Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

cancel ×

134 comments

That's interesting, but... (1)

Perryman (882190) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697532)

But I thought cell phones with cameras and a service area could already do this?

Re:That's interesting, but... (4, Informative)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697571)

Nikon's D2X, the holy grail [nikonusa.com] of cameras, can upload wirelessly via ftp when in range. All I'm seeing in the article is that the camera forces you to use some service that they offer, something more annoying than straight up FTP. Nothing to see here. What am I missing?

Re:That's interesting, but... (4, Informative)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697605)

What am I missing?

Kodak thinks it has found a solution to plumetting revenue as everyone in the world suddenly goes digital. If everyone in the world pays five bucks a month rent^H^H^H^Hservice charge then even after T-Mbile takes a slice, Kodak are going to be happy unies once again. And of course you have these Kodak branded print kiosks as well.

I can't see it working myself, both for the reasons you describe, and for the fact that after paying $600 for the damn thing, I;d be anoyed to have to pay $5 a month to keep it working.

Especaially since the damn thing doesn't seem to have an option to talk to my computer direct. To say nothing of all the folks who already pay T-Mobile or similar for basically the same service for their phones...

Re:That's interesting, but... (2, Informative)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698095)

That's because even beyond that, Kodak is well behind the eight ball.

When digital loomed as a threat, they held a big strategy meeting, and they brainstormed, and came up with the conclusion "digital is a passing fad", sat on their hands and waited for the market to return to film. Their accounts are significantly worse now, for obvious reasons.

Re:That's interesting, but... (4, Insightful)

neonstz (79215) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697716)

Well, with $5000 for the camera and $500 for the wireless addon, I don't think the target audiences for the D2X and the kodak product don't overlap.

The D2X is one heck of a camera, and if I ever get the money I'll replace my D70 with one...

Re:That's interesting, but... (3, Informative)

spec8472 (241410) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697831)

You're not missing anything.

Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II [canon.jp] and 20D [canon.jp] cameras do Wireless + FTP Uploading too, given the appropriate wireless adaptor (WFT-E1, for both of them).

Note for anyone fact checking: The Canon EOS 20D needs a firmware update [canon.jp] (free) to support the WFT-E1, but otherwise works fine on wireless.

Re:That's interesting, but... (0, Flamebait)

dangitman (862676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697869)

Yeah, but why would you buy a Canon over a Nikon? It doesn't make any sense.

Re:That's interesting, but... (1, Informative)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697930)

I know jack-all about the quality differences between these models, but assuming that the comments along the line are more or less accurate, it looks like there's a positive correlation between price and quality, just as you might expect:
  • Nikon: $5,000 (plus $500 for wireless)
  • Canon: $1,900 for EOS-1, $1,400 for EOS-20 (according to a couple of Froogle searches)
  • Kodak: $600 (plus $5/month)
Obviously the original "first wireless computerless camera" claim is overblown, but Kodak may well have the first camera in that class that's anywhere near this cheap. Not that I would know - if you have a counterexample, by all means post it.

(Froogle turned up a couple of used EOS-1 models in the $400-$600 range, but that's comparing apples to oranges. Presumably, a used Kodak would sell for considerably less than $600.)

Re:That's interesting, but... (1)

docdoc (518231) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698023)

Uhm, if you're looking for a more expensive model of camera as a measure of quality as it seems, then you might want to look for the Canon EOS 1DS Mk-II, a 16.7 Mp digital SLR that goes for around $7500. How that compares to Nikon's top of the line camera body is (and always was and will be) really a matter of apples, oranges, patented features, preference and evangelism...

Re:That's interesting, but... (0)

Auntie Virus (772950) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698039)

Yeah, but why would you buy a Canon over a Nikon? It doesn't make any sense.

Lenses. Canon's lens offering blows Nikon away. Oh, and full-frame sensors.

