Slashdot Mirror

I strongly suspect that the solution will be some sort of hardware image signing, rather than after-the-fact examination. Canon already offers a Data Verification Kit for their superb EOS 1-DS digital SLR. They don't give too many details, but my guess is that they can attach a cryptographically signed hash of the image data into the file header so that it's possible to confirm the integrity of the data later. Since the EOS 1-Ds can only save data in raw and JPEG formats, and since this doesn't make sense for raw data (which has to be processed to be turned into a viewable image) it seems likely that they have this working with JPEGs.

Or maybe an XL1 or XL1S, now that they aren't top of the line, you will see a price drop because everyone wants the XL2. Besides, they look so much cooler...

You can find a description here.

I like the fact that I can use different lenses, including certain Canon still camera lenses.

...you want the newly announced Canon XL2.

It has vast third-party support, shoots 4:3 and 16:9 (although it is still a DV-format cam with the limitations that the 720x480 pixel resolution the standard requires), shoots in 60i, 30p and 24p, has XLR connectors, and will even take (with an adapter) Canon EOS lens from the still photography line in case you need something special like a super telephoto or a tilt-shift lens.

You really couldn't ask for more (except a lower price and native HDTV capabilities).

Use a Canobeam, problems, I would guess, include

1) Laser safety. We had a canobeam for the '01 UK election, had to check its fitting every day for H&S reasons.
2) Weather - Optical light doesn't work well in fog
3) Polution - I've heard of FSO setups not making it across the road because of the exhaust of a Bus.

Not sure how 2.4Ghz would be different.

No camera has 90% viewfinder.

Here's a film SLR with 90%. That said, the biggest difference between the 10D and 300D's viewfinder isn't coverage but magnification. With same 50mm lenses, the 10D has a .88x magnification, while the 300D has a .8x. Between the 10% magnification difference and inherently dimmer pentamirror construction, the 10D will be much easier to use.

Mostly it's just an attitude problem.

When I'm shooting for a client, I need two things. I need a camera that won't fail, and I need a second camera. In that respect, if I had Canon lenses and my photography doesn't need the 1D/1D2's speeds or the 1Ds' resolution, the 10D/300D combination might be reasonable, if I can get over the severe difference in usability. No, it's not an "attitude" issue.

Your suggestion to get the 1Ds or the 1D Mark II are asinine, though, if they're looking at $800 and $1,000 bodies. Last I checked, the 1D Mark II costs $6,000, and the 1Ds costs $10,000, not to mention the weight increase from even 10D.

Anyway, the difference between 10D and 300D is mostly one of the photographer's skill. But it's always easier to blame the tool. How many of the 300D dissers would make half-decent pictures with a classic Leica?

No, the skill will remain constant for a given photographer. However, with better ergonomics and specs of the 10D, you're less likely to miss shots with it than with the 300D. That's the whole point of buying say pro-grade over consumer-grade -- you're more likely to get usable results. Is that worth the price difference? I don't know. Ask your wallet.

I have a similiar task at a law firm. It's a pain, but having a high-speed scanner is a God-send. I use a Canon DR-5020. It's rather old, and only black and white, but it hardly ever clogs up, and is really quite fast. I can only imagine how much faster the newer models are. Scanning 100 pages at a time is nothing for this scanner (the more the merrier - there is nothing more annoying than scanning a big box of papers in which every 10 sheets or so is stapled together). Of course, I imagine the price tag is a bit hefty, but these scanners are quite easy to use. I rarely need to stop scanning due to paper jams, etc. In addition, it scans directly into Adobe Acrobat without a problem whatsoever. I scan at 300dpi b&w. I typically have around 5,000 - 10,000 pages in a document, usually ranging from 300MB to 500MB (we then burn them to CDs for storage - one CD for around 10-20 boxes full of paper, so it's quite a space saver, eh?). The last document I did was 311MB (PDF) with 6,870 pages.

Check out Canon's high-speed scanners here.

