sized package. Big glass and a large sensor are the barrier to entry and a quarter inch phone body will never have it!
Mid level point and shoot? Almost, but not quite.

Re:make a real camera please (1)

donweel (304991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422091)

I have no us for a camera on my iPod, but I don't mind the idea of an iPod on my camera. I have used my iPod classic as a camera drive, I was disappointed when the new generation iPods lost that ability. I could see a camera with iPod interface. Clip it on for wifi, Geo-Tagging, Photo display, extra storage. With the software and the IPod App store possibilities are endless.

Re:make a real camera please (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422249)

That'd be pretty neat. It's kind of embarrassing to Apple as things stand with their cameras only being 3 megapixel, with a crappy lens, when there are 5 megapixel WinMo phones out there in a similar price range that also have a markedly better glass lens. 3MP with a crappy lens doesn't do all that much for me.

Likewise, the screens on the iPhones. Compared to WinMo offerings, they're quite a bit lower res to what's available with a WinMo phone.

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29420823)

I mean really.

_Handy_ is very, very important. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29420841)

Shot some impromptu amateur porn with one today, and all the important bits look fine. I'm 100% serious, the mood came upon us and it was handy. It's not 1080p, but as the old saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. :)

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (1)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421049)

Pictures or it didn't happen.

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421265)

I'll probably upload it a few places this evening. I'm completely serious. I don't know if /. will be cool with me posting links to porn sites, though, so I may just place it a few places and post some sort of keyword folks can search for to this thread.

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (5, Funny)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421615)

1,400,000 registered /. geeks are living vicariously through you. Don't fuck this up.

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (3, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421733)

1,400,000 registered /. geeks are living vicariously through you. Don't fuck this up.

Sounds like he already did.

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422049)

Surprised /. is still up, considering how many times this page must've been refreshed already...

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421993)

We're waiting, and ready, for you to justify your words.

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421475)

Didn't you hear? The nano can't shoot pictures, only video!

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (4, Funny)

Tanman (90298) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421111)

It's really irritating when you refer to yourself as 'us' -- you are not Gollum, damnit!

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (5, Funny)

Genda (560240) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421131)

He was able to capture his hand in complete fidelity...

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (2, Funny)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421713)

Or his mistress in complete infidelity?

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421465)

Shot some impromptu amateur porn with one today, and all the important bits look fine. I'm 100% serious, the mood came upon us and it was handy. It's not 1080p, but as the old saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. :)

If by "us" you mean "Mary Palm and her five sisters" -- as seems implied by "handy" -- it doesn't count as porn.

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (1)

HisMother (413313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421801)

It's Rosie Palm.

Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. (1)

martinX (672498) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422011)

I know BD, SM, even CBT. But what's this "1080 Pee" you speak of?

what is this "maybe" tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29420909)

someone please explain the point of tagging an article "maybe"

firehose / whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421035)

I think it is before the story is on the main page...like maybe would should post this...

The problem isn't optics its processsing power (2, Informative)

Ormy (1430821) | more than 4 years ago | (#29420947)

When it comes to taking video the limiting factor on video quality/resolution in a handheld device is almost always the processing power needed to encode said video in realtime, not the optics, which is why most phones with 5+MP cameras can save pictures at the full resolution of the CCD but videos are often limited to 640x480 at 25fps because that is all the processor can handle. For example my netbook with 1.3MP webcam takes far better quality videos than my sony ericsson phone with 5MP camera simply because it has the power to encode the video at a higher resolution in realtime. Of course if you have the storage space available to store the video uncompressed then its less of a problem but again we're talking a handheld device where storage space is by no means plentiful. And simply stuffing in a faster processor won't help because the power requirements mean a larger battery which means a larger device, and the whole point in these things is compact size.

