×

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

585 comments

ummmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583028)

had this for over a year now myself! whoodeedoo!

It's not disposable... it's reusable. (5, Informative)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583031)

It's not _disposable_ it's _reusable_. The camera is returned to a
Ritz Camera store where the pictures inside are downloaded to a CD
or printed. The camera itself is kept by Ritz and recycled to another
customer. In other words your $10.99 is a _rental_ of the camera
with processing of the pictures included in the rental price.

There's a picture of one of these cameras here [technogadgets.com].

The USA Today article has some more details [usatoday.com]
on the camera and its use including the fact that it is likely to be sold at Walgreens
and Walt Disney theme parks (seems like a good idea to me).

The camera has a 2-megapixel sensor.

John.

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583047)

Hmmm. I suppose that it could be cheaper than film alternatives, but I want more and in the long run, an investment in my Canon digital camera will be cheaper while giving me more control.

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583242)

Who gives a rat's ass what you want?

Seriously. Why does every fucking cockbiting moron feel compelled to state whether a given product is or is not something that they want, as if the greater community gives a fuck about their worthless opinion. Shut the fuck up, shithead.

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (4, Insightful)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583056)

True, that is just the common term for the concept. Reusable film cameras are often referred to as 'disposable', even though they are reused in much the same way.

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (5, Interesting)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583059)

Any bets that the're using a modified USB port, or using 802.11b?

I have a feeling these suckers'll be hacked faster than a Cue:Cat .

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (5, Funny)

soundnfury (638010) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583065)

Of course, you could throw it out. Then it'd be disposable. Well, disposed....of.

I wonder if you could snag other peoples pics (5, Interesting)

zeoslap (190553) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583070)

Depending on how they recyle these I wonder if it would be possible to recover other peoples pics from the reused memory card ?

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (5, Interesting)

timmyd (108567) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583114)

The camera costs $10.99, which includes a set of 4-by-6-inch prints, an index print showing thumbnails of all 25 shots, and a photo CD, allowing for further home or commercial printing. The CD also contains Mac and PC software for viewing, saving, printing or e-mailing photos, which need not be installed in the user's computer.

I'm trying to figure out what keeps the user from permanently "renting" this camera (downloading the pics to the computer and then deleting them off camera). Anyone want to fill me in?

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (2, Insightful)

thePancreas (690504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583166)

I'm trying to figure out what keeps the user from permanently "renting" this camera

It's called firmware Kyle. It's a chip that'll only let you take the set ammount of pics before disabling itself.

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (1)

CheeseMonkey (677515) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583188)

It's called firmware Kyle. It's a chip that'll only let you take the set ammount of pics before disabling itself.
Yeah, but you can delete pictures, Stan! I was thinking the exact same thing- $10 for a 2 megapixel digital camera, even without an LCD that's a damn bargain!

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (1)

timmyd (108567) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583228)

Yeah, but you can delete pictures, Stan! I was thinking the exact same thing- $10 for a 2 megapixel digital camera,

He probably meant an internal counter that would just count the times you hit the 'take picture' button before it deactivates. Nevertheless, once something like that is cracked, these won't be on the market for long.

Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (1)

imaro (584142) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583170)

Ok, I understand it is reusable, but how much does it cost to reuse? Because it seems like it might as well be disposable if its the same price to reuse.

More recyclable than disposable... (5, Interesting)

zeoslap (190553) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583032)

Seems pretty cool although disposable is a bit of a misnomer because they are really just recyclable, not like Ritz is throwing all the bits in the trash after processing them.

Not being able to review the pics instantly is a drag too as its one of the main reasons I like using digicams (well that and not having photo guy check out my, um, arty pics) and I'm also a little dubious of their claims that a 2 megapixel camera can give you decent prints at 8x10, all that being said having a self timer is neat and I'm sure they'll be pretty popular.

In fact thinking about the recycling a bit more, I wonder if you could ever grab somebodies old pics off of a recycled unit.... I know you can recover deleted pics from a normal digicams media.... Something to think about.. :)

Re:More recyclable than disposable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583112)

Why did this get modded redundant? He made one point that had been made by an earlier poster, but he also made two other points (lack of ability to review, and possibility of retrieving "deleted" pictures) that had not been made by anoyone else.