If you need a color high-speed scanner, may I suggest the DR-9080C.
It claims to do "90 pages-per-minute (black-and-white or grayscale) and 50 pages-per-minute (color)."


-Ares

I have a similiar task at a law firm. It's a pain, but having a high-speed scanner is a God-send. I use a Canon DR-5020. It's rather old, and only black and white, but it hardly ever clogs up, and is really quite fast. I can only imagine how much faster the newer models are. Scanning 100 pages at a time is nothing for this scanner (the more the merrier - there is nothing more annoying than scanning a big box of papers in which every 10 sheets or so is stapled together). Of course, I imagine the price tag is a bit hefty, but these scanners are quite easy to use. I rarely need to stop scanning due to paper jams, etc. In addition, it scans directly into Adobe Acrobat without a problem whatsoever. I scan at 300dpi b&w. I typically have around 5,000 - 10,000 pages in a document, usually ranging from 300MB to 500MB (we then burn them to CDs for storage - one CD for around 10-20 boxes full of paper, so it's quite a space saver, eh?). The last document I did was 311MB (PDF) with 6,870 pages.

Check out Canon's high-speed scanners here.

If you need a color high-speed scanner, may I suggest the DR-9080C.
It claims to do "90 pages-per-minute (black-and-white or grayscale) and 50 pages-per-minute (color)."


-Ares

I have a similiar task at a law firm. It's a pain, but having a high-speed scanner is a God-send. I use a Canon DR-5020. It's rather old, and only black and white, but it hardly ever clogs up, and is really quite fast. I can only imagine how much faster the newer models are. Scanning 100 pages at a time is nothing for this scanner (the more the merrier - there is nothing more annoying than scanning a big box of papers in which every 10 sheets or so is stapled together). Of course, I imagine the price tag is a bit hefty, but these scanners are quite easy to use. I rarely need to stop scanning due to paper jams, etc. In addition, it scans directly into Adobe Acrobat without a problem whatsoever. I scan at 300dpi b&w. I typically have around 5,000 - 10,000 pages in a document, usually ranging from 300MB to 500MB (we then burn them to CDs for storage - one CD for around 10-20 boxes full of paper, so it's quite a space saver, eh?). The last document I did was 311MB (PDF) with 6,870 pages.

Check out Canon's high-speed scanners here.

If you need a color high-speed scanner, may I suggest the DR-9080C.
It claims to do "90 pages-per-minute (black-and-white or grayscale) and 50 pages-per-minute (color)."


-Ares

The company I work at scans large amounts of documents to PDF format on a daily basis. Depending on the volume some people do, we use either a Canon DR-3060 or DR-5020 document scanner. These will scan both sides of a page simultaneously, clean up the image (despeckle and deskew) and convert them into TIF or PDF all on the fly. They're fast too. Between 20 and 50 pages per minute. Only problem is that they're expensive.

For your budget, you may be able to afford the Canon DR-2080C which goes for around $600. It has all the features of the more expensive ones, but it's meant for smaller volumes like what you're dealing with. With that, you'd be able to scan 100 pages into a pdf document in around 5 minutes.

Canon just came out with a new lens that uses Fresnel tech, or at least pseudo Fresnel. See the new 70-300 DO on canon EF lens site

It's no a perfectly flat fresnel, but it does do ladder step stuff to put a 300MM zoom in a failry small package.

Manufacterers like kodak and hp don't have a lot of experience in camera design

Being from Rochester, NY (the headquarters of Kodak), I'm going to have to call bullshit here. The first Kodak camera hit the market in 1888. No, that's not 1988. That's 1888, one hundred and sixteen years ago. And they've been making them ever since, which would give Kodak 49 more years of experience than Canon and 29 more years than Nikon.

(And no, I'm not rabidly pro-Kodak. Perhaps their lenses are of inferior quality; if this is the case, it is certainly not from lack of experience. Further, I own a Canon digital camera and am very satisfied with it, to the point that I will probably buy a Canon digital SLR soon.)

if we are so 'green aware' why don't inkjet printers ever have green ink?

