×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

77 comments

Summary misses the point. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295380)

We may all already have phones - but this would be invaluable for someone who takes a professional-quality image or video of say, law enforcement. Any data recorded stands a better chance of being immediately put out of reach from your average plod

"You want me to erase all the evidence I just recorded of you officer? Of course."

Re:Summary misses the point. (3, Informative)

sosume (680416) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295400)

So what's new about this? This was available 10 years ago: http://www.mobiletechreview.com/tips/sandisk_SD_wifi.htm [mobiletechreview.com]
Or are they applying for a patent?

Re:Summary misses the point. (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295576)

So what's new about this? This was available 10 years ago

What's new is that Toshiba sent out a press release, so all media outlets must comply with the requisite awe and wonder.

That's how this works.

Re:Summary misses the point. (4, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295968)

Ah, no, this is not just normal WiFi, this is two-way WiFi. With old one-way WiFi, you had to send a packet, then eject the card, turn it around, and insert it the other way around to receive the reply. With this new two-way wireless magic your card can both send and receive! It's exciting and new!

Re:Summary misses the point. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37297560)

Ah, no, this is not just normal WiFi, this is two-way WiFi. With old one-way WiFi, you had to send a packet, then eject the card, turn it around, and insert it the other way around to receive the reply. With this new two-way wireless magic your card can both send and receive! It's exciting and new!

LOL!

The next one in the making (and I didn't tell you this; SHHHHH!) introduces Valid Strict Capability and a subset of Comprehensive Logistical Programming that will maximize security, and efficiently assure upgradeable firmware functionality! It will increase market share by over 35%.

No, I didn't use BuzzWord Generator (http://www.outofservice.com/buzzword/); I swear! /humor

Re:Summary misses the point. (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#37300136)

With old one-way WiFi, you had to send a packet, then eject the card, turn it around, and insert it the other way around to receive the reply.

Now before anyone tries this at home: You forgot to mention that this won't work unless you punch out a hole on the side of the sd card to change it from r/o to rw!

Re:Summary misses the point. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37297484)

So what's new about this? This was available 10 years ago

What's new is that Toshiba sent out a press release, so all media outlets must comply with the requisite awe and wonder.

That's how this works.

Heh.. Yeah.. You're right, IMHO. Old news is often the best profit-driving news.

Someone go out there and find that this isn't the case. C'mon. I challenge you! :)

Re:Summary misses the point. (3, Informative)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295680)

This appears to be a real sd card, not just some gadget that uses the SD card slot.

That it could be used for this, I guess it's not surprise to anyone, that you could incorporate it in a real size SD card, could be news.

Re:Summary misses the point. (2)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295828)

that you could incorporate it in a real size SD card, could be news.

Nope, still not a surprise, since over 200,000,000 photos have already been uploaded through Eye-Fi cards: http://www.eye.fi/ [www.eye.fi]

Re:Summary misses the point. (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37300676)

Eye-Fi is a real SD card, and appears to be a storage SD card to the camera. Instead of Wifi card using SD as interface.

Consider this is a USB Flash drive - but it can do two-way sync to the Wifi (Wifi configured separated, not with convention tools, and you cannot get network connection with that Wifi either). And this is not USB Wifi stick. Now s/USB/SD/g and you see the different.

Like she said, size matters (1)

Dinghy (2233934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295862)

While that may have been out 10 years ago, it will not fit in typical camera SD card slots because it is too long, and therefore is unusable for cameras where the card slot is enclosed. In addition, this has storage capabilities as well, as opposed to simply being a SD form factor for a wifi adapter.

Re:Like she said, size matters (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296074)

the storage capability matters because you can't upload sdio drivers to your camera.. that's the only reason, really, miniaturising them wouldn't have been the problem, but doing the storage link needs sw and engineering, and something at the other end. still, how does one configure it?

(and there's that direct upload wifi sd card that has been out for a while, so two way probably means you could stick this in your smartphone and upload stuff back too, and that's why this is different from the sdio wifi cards, technically though it's just putting 1+1 together and I have to really wonder about compatibility..)

Re:Like she said, size matters (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296348)

That's one of the reasons why I hate SD cards and most of the other cards. CF cards are a bit larger, but it's nice to know that pretty much any device with a CF slot will take a CF card, no matter how new. I think the only compatibility questions are for CF type 2, because they're a bit thicker and for Microdrives.

But, even my 11 year old Canon s10 is limited only by the filesystem that Canon chose to use, it will take a modern CF card because the card itself has the necessary controller embedded.