Re:That's interesting, but... (1)

lurker412 (706164) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698192)

This is rather OT, but since you ask: wider variety of choices in both lenses and bodies. Canon has found the sweet spot for serious amateurs with the 20D and the new 5D. Nikon has nothing comparable to offer. If you already have a lot of money invested in Nikon glass, it doesn't make sense to switch. If not, Canon seems to be way ahead at the moment.

Re:That's interesting, but... (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697611)

Yes, but how would that make money for Kodak?

Re:That's interesting, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697744)

But the real question is "Can it run Dupe Check Linux?"

Re:That's interesting, but... (2, Informative)

alperthereal (919434) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697813)

true, most of the hi-end cell phones are capable of doing this; but, we are talking about a digital camera here -- 4 megapixels, 3x optical zoom, etc. (if i am not mistaken) the highest resolution you can get from a built-in cell phone camera is 2.

That's interesting, but not NEW (DUPE) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13698075)

actually it's not even intersting.

wow a camera that uploads via wifi..ehh.. not like what was reported here [slashdot.org] or here [slashdot.org] .

I swear there were three other stories about the 'first wi-fi camera" but I can only find two. Maybe because I work in WolfCamera [wolfcamera.com] but this is old news. Kodak has the EasyShare One [kodak.com] , Nikon has the P2 [digitalcamera-hq.com] , and those are just the consumer level cameras.

I know the EasyShare One has been out since april. We've never had one until last week but we've had a sign for it in our display case. always wanted to see what it looks like but they don't pay me enough to look up cameras on the clock much less off.

What's the big deal? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697537)

My cell phone already does that.

Re:What's the big deal? (3, Insightful)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697543)

Your cellphone has a multi-mega pixel resolution and doesn't require a service plan? Wow.

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

cube_slave (765396) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697572)

In all fairness to the GP post, the reality is we're already paying for a service plan and multi-mega pixel camera phones are right around the corner... plus I ALWAYS have my cell phone on me, so this functionality already exists but it is "no additional cost" not "free".

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

heavy snowfall (847023) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697612)

...Kodak has released the first "computer-free wireless camera."...

i.e. the camera is the computer. This has allways been the case with digicams too, no matter how small and crappy or big and full-featured there's some sort of microcontroller in there, often several. Nothing new except for the wifi feateure. (Which is pretty good)

--
Use your bluetooth phone as a modem for Linux [arpx.net]

Re:What's the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697742)

Nothing new except for the wifi feateure. (Which is pretty good)

(And nothing new)

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697660)

Your cellphone has a multi-mega pixel resolution and doesn't require a service plan?

Yes - and there's nothing special about it either. What back-water country do you live in?

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698110)

I was thinking much the same thing. I had a 1.3 mp camera in my phone nearly 3 years ago, with Bluetooth. No transfer charges there. And since then the current of that model is now up to 2.5mp.

Re:What's the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697723)

I'm sure you can get multi-megapixel camera phones in the US without a contract. It's no problem in China.

clever maneuver (4, Interesting)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697544)

Apple made a product that seemlessly connects users to their online service, and iTunes as I understand it, and I'm guessing as a result, has a 90% marketshare of online music sales. Though the ability to "view photos stored in Internet photo albums via Kodak's Easyshare Gallery service" without a computer involved is an untapped market, you can expect other companies to follow Kodak's lead. But, in addition to having a great brand, Kodak will dominate this new market largely because they got there first. From the article: "Cameras, I believe, are moving from the wired world towards the wireless world," said Lee, director of consumer services at InfoTrends. "It's not going to happen this year but, starting next year, you're going to definitely see some more cameras coming that incorporate wireless-transfer capabilities."

Re:clever maneuver (1)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697727)

But, in addition to having a great brand, Kodak

Since when has Kodak been a great brand? They peaked with the Instamatic and it's been down hill ever since.

Re:clever maneuver (1)

Brutulf (725176) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697730)

Oh, but there is a computer involved. It just doesn't have to be yours.