You mean like this one:
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/conCprProductDetail. jsp?modelid=9870&item=10027&section=10214

Black, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Photo Cyan, Photo Magenta, Red, and Green

inkjet printers don't have red or blue inks, either...

This technology has been in the works for some time, here are some relevant press releases from the three major litho tool vendors:
ASML
Canon
Nikon

My feeling is that we must look to Japan when examining the Earliest History of the Digital Still Video Camera. I had recalled the Canon Ion from the late '80s.

"History and background of digital cameras
1. The first step was to improve the transmission from moon to earth antenna, researchers at NASA developed the methods that convert analog signals into digital information.
2. The second step was when Sony first demonstrated an electronic still camera using CCD in 1984. The name of the first digital still camera was 'Mavica.' This small toy uses 1.4 MB floppy diskette, and one-diskette stores twenty-five pictures."

FIRST INTERNET MENTION OF ELECTRONIC CAMERAS - 1984.
"In July, 1984, Canon conducted a trial of the RC-701 and an analog transmitter at the Los Angeles Olympics.
The Copal CV-1 electronic camera prototype - 1984.
HITACHI STILL VIDEO CAMERA PROTOTYPE - 1984.
PANASONIC PROTOTYPE ELECTRONIC CAMERA - 1984.
FUJI ES-1 - 1985. STill video camera.
KONICA SVC-20 - 1985. Prototype still video camera.
CANON RC-701 STILL VIDEO CAMERA - 1986. Canon was the first to market a still video camera, the professional model RC-701.
Canon's "RC-701" was the world's first commercial magnetic recording still camera."

SV Cameras Accessible to the General User
"In order to provide an affordable SV camera for general users, Canon set the price target that would not exceed 100,000 yen. The target was met by the release of the "RC-250 (Q-PIC)" in September 1989, whose price was 99,800 yen. The "RC-250 (Q-PIC)" had a built-in playback function. Connecting the camera to a television set with a video terminal, the user could easily view the pictures that had been taken. The camera with both "shooting" and "viewing" functions received much attention widely. The "RC-250" was a particular hit on the European market under the name of "ION."

It's too bad the original article doesn't say anything about how he makes lenses.

The current trick in low-cost eyeglass distribution for the third world is simply to use a kit of low-cost preformed round plastic lenses. Basic eyeglasses have a spherical component, a cylindrical component, and an axis for the cylindrical component. The lenses are round, and can snap into the frames at different rotations, the number of different lenses needed goes down to a hundred or so. And the whole kit fits in a briefcase.

Well, here's what's in the cavern I call a backpack:

A Mini-Mouse
I don't know about the rest of you, but for me a button pointer or trackpad just can't beat the feel of a mouse. MacAlly makes a niftly little mouse called the iOptiJr, which is just the smaller version of the iSweetNet. Nice and small, thus very precise; two buttons, wheel button, and programmable, and it's Mac/PC compatible. But... you'll have to get used to it being so small. I think other mice are big and bulky by comparison now, but that's because I got used to this one. You may need to install drivers, depending on your machine. You can get a wireless version, but then you have to worry about batteries. Optical is WAY better than your basic mechanical ball... unless you're using it on the surface of your laptop, or another shiny/sparkly surface. Think ahead.

A Mini USB Hub
Here's a slick one by IOGear. This has proved useful occasionally, but I haven't used it in over six months. Buy at your discretion. Mine (Not the IOGear one; a different brand) came with a cable that was split into two USB plugs; one to provide basic functionality, and one to provide added power, so you could use more power-hungry devices (like external USB floppy drives, scanners, etc.) without needing to plug the hub into the wall. But... this can drain the power of your laptop if you aren't careful.

A Wireless Network Card
If your machine doesn't ship with one (or with functionality on the motherboard), buy yourself an 802.11g PCMCIA card. They're backwards compatible with 802.11b, and network access (copying files, etc.) is up to five times faster. However, this won't matter for internet access unless your sitting behind a T3. If you aren't planning on networking large files EVER, than spend half as much on 802.11b. Definitely get one though, because most internet cafes and hotspots are swithcing to wireless-only access, if they haven't already.