Re:More recyclable than disposable... (1)

Stone316 (629009) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583142)

Actually it goes like this: 1 MegaPixel = Photo quality 4x6 prings 2 = 8x10 3 = 11x14 etc.. If you enlarge greater than that then you'll start to get degredation.

I meant to add (1)

Stone316 (629009) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583175)

I have a 2.2 megapixel camera and I print 8x10's of the kids all the time. They are on the wall next to studio prints and you can't see a difference at all. Even to my discerning eye and I can see seep-age (printers) or pixelation no matter how small. I'm very picky.

Re:I meant to add (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583230)

Yes...I've found that with my 2.1 Megapixel Canon S100, 8x10's look just fine. Now, if you look at them up really close, you can see that they're not quite as perfect as a film-based 8x10, but from any distance away, 2.1 will produce a fine 8x10. ...Nothing larger though...

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583035)

First Post!!!!!!

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583040)

fp!!! haahaha bitches!!!

um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (4, Interesting)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583051)

how long do you think. before they are reverse engineered?

how hard could i tbe to determine the method used to download the pics, and then sell a cable & driver for 20$?

Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (4, Insightful)

kryten (28985) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583088)

I'm sure that will be in violation of one of those "bad business model protection" laws the US seem keen on passing these days.

Do you think these guys might be related to the Digital Convergence [slashdot.org] guys?

um, a 2mp camera for 10.99-Boogieman bush business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583156)

Why would you be certain of something that hasn't even happen? The damn camera hasn't even come out yet. The worst that will happen is the camera will no longer be made, just like those barcode scanners that came out.

IMHO If the company plays by the rules, we should play by the rules.

Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99-Boogieman bush busin (1)

Nutcase (86887) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583200)

"IMHO If the company plays by the rules, we should play by the rules."

Ok, but only if I get to make the rules.

Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (1)

Trelane, the Squire (608266) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583191)

I'm sure that will be in violation of one of those "bad business model protection" laws the US seem keen on passing these days.
I'm sorry, but that's a cool quote. You just know that's going in someone's sig. heck, I'll jot it down ;)

Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583120)

Screw that... How long do you think it'll be before someone has detailed instructions on how to take the camera apart and put it into a better enclosure with a 256mb flash chip and insructions on how to make the cable for nothing!

Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (4, Funny)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583226)

How long until someone has Linux running on it?

Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583238)

What about a beo... oh, forget it.

Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (3, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583148)

Probably about the same time that crappy 2 megapixel cameras come down ot 10.99 in price.

Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (4, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583162)

Harder than it would be to just buy a 2MP camera with no LCD for 20-30 bucks.

Hacking stuff is neat and all, but this would be like hacking xboxes for linux. You spend twice as much for a second rate result.

This is Great! (0, Redundant)

Schezar (249629) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583052)

Now, this is digital, so there has to be a way for the Ritz folk to get the photos off of the camera.

10 000 points to the first one to figure out how to do this on our own. Release the info anonymously, of course, so they can't get you on DMCA ballyhoo.

I mean, I'd pay that little for a decent digital camera.

Re:This is Great! (1, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583108)

Always someone out there looking to steal I suppose. Would not life be easier for the society as a whole if people voted with their earned dollars rather than stealing? Seriously, it's sad that this is the first thing that some folks think of when a product like this comes out. "how can we steal this thing?".

It's not stealing. (4, Interesting)

Schezar (249629) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583152)

It's not stealing. They make a product that can be purchased for $x. They provide value to said product when it is returned to them.

If I can provide said value on my own, I have no reason to return it to them.

Simple economics ^_^

Re:This is Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583157)

How is this stealing?? You have the end product--you bought it. All you're doing is enhancing its use. It's their own fault if people find a better use for it than taking it to Ritz to get developed.