No FTP upload? (4, Interesting)

TuxPaper (531914) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697548)

The provided URLs don't say whether it allows FTP upload, so I'd say no.

Ahh, businesses always thinking about the users, by leaving out obvious features so that they can sell services that provide those missing features.

So basically.. (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697553)

..to cut the marketing bs, its a PDA, with a wireless card, stuck to a digital camera.

Of course all this misses the real point that all anyone really wants is a phone with cheap net access where-ever you are, and bluetooth etc so you can connect your nice digital camera to it.

and e-mail pictures. (3, Insightful)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697554)

and e-mail pictures

When will people understand that SMTP isn't a file transport medium?

Re:and e-mail pictures. (0, Flamebait)

rosewood (99925) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697562)

When nerds understand that their precious IEEE specs don't mean shit in the real world and people want a way to easily send someone else a picture and don't want to have to use yet another program.

Adapet, Adopt, or get your ass run over please.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697580)

I had some trouble adapetting to your attrocious spelling, but then I learned to love the bomb.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (0, Offtopic)

rosewood (99925) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697618)

I didn't realize I was going to be graded on spelling ON FUCKING SLASHDOT. I figured all kinds of shit gets tossed around here that bad spelling would fit right along with bad logic, bad links, bad jokes, and bad css code.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (2, Funny)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697668)

Do you need a hug?

Re:and e-mail pictures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697749)

Criticising spelling is not very nice , also rather redundant whilst on a forum such as this.
However is it OK to judge you on your silly opinions and offensive personality .
Try being nice and putting your opinions in a way as to not insight a flamewar by being a prat .

Re:and e-mail pictures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13698082)

Bad logic - like complaining about bad css in a posting in which you're defending your own violation of standards (of orthography) in a posting in which you were defending casual users' violations of the email standard. Nice.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (2, Funny)

tintub (733763) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697711)

I had some trouble adapetting to your attrocious spelling, but then I learned to love the bomb.

Whereas spelling 'adapt' as 'adapet' is obviously a typo, turning 'adapet' into 'adapetting' rather than 'adapeting' and spelling 'atrocious' as 'attrocious' is obviously plain old stupidity, especially in a post complaining about spelling!

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698118)

Of course, following some Internet law of unspecified name, any post which lambasts someone for making spelling errors will, of course, contain one of its own -- it's 'atrocious', not 'attrocious'.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697807)

People would likely also not mind nor notice if the standards were adhered to .
  Of course it doesn't matter in the real world , so long as it gets the job done .
We are not all in the real world (not literally )though , a lot of us here are in the IT industry and do mind when standards are not used properly .

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

J. T. MacLeod (111094) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697899)

Actually, this causes TREMENDOUS problems for just the sort of people who don't want to use another program.

One of the most common tech support calls we get is from someone who can't receive their email, because some equally technically inept person decided to email them several megabytes worth of photos. Whether due to slow connection speed or their email or anti-virus software choking on a large file, it just doesn't work properly.

Many of these people stubbornly continue to use email for file transport, despite the problems it causes for them and/or others.

If everyone were on IMAP with decent IMAP clients and we could get rid of UUENCODE, no one would be complaining.

Unfortunately, that's not the case, so I cringe at the thought of a camera that could create even more problems for my customers.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (2, Insightful)

CdBee (742846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697591)

Everyone who uses gmail as a low-tech backup medium might disagree with you.

Its flawed but not everyone can securely configure a remote file-server. Email's a tool that's universally available to net-connected people, and the rise of large inboxes makes it highly practical.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698069)

Do gmail clients even use SMTP? If so, why? I'm guessing if one gmail user sends a message to another (or to himself, using it as online storage), SMTP is completely out of the picture. It's also not very hard to imagine large webmail providers exchanging email (say, gmail to hotmail) without SMTP. If we're ever able to get away from SMTP that's how it will happen.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

CdBee (742846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698679)

Yes [google.com]

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

SpectreBinary (913950) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697592)

People will understand that it isn't a file transport medium when it stops BEING a file transport medium.