Re:Like she said, size matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37297848)

And the one thing I hate about cisco:

cheap 1GB CF - $5 - $25
1GB cisco branded CF because they are dicks and only let their cards work on the slots: $700 - $900

both can be formatted FAT in a PC but only one can be inserted and read by their devices. (ass holes)

Re:Summary misses the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37297796)

From the bottom of the link:

"This card does not work with Toshiba Pocket PCs other than the e405 and e805, even though they have SDIO slots, due to lack of a software stack for SDIO cards other than Toshiba's Bluetooth SD card."

A little late for revenge are they?

To be fair (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 2 years ago | (#37299542)

3rd parties did write drivers for other PDAs too back then. Palm had a driver for most Palm OS devices. So the disclaimer isn't 100% correct.

WiFi adapter vs. Memory with embed server. (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 2 years ago | (#37299532)

BACK THEN:
What Sandisk did 10 years ago was a network card running over a SPI bus. (It's just like you classic network card, but over an SDIO slots' bus instead of PCIe or USB)
That means that, using correct drivers, a PalmOS or a WindowsCE PDA could use the card to access WiFi network. (At a time where most built-in options were IrDA and maybe bluetooth for the top-level PDAs).
I did use similar card to get WiFi access on my Plam Tungsten T3 and Tapwave Zodiac.
They are similar to the CF Wifi cards for PDA (which are WiFi adapter, running over an IDE/ATAPI/Compact Flash/16bit PC card Bus). Psion used such WiFi CF modules.

Later models also added memory as an extra functionality. Using only 1 single slot, you got a WiFi adapter *AND* a few megabyte of Flash, both packaged inside a SD-Card.

WHEREAS:
The WiFi SD cards that started appearing since a couple of year like the Eye-Fi series are an entirely different beast. Ten years ago, the most you could embed into such a piece of plastic was a network controller. Today, inside an SD Card package, you could even fit a system-on-a-chip. That means that the SD card it self contains some logic. You pop-up the card into any SD-card enabled device, and the SD-card's onboard electronic is able to connect and upload pictures on its own. Without need of any support from the device (except, well at some point of time you need to set the configuration. But you could do that from a supported device, say a Windows Laptop with a special SDIO-to-USB adapter. And then plug it into a unsupported device). Whereas older cards were "just" Wifi adapter, with the host device (usually a PDA with proper drivers) doing all the work, the modern WiFi SD cards are autonomous.
A Toshiba or EyeFi card is to a Sandisk, exactly the same as what KillerNic and Intel's AMT are to plain old network card. Both are connected to a network, but the modern devices contain enough logic to be able to do things on their own.
Or if you prefer, these modern WiFi cards contain their very own simplified file servers, with which you can fetch files written on the flash portion, even if the photo camera into which is inserted has no fucking idea of a network is in the first place.

Similar concept have been available since a long time on CF cards too (except that the first didn't have wifi connection, but simple cabled connection. They were basically dual-ported flashcards, with photocamera writing on one side, and the PC reading on the other). I've only witnessed a couple of very expensive professional gigs running such setups.

What is new in today's card, is that its supposed to be 2-way. The filesystems format used commonly on flash media (FAT32 or more recently FATX and NTFS) are awefully messy pieces of shit. Among other, they cannot be simultaneously written on by two different systems (note that most hi quality modern filesystems neither, unless they were specifically designed for). So usually, the photo camera mounts the card with full read/write access, and the embed wifi sharing system inside the SD card only reads the data. It cannot attempt to write to the card, because the main device, the photocamera, won't be aware of the modifications done by the embed system, won't take them into account, and will end up corrupting the data on the flash.
Thus EyeFi are read-only: they can only autonomously upload/send photo. Not download/recieve them.

I suspect that Toshiba's two-way sharing won't be universally supported by all cameras. It either requires some support from the camera firmware (so the cards can use locks and request-for-refresh to make the camera aware that the data is being rewritten).
Or some full support from the camera (perhaps, with supported camera, the two-way is handled by the camera it self, and the WiFi SD is put into a "dumb netowkr adapter over SPI" mode) - so in fact these camera work exactly like the WiFi enabled ones, except that it uses an external old-style WiFi card instead of its own.
Or some other weird restriction (the photocamera has to use a special filesystem format which can be concurrently written to, or the write functionality on works while the camera is in "standby", but it has to keep the SD slot powered, etc.).
But I can't come to find details on the way this work.