Re:This is Great! (2, Interesting)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583181)

it's sad that this is the first thing that some folks think of when a product like this comes out. "how can we steal this thing?".
It's hard to tell if you're trolling or just missing the point. If IHBT, then IHL.
It's not stealing. They're selling a $10.99 camera. They're also telling you that the only way to get your prints is to bring that camera back to them.
I'm buying a $10.99 camera, but I don't like someone telling me "The only way you can .... " about anything, so I'm gonna make good use of my $10.99 camera, thankyouverymuch.

And yes, I do have a CueCat. No, I didn't ever install the software, so I never agreed to the EULA that was on the software CD. No, I didn't steal my CueCat.

--

Re:This is Great! (5, Insightful)

gaijin99 (143693) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583198)

Always someone out there looking to steal I suppose. Would not life be easier for the society as a whole if people voted with their earned dollars rather than stealing? Seriously, it's sad that this is the first thing that some folks think of when a product like this comes out. "how can we steal this thing?".

Nonsense. They are advertising this as a disposable camera. When I buy a disposable camera at a store I am under absolutely no obligation to return the camera. I can keep it, or develop the film myself, or any number of other things.

The article didn't say that the cameras were rented (meaning a rental agreement, a promise to return the camera, etc) though it may be an ommission on the writer's part. If they are sold like disposable cameras than I see nothing either illegal or immoral about buying one and using it in a manner the seller didn't intend me to.

If I rent a digital camera (which sounds like a pretty good thing to try actually) I'd be under obligtaitons to return it, not to mess with its innards, and so forth.

This is exactly like MS selling the X-Box below production price and then whining when people use their legally purchased hardware in a way that MS doesn't like. There is absolutely no legal or moral obligation to support a business model that doesn't work.

If its a purchase, not a rental, than it can't be stealing to use it any way I want to.

Re:This is Great! (1)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583210)

How exactly is it stealing? You buy a product and use it for a purpose other than what the seller intended. That's *not* inherently wrong. Are you suggesting that the camera come with a EULA stating that you can't mod it?

Re:This is Great! (1)

keester (646050) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583133)

From the article:

The CD also contains Mac and PC software for viewing, saving, printing or e-mailing photos, which need not be installed in the user's computer.

I want my points. Give em up. 10 000 big ones. That's right, baby. Come to daddy.

Re:This is Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583233)

That's the CD you get after you pay for photo processing like the tool you are, asshat!!!

What's that? Are you going to cry now? I'll just take those 10,000 points back, and another 95,000 for my time. Thanks, babe.

Same thing (4, Insightful)

ajiva (156759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583053)

How is this any different from a standard 35mm disposable camera? I can get one of those, and get the same features but for half the price. Its not "Digital", but I can get a PhotoCD, index prints, etc for about $7.

Re:Same thing (1)

bombom (168256) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583089)

It is almost the same thing. In the article it says that even though there is no LCD (Too expensive and power hungry) you have the option to delete pictures that you think won't turn out good.

Re:Same thing (2, Informative)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583090)

How is this any different from a standard 35mm disposable camera?

You can delete pictures and shoot them again. Can't do that with a film-based camera.

Re:Same thing (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583141)

Without the LCD, 'though, a lot of that advantage goes away. Sure, if you get bumped or somebody moves in or out of your shot or you realize some other gross error you'll know... but if the automatic exposure overexposed some sunny surface, or if focus missed, or so forth... that won't be detectable without an LCD.

Re:Same thing (4, Insightful)

appleLaserWriter (91994) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583128)

With the 35mm disposable camera, the plastic body can be reused, but the film must be processed and discarded. The result is a nasty chemical mess every time you decide to take pictures. The digicam downloads its data to the printer, and is immediately ready to be sent back out to take more pictures.

The 35mm disposable camera may be less expensive today, but every beautiful picture you take of the mountains contributes to the destruction of those same mountains. The digicam only needs to be manufacturered once, so the environmental impact is reduced. Prices will quickly fall as vendors compete for market share.

Re:Same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583252)

I wish people would refer to something other than mountains when talking about protecting the environment. Other than nuclear waste, when was the last time you say a landfill on a mountain? A landfill becomes a small mountain (ok, hill)!