It's many other things, but it's also a file transport medium. Been that way for decades now.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (2, Insightful)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697705)

Its a text transport medium. Files are ground up into text and stuck in it. It is inefficient at best, and doesn't change the nature of the medium at all.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697597)

Never. The protocol supports it. Whether you use it that way is a matter of policy, nothing more. It's all just bits and bytes anyway.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698205)

The protocol *doesn't* support it.

Quiet the opposite, in fact.

Re:and e-mail pictures. (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698272)

s/quiet/quite/

You're right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13698503)

It's a data transport medium, and by the well-known MIME protocol to wrap any data, you can transport any file.

And... (2, Interesting)

Gobelet (892738) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697557)

Does it support WPA? WEP? If it doesn't it's not even worth it.

Re:And... (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697732)

Indeed. I have a list as long as my arm of the reasonably useful "Wi-Fi-enabled" devices and network applicances I've turned down because (seriously) they don't support WPA with EAP-TLS, which is how I lock down my network.

Want to bet (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697560)

That it only connects to Kodak's own shitty gallery service?

Doh (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697565)

Just putting the logic into the camera doesnt make it "computer free"

Re:Doh x2 (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697715)

Just putting the logic into the camera doesnt make it "computer free"
It does as far as having to carry a separate computer around is concerned, if you want to upload images.

Security? (0)

sznupi (719324) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697578)

I'm waiting for showing in the public of "habit" of downloading ohers pictures out of thier cameras...

Tactical possibilities in conflict situations (5, Insightful)

Kream (78601) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697602)

Coming from a country where major riots and civil disturbances have flared up several times in a decade, and where the electoral process in certain areas is inflected with violence, this may be a very positive development.

Visual documentation of violence, including street violence, is something that is very powerful in these circumstances. A network of WiFi cameras that connects to a battery-powered wireless switch(es) could turn this into an extremely powerful journalistic tool.

Journalists, especially some very courageous ones, have had their (expensive) equipment seized and smashed - even by the police. In effect, the very act of powerfull and provocative reportage causes the reportage to be fuitless. A couple of cheap wireless cameras clipped onto someone's lapel or mounted in places where there is a clear field of view could provide (highly incriminating?) video data even upto the moment the cameras were destroyed.

And think of the possibilities for exposing corruption. If you were to go to, say, a police station where you knew a bribe would be demanded of you, with the intent of secretly filming the proceedings, you'd be banking on the camera remaining undetected and being able to take the recording away with you. With a WiFi camera broadcasting to an Internet-connected laptop(s) across the street, things change quickly :)

Cheers,

Aniruddha "Karim" Shankar

Re:Tactical possibilities in conflict situations (1)

axonal (732578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697607)

"Coming from a country where major riots and civil disturbances have flared up several times in a decade, and where the electoral process in certain areas is inflected with violence, this may be a very positive development."

You must be from the United States.

Re:Tactical possibilities in conflict situations (4, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697643)

Except of course now you're expecting there to be wifi spots at the same places there are riots and civil disturbances. It's hard enough to find wifi access at the best of times, let alone in a pitched battle rolling back and forth between streets. And if there were, no doubt you'd have to stand quite still while your pics were uploaded which wouldn't necessarily be convenient at the time. If that weren't unlikely enough a totalitarian state is likely to have little internet access or extremely restricted access. On top of that is Kodak itself. Their site probably pitches itself as "family friendly" so you can bet that any civil disobediance pics would be wiped off their site without a second's thought.

I wouldn't diss the idea completely - after all if your camera would connect to an ad-hoc network you could perhaps arrange for someone with a PDA or small laptop to shadow you at some distance and broadcast the pics back to them, but it would still be an awkward arrangement. And its doubtful that this camera would help you do that.

Perhaps it's simpler and equally effective to use redundancy - multiple photographers, with each passing their filled memory cards to runners.