Re:WiFi adapter vs. Memory with embed server. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37303740)

great description, I wish I had mod points to mod you up.

Regarding the exclusive Filesystem access, might it be that the SD/WIFI electronic adds a FS abstraction layer so that the camera believes to have exclusive access but the chip on SD can write on the SD storage without pain (after all I guess an intermediate FS layer of some sort is already in those kind of products so that the SD logic detects a new file written on the storage and triggers the wifi transfer of it) ?

Re:Summary misses the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37303040)

Your link is for an SD form factor networking card. It isn't an SD storage card. These were used to give devices such as PDAs WiFi...back then not all devices had WiFi or networking included in the base device. That is why your link has no mention of any storage capacity for the cards anywhere. They were using the SD slot for PDAs like a PCMCIA slot for laptops.

The Toshiba, as well as the EyeFi cards, are SD storage cards first and appear as such only to the device. From there, the card has WiFi features added to it. They store. Then they transmit or mirror to another network. The Toshiba card will apparently also receive.

The Toshiba card is somewhat similar to the Infinitec USB card that was supposedly announce last year or so (search Engadget for details). The Infinitec was a thumb drive where you could add to any device, and add or remove files--so you could upload things to your non-WiFi HDTV that could play off a thumb drive supposedly (I don't own one). (There was some talk that the Infinitec had 2 transmitters, but I don't see why that was important or necessary.) I anticipate something similar with the Toshiba card but for SD.

If true, this Toshiba card is something I've been waiting for. For a DSLR, the EyeFi Pro is fine (I have 2) since you want the stuff off the camera but rarely want to upload. But for devices like older HDTVs or a digital picture frame, the 2-way SD card is a welcome addition.

Re:Summary misses the point. (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295402)

In that case, I don't think they'd "ask" or "want" you to erase anything. Best case scenario, it's taken away from you. Worst case scenario, you never see it again. (bonus points for getting physically assaulted)

Re:Summary misses the point. (3, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295632)

http://dpreview.com/news/1109/11090205toshibawificard.asp [dpreview.com]
Its a first as in "fully comply with the SD standard" i.e. no drivers needed for a unique very small subset of units.
For law enforcement and rent a spooks (or ex special forces) it means your very public photography/movie clip is safe from a software or "hard"ware deleting.
From a Guardian story having its images removed ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/bilderberg-charlie-skelton-dispatch [guardian.co.uk]
"One of the policewomen smiled. "Delete photos and you can go, no trouble.""
The "London Street Photography Festival" shows some sides of image/movie making in public places http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo [youtube.com] or
the parts of the world where police know to look around and 'remove' all cards/devices after a beating/death.

Re:Summary misses the point. (0)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295854)

It's still nothing more than a product release announcement, as opposed to "OMG NEW TECH," since this very product has been available from others for some time now, and is in (more or less) wide use already: http://www.eye.fi/ [www.eye.fi]

Implementation problems? (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295394)

How would this work?

SD cards are just block storage. Surely it wouldn't modify the underlying filesystem while being connected to a host? Wouldn't that potentially corrupt the filesystem?

Re:Implementation problems? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295410)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#SDIO

Re:Implementation problems? (2)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 2 years ago | (#37297244)

This isn't a SDIO card but rather from the host device appears as a standard block storage card. Presumably finding a way of modifying the file-system without causing corruption is what qualifies this as news.
The easy way way would have been to have placeholder files that were always visible to the host device. Which when read where blank, until new files where actually received.
I expect they have gone an extra step and found a way of forcing the host to reload the FAT (so the files get relevant filenames), possibly simply by simulating an ejection/insertion, or perhaps just by emulating a cleverly structured read failure. This may catch a few devices out, but probably works well enough in the higher end devices they are targeting.

Re:Implementation problems? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295888)

I have had a SD wifi card for years. It was for a PDA that i had at the time that didn't come with it nativity. I don't see the big deal here, but don't doubt the have made one, again.

Re:Implementation problems? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37301394)

I hate it when those cheapass PDA manufacturers don't include a baby Jesus with their products.

Cell phone camera's (0)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295424)

It has been labelled a security worry â" but most of us already have cameras with wireless connections ... called phones

Please, even the best cellphone camera is a toy compared to what a pro or semi pro would be using. Most cell phone camera's are pretty much a point and shoot whereas I'd be using a digital slr with a wide range of lenses. I'm not putting down cell phone camera's. I'm just saying that comparing (example) my Iphone 4 camera to a digital SLR is like apples to oranges.