Re:Same thing (1)

boiscout (450132) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583199)

I don't know where you're getting your 35mm disposable cameras at, but around here they are usually about $7.00 each, then you add on the $7 for processing, and you're spending more money...

That doesn't make any sense!

Re:Same thing (2, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583214)

Well, for one thing, it'll actually be "Digital".

My mom, despite a reasonably technical background, bought a Kodak PLUSDigital [pricegrabber.com] camera -- which sounded to her like a "disposable digital" camera. In reality, it was simply a standard, film-based camera with CD-ROM processing included in the price. Of course, the price was several buck$ higher than she would have paid for a regular disposable camera.

I don't think she's gotten around to developing the pix yet, so I don't know how well the concept worked.

Meanwhile, Ritz' idea sounds like a winner:

* I can get rid of the obvious "oops" pix, even without the LCD.

* I'll be able to afford $10 bucks a pop a lot easier than $200, for the small number of pix I take.

* Developing onto both CD and 4x6 hard-copy is better than I could do with a $200 camera, anyway.

* By the time I get serious about taking digital pictures, someone on Slashdot will have hacked together an interface. If they can hack Furby [homestead.com], a "simple" digital camera can't be that tough.

By the way, guys... when you hack the interface, don't forget the IR [apogeephoto.com] mods [go.com]!

2MP is plenty (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583063)

My Nikon D1H has a 2.something MP CCD and I can easily print up to 16"x20".

Just use a spline-based Photoshop plugin to enlarge your prints.

2 megapixel CCD for $10?! (2, Interesting)

DeltaSigma (583342) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583064)

I'll take it! Just don't expect me to return it...

Re:2 megapixel CCD for $10?! (1)

PhracturedBlue (224393) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583185)

I was thinking about this. It looks like they are shooting more for a rental market though. I'd be surprised if they can actually manufacture these things, create prints, and a CD, and still make money at $10.99, unless they get a significant number of reuses out of the camera (in which case it is proabbly cheaper for them than a disposable film camera) So I wonder if they'll require a deposit. It'd sure make them a lot less convenient, and reduce the market (no kids for instance). I guess that if they can manufacture the cameras for less than $11 each, they don't lose (since anyone who doesn't return it doesn't get prints/CD made). But I agree, it seems like it'd be a great by at $11 each for something that is much nicer than a $30 web-cam, assuming it can be modified...and I'm sure it can. It's very difficult to prevent reverse-engineering when you provide the hardware.

Misnomer? (2, Informative)

DogIsMyCoprocessor (642655) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583067)

Why are these called disposable? Won't Ritz just check the battery and put it back out for sale until the mechanicals wear out or electronics fry? Or maybe they'll advertise those as "previously-disposed" cameras? Isn't this actually a form of rental? Maybe consumers feel they are getting a better deal if they "own" the camera.

How long until.... (3, Insightful)

halightw (539485) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583068)

...a clever individual figures out how to download the pictures and reset the camera at home? That way you could basically get a basic digital camera for $10. Is there anything that requires you to return the camera within a certain period of time?

so, it is not like the lame ass kodak one (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583069)

where it is real film and they just send you the prints and a photo cd right.

my god, any one who thinks they are doing digital with that is a moron.

So how long until someone reverses it? (1)

Autonomous Canard (694158) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583071)

So, how long until someone reverse engineers it, so we can buy ourselves a re-usable digital camera for $10.99?

Or do we have to fill out a rental form before getting one? In that case, I think most people will be sticking to disposable film cameras.

Hacking it? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583072)

How long before someone finds how to hack it? How do they ensure you return the thing?

I'm thinking, I could figure out a way to; Hack it, gaining a digi cam for ten bucks and/or add more memory to it. Cause 25 pictures sucks...

There's a cheaper option. (2, Interesting)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583073)

You can just get a regular disposable camera and send it to one of the places that offer digital images with developing (like Snapfish [snapfish.com]). About three bucks for a disposable camera and three for developing. And if you lose the camera (which is why I get disposables anyway) you're only out three bucks, not eleven.