NOT INSIGHTFUL. (2, Interesting)

hummassa (157160) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697855)

The parent poster had already said: infiltrate the cameras and some battery-operated hotspots. The cameras, policeman can see and seize and smash. The hotspots will be connected to the Net (via GPRS for instance) and will be invisible to the Man.... and even if found and seized the damage would have been done already.

It's not "simpler" not "equally effective" to have "runners" getting memory cards. Supposedly a wi-fi camera has the option to upload immediately each foto after taken.

Re:NOT INSIGHTFUL. (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698369)

It's not "simpler" not "equally effective" to have "runners" getting memory cards. Supposedly a wi-fi camera has the option to upload immediately each foto after taken.

Yes it is. Much simpler. No wifi is required, no hotspots, no interference, no mobile phone - just a guy with a pair of legs. You assume this camera supports ad hoc uploading or "guerilla" style photography when in fact it would do no such thing. It is likely that everytime you wanted to upload you would have to flip the camera into a special wireless mode, wait for it to find a hotspot, go through the various "wizard" steps to authenticate, select your pics and then wait while they uploaded to the Kodak site. All while dodging the rubber bullets, water cannons and baton charges.

It would be faster and more effective to hand the card over to someone else who retreats from the front lines while you take another set of pics. Alternatively if you absolutely had to broadcast pics yourself, you'd be better off to do it from a pocket pc and software that dumps the entire contents of an inserted card to the net.

Re:Tactical possibilities in conflict situations (2, Insightful)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697856)

Bring the wireless with you. It wouldnt be the most efficient (or cheap), but if you had the right cellphone/pda/laptop/external aentenna/wireless router combo sitting in your car, you'd be able to take unlimited[1] pictures and have them stored remotely before anyone can destroy your setup.

[1] Atleast, a lot more than you could get out of a conventional rig. You don't want to slap in a new roll of film or another memory card in the middle of something like this. Hopefully this will be hackable enough that people can create stuff to upload only locally, so that all you would need would be a wireless router in your car and a network storage device.

Re:Tactical possibilities in conflict situations (2, Interesting)

Kream (78601) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697870)

Except of course now you're expecting there to be wifi spots at the same places there are riots and civil disturbances.

Let me clarify. A civil society organisation or an NGO or a news gathering organisation could easily put in place combos of wifi hubs with cheap UPS battery backup during conflict situations since the worst violence is often orchestrated and happens a few days after the initial flareup. That would allow it's reporters / photographers / videographers to capture events and constantly keep on uploading them to base camp, from where they could be dumped/mirrored onto the 'net.

And if there were, no doubt you'd have to stand quite still while your pics were uploaded which wouldn't necessarily be convenient at the time.

I'm not sure I understand. I've managed get WiFi net access from a laptop while riding in a cycle-rickshaw. I would assume that the camera, since it's WiFi didn't expect me to remain stock still while the images were uploading.

If that weren't unlikely enough a totalitarian state is likely to have little internet access or extremely restricted access.

The point is not to get the cameras to upload to the Internet - but to upload to someone's laptop back in base camp. from there, an org could burn VCDs, use various (stega/ssh/proxies/tor/freenet) methods to put the material onto the net.

On top of that is Kodak itself. Their site probably pitches itself as "family friendly" so you can bet that any civil disobediance pics would be wiped off their site without a second's thought.

Well, the article talks about how the camera can be used to view pics from Kodak's site..and that it can email (or otherwise transfer) the pics FROM the camera. There're a number of places that are more hospitable to civil disobedience pics than familyroom.kodak.com

I wouldn't diss the idea completely - after all if your camera would connect to an ad-hoc network you could perhaps arrange for someone with a PDA or small laptop to shadow you at some distance and broadcast the pics back to them, but it would still be an awkward arrangement.

Why ? that would be perfect. The camera would only need batteries. F'rex, a minority area is being threatened by a majority area. Place cameras on rooftops/overlooking approach roads, have them constantly take pics and mail them. Even if the cams were found and destroyed in the subsequent violence, they'd have done their jobs.