Re:Cell phone camera's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295478)

It has been labelled a security worry â" but most of us already have cameras with wireless connections ... called phones

Please, even the best cellphone camera is a toy compared to what a pro or semi pro would be using. Most cell phone camera's are pretty much a point and shoot whereas I'd be using a digital slr with a wide range of lenses. I'm not putting down cell phone camera's. I'm just saying that comparing (example) my Iphone 4 camera to a digital SLR is like apples to oranges.

Yes, yes, you have a higher-resolution camera with better optics. Mine is probably better than yours, even. But the security worries are not affected by the price or quality of my camera gear.

Re:Cell phone camera's (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295482)

what is best current cameraphone? It is N8.

and it is terrible camera.

- limited to 28mm wide = terrible for person photographing (you want 50mm, 85mm or 110mm usually) and even for most landscape situations (you want to zoom on those as well)

- no macro function at all. macro means at least 1:1 ration and N8 has only a close-up functionality.

- Almost infinite DOF, even with 2.8f what means no great videos, potrait or even landscape photos. only because camera is build to so small case that you are forced to work at limits of physics unless you can build case to much deeper.

no matter who made the lens or how many megapixels, N8 camera is almost unusable when compared even to pocket cameras.

Re:Cell phone camera's (1)

luder (923306) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295608)

even the best cellphone camera is a toy compared to what a pro or semi pro would be using

I agree, but we should be careful not to underestimate cellphone cameras, they can be surprisingly good:

iPhone @ New York streets [blogspot.com]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonatasluzia/6103884318/ [flickr.com]
http://365iphone.blogspot.com/2011/08/1382010.html [blogspot.com]
http://365iphone.blogspot.com/2011/08/2882011.html [blogspot.com]
http://365iphone.blogspot.com/2011/08/2382011_24.html [blogspot.com]
http://365iphone.blogspot.com/2011/08/2082011.html [blogspot.com]
http://365iphone.blogspot.com/2011/08/1782011_17.html [blogspot.com]
http://365iphone.blogspot.com/2011/07/1872011_18.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Cell phone camera's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295934)

Funny, the photo on Flickr was set to "The owner has disabled downloading of their photos" permissions. So now I have the image on my desktop. I'm thinking about printing it out and mailing it to the owner with a note about how you can't disable downloading of images which are displayed on a website.

Re:Cell phone camera's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37296506)

I hate to be an ass, but those images, while interesting artistically, are horrific photographically. They look worse than even the lowest end 'real' camera.

Re:Cell phone camera's (2)

MarlonTucker (1792636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295708)

I think everyone's missing the point regarding the meaning of that quote.... I took it as the OP saying the following - "there has been potential security worries flagged up by people regarding having WiFi enabled SD (I suppose especially 2-way ones), however this technology has existed for years in phones, and whilst security can be a worry, it can be mitigated with proper management".

Re:Cell phone camera's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295812)

You're missing the point of the sentence, which is that if you're worried that your camera has a wi-fi connection, there's already a common precedent - your smartphone.

Re:Cell phone camera's (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296292)

I'm just saying that comparing (example) my Iphone 4 camera to a digital SLR is like apples to oranges.

"Apples" to Oranges? Hmmm....... [ohinternet.com]

FWIW, Apples' phones may be restricted by their being stuck in a mobile phone, but so are Oranges'. [engadget.com] ;-)

Re:Cell phone camera's (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296376)

Actually, cell phones are a much more serious threat as far as security goes. Sure you can hook a 1.4x teleconverter to a 2x teleconverter to a 500mm lens and be taking pictures from a quarter mile away, but you still need to be close enough to have an unobstructed line of site, which is tough and while you're doing it you're going to have all sorts of folks wondering why you're using bird photography gear in an urban environment. And have to answer questions when the police confront you for being suspicious.

A cameraphone requires that you be a lot closer, but it fits in your pocket and if you're doing it correctly it's likely that nobody is even going to notice that you're taking photos.

Monthly fee (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295444)

but most of us already have cameras with wireless connections ... called phones.

Not everybody wants to have a separate $60 per month data or data+voice plan for every separate camera that the family owns.

Re:Monthly fee (1)

sosume (680416) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295456)

And WiFi helps this how? It's not like there's an open WiFi available at the average photo scenery.

Re:Monthly fee (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295574)

No, but it make it much faster and simpler to download the photos to your laptop. Or possibly even to upload them to your server via McDonald's or Starbucks (free wifi for the win).