If Ritz can get the pictures out why can't I? (2, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583075)

Sounds like an excellent canidate for hacking a cheap web cam, or put in the bottom of a bowl so your parents will look into theirs and feel comforted that you are home safe.

Wait. That's an MS idea. Damn.

I'd love to know more (1)

Dylan2000 (592069) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583076)

It sounds fantastic. I've used disposable cameras a couple of times and they are definitely a handy thing to be able to buy. And now you can delete bad shots and get a photo CD? This is why I love living in the 21st century.

Anyone know who actually makes these, what hardware they run on, etc.? How hard would it be to hack it, maybe take out the chip and dump your pics without ever hitting the 25 photo nuke point?

Anyway, hackable or not, I would definitely choose one of these over a normal disposable camera if I needed one

Re:I'd love to know more (5, Insightful)

switcha (551514) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583144)

And now you can delete bad shots

Doesn't this seem like a bit of a semi-useless feature? Most of my bad shots, I can't even tell are bad until I get 'em on my laptop. There's a couple I can decide to delete just from the camera's screen, but I'd say that with most of my bad shots, I didn't know they sucked when I took the shot.

So without a preview (review?) unless someone walks in front of you right as you take the shot, or some other way you know it's screwed up, it's just like a disposable film camera, in that you pay out the nose, only to get your shots back and have 2/3 stink.

I don't get it. (1)

yakovlev (210738) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583078)

I don't understand how this is any better than a typical cheap disposable which you can get for about the same price, including developing. 2MP is a little worse than film quality, and all you get is the ability to delete prints (blindly) and the photo CD, which isn't worth much if you're getting prints.

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583248)

2 MP a "little worse"? 11 MP is worse than professional quality 35mm film.

Damn you, slashdot! Three days too late (1)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583079)

From the NYT text:
Ritz Camera has begun to sell (and in Wisconsin, Walgreens is test-marketing) a single-use digital camera...
And I was just in Milwaukee earlier this week! In a Walgreens, even!!
Oh well, just have to have someone there mail me one I guess.

BTW: As others have surmised, this puppy will be reverse engineered in no time at all. I've got my $5 on September 24th.

--

Re:Damn you, slashdot! Three days too late (1)

pla (258480) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583169)

I've got my $5 on September 24th.

That long? If they've already released them to a test market, I'd give it about a week. Especially now that Slashdot has mentioned it, geeks everywhere will swarm to Wisconsin to buy a few and see how they work.

Expect a hack for this before they even hit stores outside the test market (likely meaning they'll never hit stores outside the test market, since Ritz will very quickly discover that they've started taking a HUGE loss when people buy these but don't return them for processing and recycling).

Unless Ritz has found a way to literally produce a $10 digital camera, this one won't last long. Say hello to the next NetPC or CueCat.

Good source for cheap CCDs (2, Interesting)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583080)

Sounds like a good source for some inexpensive CCDs.

Now I can build a camera for my telescope cheaply.

This point will probably be beaten to death, but.. (0, Redundant)

extrarice (212683) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583081)

It's a "re-usable" camera. Re-usable != disposable.

At first glance I was thinking "oh great, more trash in our land-fills", but it's not meant to be thrown away after a single use.

Bad choice of descriptive words, there.

2 megapixels? (1)

cruppel (603595) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583098)

2 megapixels won't get you superior 8.5x11 prints. A 300 DPI print would be 2550 x 3300 pixels, which is ~8.5 megapixels. A 150 DPI print would be 1275 x 1650 px, which comes out to ~2.1 megapixels...

People who need good prints for school/work need larger pictures, but then again most of us have cameras already.

Judgment: decent deal for families or people skeptical of digital cameras. Maybe it will encourage the sale of full-fledged digital cameras, who knows.

Re:2 megapixels? (1)

rw2 (17419) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583172)

Even most Photographers (capital P) agree that 200-250DPI is sufficient for production quality prints at normal viewing distances.

2MP still doesn't get you there, but 300DPI is more than one needs.

Who Owns The Picture Rights? (1)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583099)

So does the "rental" store own the rights to your pictures or do you? Can they copyright the pictures of your naked wife and make a calendar out of it?