Perhaps it's simpler and equally effective to use redundancy - multiple photographers, with each passing their filled memory cards to runners.

That's the point. You can block/kill the runners and smash the cameras. Once you do that, no more coverage. Imagine if you could film a policeman trying to smash your camera up, and have the satisfaction of knowing that while he may be able to smash your camera, the images of that act will live on...

cheers,

Aniruddha "Karim" Shankar

Re:Tactical possibilities in conflict situations (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697790)

The journalists can just use Photoshop to make up whatever they want. They already do that, anyway. Think I'm joking, do you?

Photoshopped mainstream media (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697846)

Do you have any recent example?

Re:Photoshopped mainstream media (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698215)

Uh, Newsweek? Come on, man...the media fakes things all the time. They just usually don't get caught.

Re:Photoshopped mainstream media (1)

MrNixon (28945) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698258)

Wow, THAT's a definitive answer.

If you make claims like that, don't back it up with allusions to conspiracy. Give some examples of these guys getting caught. Be prepared to prove yourself.

Not even that. (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698490)

I was waiting for an answer of the kind "oh, my cousin's neighbour guaranteed me that the photo at page 32 of the July 3rd edition of Newsweek was doctored to show more people at such-and-such concert". So I could get to the photo, analyze it, etc. But no, it was only a troll, and a bad one.

not the first standalone wireless camera... (3, Informative)

bsyd (795309) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697603)

I've got a Sony SNC-RZ30 at work since two years and it has got wireless, smtp, ftp, web and alarm capabilities... See it here [sony.com]

Download from Gallery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697614)

So does this mean we can download other people's pictures from the internet? Isn't that like, stealing or something? Where are the lawyers?!

We'll see. (1)

nunchux (869574) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697615)

I don't think any Kodak innovations are going to take at this point. Kodak has carved out a niche as a major player in the digital camera market... But it's at the low end. They make a great $89 digital camera that does exactly what it says it does. But if you're willing to pay more, you're going to buy a Canon, Nikon or Sony.

Also... I don't see why so many printers, and now cameras are working so hard to bypass the computer. The beauty of digital photos is that you can store and edit them on your PC. And it's not like there's a household left that doesn't have a PC...

Re:We'll see. (2, Insightful)

DJCF (805487) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697755)

Most people don't like PCs -- they see them as slow and ugly behemoths, and most of them don't work without crashing every five minutes (spyware, etc.). That's why there is a percieved 'demand' for devices which bypass the computer.

It...really... annoys me.

Flickr (1)

chigun (770799) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697616)

If I could synch a decent camera (3+ megapixels min) with flickr, I'd be sold.

Is there such a camera capable of this?

I can see it now... (2, Funny)

tacarat (696339) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697623)

Front page /. "A hack firmware hack has been published that enables a person with a kodak wireless camera to specify the photo uploads to multiple websites, not just the Kodak easyshare gallery. Streaming video features have also been enabled." The living room of an unspecified porn star: "Wow! This is the seventh camera I've recieved today!"

Good for demonstrations (2, Insightful)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697638)

One problem at demonstrations is that the cops attempt to seize and destroy images (video/cameras) made by people there attempting to document abuses by the cops.

This would solve that problem -- realtime uploading of the images to a location where the cops can't get them.

This doesn't apply to America, where cops are all lawful and good (/sarc) -- but rather, to countries that have repressive governments and no free exchange of information.

Re:Good for demonstrations (2, Interesting)

twoshortplanks (124523) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697773)

My mobile phone already does this. And I don't need to be near a wifi hotspot to do it.

Download pictures? (5, Funny)

John Hurliman (152784) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697663)

Wouldn't a camera that could upload pictures be more useful? Sorry to be pedantic but this is Slashdot we're talking about.

Re:Download pictures? (1)

cryptoz (878581) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697690)

Uploading and downloading pictures are the same thing, depending on the perspective you're using. Think about it.