Re:Monthly fee (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296402)

These devices are primarily for studio work. Previously the work would be done tethered to a computer, but now they can do it wirelessly using a WiFi device. It's nice in that it makes it a bit easier to move around in the studio, but this technology is unlikely to be of much value outside of a studio environment.

Re:Monthly fee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37298130)

There have definitely been options for wireless photo transmission from pro cameras for a while. I took my daughter to see Santa 2-3 years ago, they took a photo with a professional looking camera and when I went out of the "grotto", it was on their computer for me to view and optionally purchase.

Re:Monthly fee (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37299000)

Yes, and this manufacturer has been making devices like this for years. What's special is that it's compatible with standards slots and works bidirectionally.

This is news? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295448)

Palm has ha a card with WiFi for quite a few years.
http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/7053/review-palmone-sd-wifi-card/

Re:This is news? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296658)

yea and when compact flash was king in PDA's you could get wifi, ethernet, gps, modems you name it

Article misses the point, I think (2)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295526)

The new Toshiba FlashAir card can transmit photos and videos to the back-end system, but the really clever bit is that it can also receive data (photos, videos etc) as well.

This means that two people, both equipped with FlashAir-equipped cameras, can transmit photos or other data between their respective devices, in a peer to peer manner.

No, what it means is that you can have a scheme something like:

  1. Pair Card with external device
  2. Take picture
  3. Picture is saved to 8 GB of SD memory
  4. If pairing is still intact, upload image to paired device
  5. Wait for response from paired device that image is saved successfully
  6. Once response is received, delete image from 8 GB SD memory space.

What this means is that a photographer can shoot until their battery runs out while a nearby notebook or WiFi enabled SAN device records the images. Instead of being limited to 32 GB, you can happily fill a terabyte drive or more.

Or if you're concerned about the data's safety locally (journalist working in a dangerous area, someone taking pictures of authorities who might take the camera away) you can even set the device that's receiving the images to upload into a remote FTP or some kind of cloud based service.

Or am I missing something?

Re:Article misses the point, I think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295618)

Yep, the fact that most mid to high end DSLRs already support tethering- a function to shoot directly to the HD of the attached PC. Might be nice if you find yourself in a situation where you don't want the photos to be around after taking them (police, revolution, etc).

Re:Article misses the point, I think (1)

PopeScott (1343031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295916)

Yet most mid tier DSLRs do not(my D90 does not). This is a nice add on for such cameras. Pros may already have such devices, the majority of DSLR owners don't.

Re:Article misses the point, I think (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295948)

Or if you're concerned about the data's safety locally (journalist working in a dangerous area, someone taking pictures of authorities who might take the camera away) you can even set the device that's receiving the images to upload into a remote FTP or some kind of cloud based service.

That is how my fairly inexpensive Nikon point and shoot works now, it sends pictures to a ftp/http site for later retrieval. Rather annoying that its tied to THEIR service however as i would rather it just hook to my server at home.

Re:Article misses the point, I think (1)

thue (121682) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296412)

It would probably be easier to just build the wireless networking into the camera, than to build it into each SD card. That way you also don't risk having the antenna buried inside the camera along with the SD card.

Re:Article misses the point, I think (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37301740)

Some cameras already do this, but this way they can get a piece of the camera market that won't buy a whole other phone to get Wi-Fi.

I just paid $50 for a used 10 MP Fuji with a 2GB card at a flea market, basically what I'd have paid on eBay but without having to pay for shipping or the memory card. Should have paid forty but anyway. I'm not in the market for an expensive new camera for Wi-Fi, but if I could get one of these on sale or something I might think about it :)

Re:Article misses the point, I think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37297020)

Eye-fi, (and others) can already do this, it knows the photos that have been uploaded and can delete them as you get over X%. EyeFi doesn't have one way wireless, it just doesn't (currently) allow you to write pictures to the card from a PC. I'm sure current hardware could do this, although I'm not quite sure why you'd want to do this on a camera. Eye Fi also doesn't work with files that are not pictures or video. So you can't 'mount' your SD card on your pc to read/write it, you have to do what eye-fi says it okay. Where you might would be other devices that use sd cards, only thing I can think of would be a wii, where you could just copy a game/saved file or whatever without removing the card.

What about my application? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295642)

Presently a WiFi enabled network camera costs at least $100 and up, but usually more. Usually they start at several hundred dollars. A WiFi enabled megapixel camera costs several hundred dollars, usually starting around $500 and very quickly going far north of there. An HD network or wireless network camera typically starts at $900 and up!