Re:Who Owns The Picture Rights? (1)

Autonomous Canard (694158) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583126)

How would this be any different than normal cameras?

After all -- just because it's on a memory chip rather than film doesn't change the fact that they're your pictures.

You can bet... (3, Insightful)

dmayle (200765) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583102)

You can bet that somebody is going to figure out how to open it and extract the images without destroying the camera, and then Ritz camera is going to have a loss leader on their hands.

It's going to be just like the cuecat. Many, many geeks are going to acquire them, and not recycle them in the way that allows Ritz to make it's money back...

No Film is Good News!!! (1)

anubi (640541) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583106)

I hate film for some applications.

Like, when I wanna keep a camera in the car for those shots I always seem to miss... but if I do keep a camera in the car, the film goes bad in no time flat due to environmental abuses of temperature, humidity, and time.

This looks great for something if you get lithium batteries in it... looks like you could get all set up, and if the event you need to capture happens 5 years later, it should still work.

This would be very handy for documenting accidents, as you never know when you will get into one, and the probability is not very often, but when you do, having photos to document your side of the story could be very important.

Re:No Film is Good News!!! (1)

heXXXen (566121) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583149)

Documenting accidents?

Last time I wanted to document an accident (3 days ago) I couldn't because the digital camera I took was under water.

You're lucky if the accident didn't destroy the camera. In my case, my friend flipping his SUV over in to a creek pretty much did my $600 camera in for.

Hacking them (2, Insightful)

andyring (100627) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583110)

Well, it's a foregone conclusion that it'll take about 30 seconds to hack one of these, so you get a halfway decent digicam for $11.

Obviously, if the camera store can download the photos quickly, it can't be very hard for the rest of us. It's probably got either a hidden/internal USB connector, or some proprietary thing (unlikely, would require new equipment at all the places to print/burn the pics).

Great for me (1)

Flamed to a Crisp (688872) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583111)

I'm a regular digital camera user myself with a full Canon digicam of my own. But sometimes there's a need for a disposable camera. I've been known to leave my camera at home, and sometimes I don't feel comfortable taking my expensive camera to certain events. In these cases I've used a analog disposable camera and scanned the prints. Not great. These disposable digicams sound like just the thing for me!

How long until... (5, Funny)

piku (161975) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583116)

...we have over 200 posts here all asking the question, "How long until someone figures out a way to hack this camera?"

You know the answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583235)

Seriously, how long?

Target audience? (1)

int2str (619733) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583118)

Hmmmm...

Asides from being able to delete pictures - even so you can't see if they are good or not, what would be the benefit of digital one-time cameras?

I mean the concept is the same right:
1) Buy camera at checkout line
2) Take pictures
3) Return camera and get printouts or a CD

Nothing which can't be done (or isn't done already) with regular disposable camera. Why would people who buy disposables care if it was digital or not?

I love digital cameras because you can *see* pictures and THEN delete them if they are bad (and 50% of my shots ARE bad :p).

Though I can't wait to see how people are gonna hack these :).
People will figure out how to read data of the cameras and use them for all sorts of projects I bet (and hope :) ).

Missing the Point (5, Insightful)

imaro (584142) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583119)

While its is undoubtably possible that I am the one missing the point, it sure seems like Ritz is off its rocker. The major benefit of digital camera IS the lcd screen. The whole point is to take pictures that you are certain will be good. While the concept is coming, and it sure is fun to delete things randomly (which is exactly what you would be doing with the delete feature), I think there is a lot more ground that needs to be covered before I'll be picking this over a different disposable camera that is cheaper and has comes with a free photo cd.

Found out how they do that..... (4, Informative)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583121)

Well, there's either 2 ways (2 models).

One is properity IR connection. The other is a headphone jack that somehow sends/receives data. And it DOES connect through a usb dongle to either type of camera.

Dang (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583125)

If this is truly a "sale" and I can pay cash for it, I'm getting me one of these. I could use a few cheap optics.

Wow.. Talk About Great Minds... (3, Insightful)

Schezar (249629) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583130)

Heh.. Almost EVERY post up till how has had the basic idea of "this is sooo going to be hacked: cheap digital cameras for all!"