Re:Download pictures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697766)

Well, the perspective here is -from- the camera -to- a server. The camera is uploading, as it initiates the activity.

Re:Download pictures? (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697767)

If were talking about the Camera then the perspective thing is out the window .
I would be interested in getting one , Depends how hackable it is .. Would be great if someone could implement some firmware hack so you could use your own server .

Re:Download pictures? (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698050)

Well, you can download "pictures" in your camera and impress your friends with your "artistic talent"...
(hint hint nudge nudge, know what I mean?)

More meat for hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697676)

Just more insecure firmware full of vulnerabilities for hackers to compromise. Humbug!

Bill showed us. (1)

e**(i pi)-1 (462311) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697698)

Well, we know how well wireless cameras work [rhetorik.ch]

A sensible realization of Web Services (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697702)

I like this :)

I think that this camera would have two 'partitions' (not literally, but you can think of it as such) one for its photos and another for read-only firmware. Aside from the software for image rendering, the software on the client need only do http GET and/or POST. I'd think probably POST for entering the user's Kodak account credentials, GET for grabbing the data for display but, of course, the two can be interchangeable. My point is that the camera need not require a full-fledged browser. Just an implementation of something like 'httplib' - the server knows what data to give it on account of the collected 'User Agent'. For browsing online collections, the server can give these User Agents a list of URIs (file names) and the camera can use up/down buttons to make a selection or select an appropriate form action (e.g. 'upload', 'download and save', 'delete'). This is the REST way to do it.

I think this is sensible and simple enough. Many agree that REST is as far as services need go. Sure, XML interchange is a good idea in this problem domain, I was reading something at lesscode.org about the Kid XSLT templating engine and how it actually came about because the developer was reasoning about web services. Sorry - Web Services ;) Check it out, it makes interesting reading:

http://lesscode.org/2005/09/24/web-services-infras tructure-kid [lesscode.org]

What I'm getting at with this is that with those simple REST actions (POST, GET) are enough for a server to identify the camera's User Agent, prepare XSLT transformations on the content that the camera will understand and interchange with one another a suitable XML vocabulary for the problem domain. Straightforward, right?

This I think is where comments such as those in that lesscode.org article find justification. SOAP adds layer after layer when we should be simplifying, simplifying. My favourite quote from lesscode: ...[I]f you're looking for "Web Services Infrastructure" for exposing processes and information, you're probably looking to hard.

Not first! Anyone heard of industry leader Axis? (1)

frambris (525874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697709)

To claim that this one is the first "computer-free" camera is bogus. First of, it still uploads to a computer so technicly it's not independent of computers. Secon, almost all network cameras can upload by it self. Axis have been doing this for close to a decade now. http://www.axis.com/products/cam_206w/index.htm/ [axis.com]

Re:Not first! Anyone heard of industry leader Axis (1)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697760)

I think that the qualifier missing here is "still" This seems to be the first network still camera.

Re:Not first! Anyone heard of industry leader Axis (1)

rleesBSD (909405) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698457)

I agree that the "computer-free" term is a little bogus. It seems that they are differentiating between "computer-free" and "microprocessor-free", which I'm sure it isn't. Of course, a real "computer" has many more things glommed onto the microprocessor ...

Advertorial? (1)

smooc (59753) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697721)

Users can even use the camera to view photos stored in Internet photo albums via Kodak's Easyshare Gallery service.

Wow man that's really great(tm). Notice the marketing speech. Nice advertorial.

Watch me, everybody... (1)

moviepig.com (745183) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697734)

The new [camera] can connect directly to the Internet wherever there's Wi-Fi available to [upload] and e-mail pictures...

Enjoy those annual endless photo-album recaps of your neighbor's summer vacation? Good news... now they're going real-time...