Meanwhile, you can purchase a Canon 12 megapixel point and shoot(excellent little camera) that even does HD video for around $100. I've been wanting to WiFi enable such a beast and have an inexpensive multi-megapixel wireless network camera for a long time. But, using an EyeFi doesn't work well because it's slow, it can't stream video(it only uploads saved files) and it's complex to get the camera scripted to continuously snap pictures.

Can Toshiba's new card be used in the above scenario to turn an excellent but inexpensive camera into a HD wireless network (video?) camera for a reasonable price? I need something like this to break through the present artificial price barrier.

PRO... but the top-end cameras use compact flash ! (1)

squash_me_quickly (663285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295684)

I see that they put "pro" in the name (Eye-Fi Pro X2).... there is nothing "professional" about it. Both Canon and Nikons top range (professional) cameras use only Compact Flash. This card should be called the "Eye-Fi Semi-Pro/Noob X2"

Re:PRO... but the top-end cameras use compact flas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295810)

Canon's 1D and 1Ds series have used both compact flash and SD cards. Pentax 645D also uses SD cards only. The 1D series is >$5k and the 1Ds and 645D are closer to $10k. Hard to say those aren't 'pro'.

Re:PRO... but the top-end cameras use compact flas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37296050)

WHow to the camera elitist. "Only quality non noob cameras use Compact Flash" Shoe? Mouth

Re:PRO... but the top-end cameras use compact flas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37296110)

I see that they put "pro" in the name (Eye-Fi Pro X2).... there is nothing "professional" about it.Both Canon and Nikons top range (professional) cameras use only Compact Flash.This card should be called the "Eye-Fi Semi-Pro/Noob X2"

i have a 7D which is considered semi-pro/prosumer can all it uses is compact flash. so your logic is invalid here at /.

Re:PRO... but the top-end cameras use compact flas (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296780)

no one even makes compact flash anymore, besides its just an ide interface not magic

Re:PRO... but the top-end cameras use compact flas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37297072)

eh? so the two 16Gb Sandisk CF cards I bought from Amazon last week are not real? A mirage perhaps?
My D700 & D3 would beg to disagree with you.
What about the Barn Owl pictures I took last Thursday in North Norfolk. They aren't real. A figment of my imagination.

Pah! Fail.

Reprap + wifi SD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295752)

With any luck the reprap (3D printer) community can do something with this... Wireless uploads to a 3D printer, possibilities!

Re:Reprap + wifi SD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37297082)

Wireless uploads to a 3D printer, possibilities!

Can you imagine the hilarity that would ensue if a malicious hacker was able to connect to a wireless 3D printer with inadequate security?

Some poor sod would be wondering why his keeps "printing" a model of a large penis every night. ;-)

Re:Reprap + wifi SD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37301476)

That's not very funny. Any newtgingrich could print 2 dimensional sexual organs to an unsecured wireless 2D printer. The 3D ones would just be more expensive. Wait, why is this important? I thought this thread was about some brilliant new technology called bidirectional wireless internet.

Wrong security worry (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296156)

I think the higher security worry should be that this could be used to silently plug a pre-configured Wifi device on a PC. What if you make it discreet, using some sort of rootkit and use a program to extract data from the device - and the networks it has access to?

People already use this today, see Stuxnet. This would allow for an extra communication device and could come handy. You'd avoid wired networks security measures, and short of scambling wireless frequencies or scanning for odd signals, which not many companies do because they have no reason to, you're defenseless. Scary.

New product? (1)

dwreid (966865) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296242)

I just reached into my desk drawer and pulled out my SD card with built-in 2 way WiFi that I bought years ago. How is this new?

Non-Unique. (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296996)

SDIO Wi-fi cards have been around for ages; I remember trying to find one for my Palm Treo 650 to get it online and not being able to afford it.

one [amazon.com]
two [amazon.com]

What's new about this exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37298280)

I mean, props to them for trying something a bit different, but SanDisk and several others beat them to it by over a decade...

For instance, I have in my hand here a Sandisk 256MB + WiFi SDIO card which I've had since the early 2000's (It's my Tapwave Zodiac's gateway to the Internet ;))

It's only 802.11b and runs on the very slow SD 1-bit interface tho', whereas Toshi's holds 8GB and hopefully uses the faster SDHC IO interface...?

Larry Niven's "Flash Crowd" newstaper gear (1973) (1)

DutchUncle (826473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37318744)

The newstaper didn't bother with local storage; it was all being uploaded live all the time. As long as you have connectivity, of course.
Check for New 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...