Honestly, I love slashdot. As we read, there are thousands of geeks pondering ways to circumvent whatever protection Ritz has installed on these things. Even better, odds are Ritz has no idea. It will probably take them a few weeks -after- the cameras are hacked before they even notice.

Then, the lawsuits will fly, but by then it will be too late. The cameras will be re-released with stronger protection, and shortly-after they'll be hacked as well. Ritz will at this point likely give up altogether and drop the product. End result: every geek on the planet gets a cheap digital camera (or three).

Buy them early, in case Ritz catches on! In five years, these things will be as "cool" and "old-school" as the old Cap'n Crunch whistles.

Re:Wow.. Talk About Great Minds... (2, Insightful)

Pvt_Waldo (459439) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583189)

That or everyone will figure out really fast it's a crappy little camera and hacks will be only for the novelty of it. And they will throw away their camera (or three) and get a good one.

Remember! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583131)

Never bring photos (for being developed - or in this case downloaded) of yourself having sex with a mare to a photographer you don't trust! You can get ears deep in shit! Best if you can download them yourself - standard cameras come in handy!

what if i break it? (1)

gregoryb (306233) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583153)

so people are saying it's a "reusable" camera, not disposable and that this is more of a rental... (i missed this in the articles, for some reason)

so are there extra charges if i feel like smashing it against the wall after i buy it? or can i do what i want with it after giving up the $11? anyone know?

Thread Recap - Bad Idea (1)

c0d3fu (594060) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583159)

If there is no rental agreement then they are the biggest fools ever, falling prey to reverse engineering (just like the X-Box). Think of how easily damaged digital cameras are. Do you honestly think someone will want to sign an agreement making them liable to a loss of several hundred dollars when little Jimmy sticks the camera into the sandy beaches of Florida? Even if there is a some sort of agreement, there will have to be time-limit established. Otherwise, people will find a way to empty the memory and yet keep the camera unmodified, returning it after many uses.

It is doubtful that they could produce these and generate as much profit per camera as disposible film cameras.

...instead of throwing them away... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583168)

why not collect them and make a beowulf cluster out of them...

if it's not been posted it has to be said :)

Huh? (1)

nolife (233813) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583174)

I bought a digital camera for the convienence of never having to buy and develop film again. Does anyone use a digital camera for the simple fact that it is digital? Seems to me, the cheaper regular disposibles would still be the way to go. Am I missing something here?

what's the point deleting a picture you can't see? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6583190)

...sorry I don't see how this works:

1. You can buy used digital cameras for that money (well and this one would be "used" anyway) and prices of digital cameras keep falling

2. You miss out on the main advantage of digital: choosing exactly which photos you want printed, which ones you don't (either on your computer or LCD)

Combining 1. and 2. this product seems doomed. Why be forced to develop photos at one place when you can go for the cheapest option with your own digital camera. ...but then I guess noone ever went bankrupt overestimating people's stupidity. And heck, if I was stuck in a holiday place and forgot my camera, I would buy one!

Negatives (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583197)

Despite my immersion in this field, as far as taking pictures is concerned, I'm sticking with film. I like/trust negatives as a storage medium. I also get Picture CDs created when I process my negatives to give me easy access for later PhotoShop manipulation. But long term, I trust negatives.

Hope springs eternal... (1)

jswig (654250) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583215)

Finally, there's a camera for fresh young gonzo web pornographers on a shoestring budget!

8x10? (2, Insightful)

jpsowin (325530) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583224)

If they really think 8x10's will turn out very well on a two megapixel sensor, they must be kidding themselves. Sure, they can enlarge it, but the quality of the camera is minimal and blowing it up will just make it look worse. However, for 4x6's this should be fine, although I'm sure people who are used to regular cameras will be unimpressed.

Where? (1)

TheDawgLives (546565) | more than 10 years ago | (#6583253)

This may be redundant, but when I followed the link in the NYT article, I could not find said digital camera anywhere on Ritz's site. Givin NYT's sorted past, I wonder if the article is legit.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...