Re:The problem isn't optics its processsing power (4, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421269)

When it comes to taking video the limiting factor on video quality/resolution in a handheld device is almost always the processing power needed to encode said video in realtime, not the optics,

Nonsense. The encoding part is becoming trivial with modern processors. But a tiny sensor and pinhole-sized lens will always be problematic. There's a reason that pro video cameras have big lenses and sensors. How do you do selective focus with a pinhole lens that puts everything sort-of-in-focus? You can't. How do you get low light performance with a lens that doesn't admit much light? You boost the gain electronically, ruining the picture quality.

Re:The problem isn't optics its processsing power (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421353)

The problem isn't processing power, it's sensor readout speed. Most CCD or CMOS chips don't have a huge bandwidth, so even high-end cameras like the EOS 5D II are forced to use only a small portion of its millions of pixels (this leads to nasty artefacts like aliasing and increased noise). Also, on CMOS sensors you want to avoid using all the bandwidth for transferring video, because otherwise you get a significant rolling shutter ("jell-o") effect. Even good cameras like EOS 5D II have a huge jell-o effect at 30 fps, so this is really a big problem. This means you have to choose between a high-pixel count sensor geared towards still pictures, or a lower-pixel count sensor gear towards video. Given the "more megapixels is better" mentality, manufacturers will tend to go for the first route.

Some new sensors are designed for very high bandwidth, but they're still expensive and reserved for professional video shooting [red.com] .

Has anyone stopped to wonder... (4, Insightful)

skyride (1436439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29420971)

Its an MP3 player... Why the fuck does it have a camera on it?

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421041)

Its so it can be sold in Britain. Haven't you heard the new regulations yet? Absolutely everything in Britain must have a camera on it.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (2, Funny)

ProfM (91314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421655)

Absolutely everything in Britain must have a camera on it.

So my brand new Digital SLR camera must have a cheap-ass digital camera built in?

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421717)

No. However, your brand new set of Beer Goggles must have a camera attached. The same goes for that fishbowl you were just thinking about getting -- did you know just how dangerous goldfish really are? They're like the ninjas of the fish kingdom, hiding in plain sight to make us think they're harmless.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421047)

Upskirt videos.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421193)

why does a phone have a camera??

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (2, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421213)

Why not? Having a camera with you at all times is kind of nice, and building it into the MP3 player means you don't need to carry an extra gadget.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (2, Insightful)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421493)

if you have an mp3 player (or an iPod particularly), you probably also have a camera phone

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422155)

Unless you are a little kid.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421581)

Good point. While they're at it, when is Apple going to release an iPhone with a built-in pocket pussy?

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421661)

You forgot that if you own an iPhone, you already are a pussy.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421239)

Well, why not?

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421291)

Uhh, why not?

These things have had photo and video viewers, calendars and contacts, etc for quite some time now. You may as well ask why phones have cameras. An iPod is a media-driven device, so it almost makes more sense to have it there than in a phone.

On a practical level - your young children want music players, and they probably want cameras too. Why not have both, and not have to sign up for some onerous mobile phone plan.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421503)

That was my exact first reaction. It doesn't make sense to me either..

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (3, Insightful)

khchung (462899) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421641)

How about, because people find it convenient?

When you are already carrying a gadget around, with enough battery power, gobs of free memory available and enough processing power, is it that much a leap to put a camera on it?

I assume you don't have kids, because if you do, you would know that parents (surprise!) like their kids and will take lots of pictures/videos of them if only they have a camera handy. Some parents take to always carry a small camera, and would appreciate if their iPod can take pictures so they don't have to carry another gadget.

Personally, I found that after I got a phone with a camera, I took many more pictures. It is just like texting and sending email, you would never know how often people would do it until you give them the ability to do so easily.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421745)

Because the world has decided putting videos of yourself puking on YouTube is the killer app for our modern technology.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29422001)

No, but I stopped to wonder why the fek the iPod touch doesn't have one.

Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... (1)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422201)

It was an mp3 player. Now it's also a video player, radio, recording device, and video camera. Have you stopped to wonder what is wrong with adding functionality to this or any device? It's still as small as ever, the user interface hasn't been bogged down and bloated, and now it's got another use if you're jogging and feel the need to record a reminder or something. Better have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

How about some proper tests? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29420995)

Actual comparable sequences would be nice. For example, the iPod Nano appears to be more strongly affected by rolling shutter than the other cams, but it's hard to tell because the motion is different between the devices. (Rolling shutter is when the pixels are not all read at the same time but one row at a time, without a fast shutter stopping light from changing the picture on pixels which haven't been read yet while other pixels are already fixed by the read-out. This causes a wobbling effect for up-down motions and skew in horizontally moving objects. More detailed explanation on Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org] )

With all that processing power (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29421039)

You'd think if the ipod had enough processing to encode video in realtime it'd be able to playback ogg and flac and theora. Oh well, no ipod for me.

Re:With all that processing power (0, Offtopic)

skyride (1436439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421087)

iTunes converts all music to AAC before actually putting it on the iPod. Its pure laziness on the part of apple not to add those codecs to iTunes.

Re:With all that processing power (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421107)

No it keeps mp3s, WAV, and Apple lossless in their native format.

Re:With all that processing power (2, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421133)

iTunes will play ogg and flac if you install a quicktime component for it. Just don't expect those files to work on the iPod. If there is enough consumer demand for ogg on the iPod (read: it will increase sales), they will add it.

iTunes does no file conversion before copying audio files to the iPod if it is in a format the iPod can play - AAC and mp3.

Re:With all that processing power (1)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421965)

iTunes does no file conversion before copying audio files to the iPod if it is in a format the iPod can play - AAC and mp3.

Depends on the iPod. On the lower-capacity iPods like the Shuffle, iTunes has an option to convert your high-quality audio files to 128k MP3s before putting them on the iPod so more can fit in a smaller space.

If the re-encoding bit is just a module, it would be pretty easy in the future for Apple to re-encode anything in your iTunes as anything else you might need going into your media player, depending on what the codec flavor of the day is.

Re:With all that processing power (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421161)

Not MP3s.

Re:With all that processing power (0)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421777)

The iPods decode in hardware. It's not laziness. Supporting Ogg would require redesigning the device and coding iTunes to be able to keep track of which device can play what. It might have to keep two copies of songs around too if you've got one iPod that can play Ogg and another that can't.

All for something that 99.999999% of the customers would never notice or care about.

Re:With all that processing power (1)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421999)

While I agree with what you say, it would be possible for iTunes to re-encode the files on the fly as they go into the media player. It already offers that as an option when syncing high bit rate MP3s to smaller capacity iPods.

Re:With all that processing power (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422251)

I suppose it could. It's still a pain, for no discernible gain. And synching is slow enough as it is.

Re:With all that processing power (0)

TSPhoenix (1367187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421447)

The iPod a dedicated chip(s) for the decoding of AAC/MP3/H264/etc which would lower power consumption dramatically and allow playback of media the iPod CPU couldn't handle at all. No doubt its going to use a similar dedicated chip to encode video. The iPod CPU simply wouldn't be fast enough to encode video, and even if it could it would slaughter battery life.

Re:With all that processing power (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421491)

The problem is twofold, for one, OGG/FLAC/Theora are niche formats, yeah, FLAC has its benefits, OGG sounds better than MP3 on lower bitrates and they are all patent free and are a breeze to work with on Linux. However, Apple wants control, proprietary formats give it control. Theres no real technical reason why Apple can't have iTunes on Linux, but they don't. Apple wants control so badly that they removed an app off the App Store because you could run Commodore BASIC code, yeah, Commodore BASIC, not Python or any major language, but Commodore BASIC.

Re:With all that processing power (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421789)

MP3 might be technically proprietary, but it doesn't really give you a hell of a lot of control of anything.

My impressions (5, Informative)

dbet (1607261) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421083)

I picked up a nano a couple days ago to replace an older one. The camera is kind of nice but I'm not sure it will get much use. The picture is very nice looking, colors seem okay both indoors and out, and motion is handled well. The "biggest" plus however is the size. The nano is so small I feel like I'm holding a credit card. I'm still in the market for a good case because the current ones out are pretty poor. A case should make it a bit less delicate.