Apple, wireless, Kodak, Flickr, Community (1)

QuatermassX (808146) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697743)

I'd be very surprised if Apple doesn't take advantage of Wi-Fi in digital cameras and create some really compelling community-building tools for the homepage section of their .Mac service. First step might be co-opting Flickr's user-assignable keywords. That's a killer feature that encourages casual browsing and random connections between people. I've used .Mac for years now and (although I reckon they'd prefer you use iPhoto as the gateway to the service) I'd love to just connect my camera to a network when on the road and access a secure, .Mac-hosted interface for upload/download to iDisk or even to publish. Hmmm ... what do we think? New .Mac feature?

Post-PC world (3, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697802)

This is the type of device that's perfect for someone who wants to take digital pictures, but doesn't want a PC (or a Mac or a Linux machine). I was talking to an engineer from a large European telecom company and he told me about an increase the numbers of non-PC-owners with digital cameras. They keep all their photos on memory cards (cards are so cheap its pennies per photo), print directly from the card (at shops or with printers that accept memory cards), show their photos on TVs, etc. No PC required.

With a camera that can email or post photos to a website, its just another reason not to get a PC (for some people).

Speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13697969)

Considering I can take ~3 (1-2 MB) shots a second with my Canon 350D, any wireless system for remotely storing my shots is going to have to have some pretty good bandwidth. 802.11g might be 54mb in theory but it never gets near that in the real world. Kodak suck. Kudos to them for at least trying to innovate a bit in the consumer sector, but it's crap.

Security (2, Interesting)

Crouty (912387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13697976)

Am I the only one that thinks an access point that fakes an Easyshare connection could be fun? It would not only give you the pictures currently uploaded but also access to the rest of the user's Easyshare galleries. Who would have thought sharing would be *that* easy?

BFD (2, Informative)

pcjunky (517872) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698044)

Dlink has had WIFI equiped video cameras with built in FTP to send stills to an Internet server for over a year now.

old news (2, Informative)

greggman (102198) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698111)

This may be the first WiFi camera but it's not the first camera that can upload images without a computer.

Sony has had bluetooth enabled cameras that can connect to the net and upload images if you have a bluetooth cell phone for 2-3 years now. (no computer needed)

And of course all the cellphones with camears built in do it just fine without a computer including the 7 megapixel samsung.

Hey, Kokak; Put an X Server in it (1)

viewtouch (1479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698182)

Imagine how useful this camera would be if Kodak would put an X server in it. The camera would become a wireless graphical X display terminal. I'd buy one immediately.

Well, the display is a touchscreen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13698303)

The display is a touchscreen, so that's correct, you could directly interact with any program running anywhere the network reaches. And the remote programs wouldn't have to have any awareness that they were being manipulated by a touchscreen user. There would be no local load on the camera for the number crunching or data i/o. That would be done by the remote hardware, whether it's a PC or a supercomputing cluster. That could work.

Uploads without computer.. (1)

i8myh8 (859764) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698247)

Similar to many bluetooth devices, new and old. One such example is the Sony Ericsson S710a. This is a cellular phone with integrated 1.3 megapixel camera, 2.3" screen, mp3 playing abilities and of course the ability to upload directly to the web or email. (Obviously this assumes you've got a bluetooth enabled router) My brother's got this phone, it's just plain amazing. The only bummer is the service he gets with cingular is rather sub-par in his area.

Another slashvertisement? (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698262)

I'm really glad I didn't buy a subscription to Slashdot this year, or I'd feel really ripped off. This "article" looks like nothing more than an ad. Mod me as a "troll" if you will, but I think I'm seeing more and more of these "slashvertisements" in the last few months. I hope Kodak paid for this ad.

Closed system == evil (1)

Anonymous Cowdog (154277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13698353)

This is a closed system. Notice that besides wireless, there is another way to get the pictures off the camera: take the card to a Kodak kiosk. Again, closed.

Who benefits by having this system "computer-free"? Kodak, of course.

Every photo upload, download, and printout will be ringing Kodak's cash register. This is not progress.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...