There is a tendency to cover the lens with your finger because the ipod itself is so small, but you eventually get used to holding it a different way. The microphone and speaker are also somewhat poor but they told you it would be.

Overall it's very nice for its price, and the live-pause radio is a nice touch. The screen is also nearly the size of the one on the classic (same width, about 80% as tall) in case you want to watch podcasts or something. I've put some TV shows on mine, they play and look good. I wouldn't buy this however if I were looking for a camcorder primarily.

Re:My impressions (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421197)

I wonder if making singular devices do more and more tasks otherwise performed by individual is actually going to come back and hurt companies like Apple. Many people don't see the point of a camera in a Nano or a Touch, as they may also own a digital camera, a cellphone with a camera, or even an iPhone.

I fear I'll wind up with every device I own having a camera, wi-fi, 3G and video playback that works acceptably, Yet I'll have no specialised devices that will do any one of these things very well.

I can understand the advantages of consolidating tasks into a single device, but this may mean people end up buying less gadgets because of the duplication of features, and the high cost of that one. The price of an iphone at full retail buys you a basic gps-equiped cellphone that has a camera, a netbook and a digital camera.

We're paying a high price for every new feature shoe horned into small shiny things, the expense of lacking in gadgets that do one thing really well.

Re:My impressions (1)

Joelfabulous (1045392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421543)

Try OtterBox cases. They're pretty much indestructible for all basic needs, airtight so dust and water stay out, etc.

They have a 4th gen version out right now. The "Armor" version, the most expensive one, is the one you want if you're looking for something heavily durable. I have a 2nd Gen nano case and it's utterly fantastic. I've swam with it and everything.

www.otterbox.com

Meatballs and Mackerel (2, Funny)

Mean Variance (913229) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421407)

I got hung up on wondering who the hell buys canned meatballs in gravy and canned mackerel in brine.

wow (3, Informative)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421427)

I'm really surprised how poorly the HD did. Motion was poor and close ups were horrible. You do see quite a difference in calmer shots however the HD really looks much better then. Looking at the price I can't see any reason to buy the regular mino however the HD is still better if your not doing action or close ups. wont replace a $400 sony but for something you can keep in your pocket 24/7 and you wont cry if you destroy/lose it does actually rock.

many people have said that the mino would be better because it has a bigger lens but if you look closly at one most of that big round lens is superficial with the real lens being the same size as the iPods.

Good test (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421461)

And interesting that the Nano seems better than the iPhone overall, especially in closeups. But the real question is, which is best for shooting upskirts on Japanese escalators? My, uh, friend wants to know.

I'd like to strap one on (2, Insightful)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421797)

I'd like to strap one on to my motorcycle helmet and record my trips. I could then report the assholes texting, analyze the moves, etc. Nano wold work a lot better, sizewise, than a mino.

A perfect device for video surveillance (2, Interesting)

timholman (71886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29421871)

After seeing what the new Nano is capable of, I can't help but think how easy it would be to turn it on and let it just record your life for 8 or 16 hours at a time. It's so small that you could easily carry it in such a way that the camera lens would be exposed, but the rest of the Nano would be hidden.

I've had plenty of incidents in my life when something interesting happens and afterwards I say "If only I'd had a videocamera with me." So now with the Nano, why not just record my entire day, download anything of interest, then start all over again the next morning? That way I'm never caught off guard. Anything I see, my Nano sees, and I have a permanent record.

The new Nano isn't just an MP3 player - it is a very inexpensive and compact video surveillance device. For a lot of people it will be worth buying just for that feature alone. The only questions are how long the battery will last in video record mode, and whether the screen can be shut off during recording.

Re:A perfect device for video surveillance (2, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#29422277)

I don't know where you live, but the most likely places a geek is to live in the US all have pretty draconian 'wiretapping' laws which would make that activity highly illegal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>