A Portable Flatbed Scanner
Obviously, this'll only matter if you need one. But I've found Canon's LIDE series (I've got the LIDE 30)to be a nice addition to my bag. Good quality, fast, small (same footprint as my 17-inch powerbook, and only 1.5 inches think!), and it's powered by the USB cable!

A Webcam
there are about a billion and a half of these out there. Think about what you're actually going to use it for, if anything. Don't spend extra because it's detachable and can take still photos. You're better off buying a digital camera. I've never needed one, but you might.

A Bluetooth Adapter PCMCIA Card or USB dongle.
This may be a non-issue for you, but if you have or think you might get any bluetooth devices (such as a wireless mouse or Bluetooth-enable PDA), this could well be worth the money. Again, it may already be on your motherboard.

Cables! (Oh, and a cable bag.)
Okay, one USB cable, normal-sized, and one of the mini-plugged ones, for digital cameras and other devices. Although... I've never needed to use this. (I try to stay as modular as possible, and use things that work with more standardized cables, etc.) A firewire 6-pin to 6-pin (for large devices such as drives), and a 6-pin to 4-pin, for smaller devices such as DV-camcorders. Other cables (such as a USB light, A/V and monitor cables, etc.) are up to you.

A Digital Camera
Obviously, not a necessity for a laptop user, but usually pretty handy if you don't have one. Buy one that uses Compact Flash (cheapest memory, MB/dollar), and AA batteries. Buy rechargables, highest capacity you can find... usually around 1800-2200 mA. Oh, and you can get a great 30-minute charger by Energizer for about $40 at Best Bu

With resolution at least comparable to CRTs, lower power consumption than plasmas without their reduced lifespan (burnout), inexpensive manufacturing and small form-factor, I think this is going to be the best bet when debuted by Toshiba/Canon next year (2005). See here and here for more details on Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Displays.

And though the OP was stating 35mm, the Canon Digital Rebel is an excellent SLR Digital Camera. For under US $1000.00, it delivers a very high end package, with gads of features, 6.3megapixel res and 18mm-55mm zoom lens. I picked mine up 2 months ago, and have yet to be dissapointed. Plus, it takes any Canon EF Lens.

So if the poster went out today and bought a brand new EOS series Camera, he could go out later and get the Digital Rebel and use the same lenses for both cameras, if that doesn't kick ass, I don't know what does.

Canon has definitely made a brilliant move with it's EOS line of cameras.

Link

We don't have to go to Kinko's anymore, since we bought this. Fine piece of equipment. FYI, we replaced one of those 'Xerox/Tektronix' machines with it.

Actually the camera would probably benefit from the gyroscope in the camera as much or more than the user interface does. Some of Canon's better lenses use gyros built into the lenzes to act as Image Stabilizers, basically compensating for any motion and shaking of the camera during exposure to improve the picture quality.

That doesn't sound that different from existing piezo-electric motors like this one.

Canon has used ultrasonic piezoelectric motors in their lenses for years. These are the "mexican wave" (wtf?) motors that the New Scientist article mentions. I'm not sure why they'd be any more expensive than the origami motors described here.

Piezoelectric stick-slip actuators are nothing new. Those units built at Cambridge apparently pre-date the units mentioned in the article, but the surface preparation technique is somewhat different.

Even HP's Portables in the 300 series aren't bad + they use the most common inkjet cart HP made.

The only disadvantage is they are slow and to use any of them other than the i90 Canon and the new HP 350cB you have to use GIMP if you want to run them on OS X.

I got a Canon i320 at Amazon for $40 after rebate and have been really happy with it. Works great with OS X, too.

I have a laser for most of my work, but use the inkjet to print the occasional digital photo or whatnot. The quality is actually quite good--much better than the entry-level Lexmarks and HP's I've seen--with a printhead resolution of 2400x1200.

Another good thing is that, even though they're a little small, the ink cartridges are nice-n-cheap. The black ones cost around $6, and the color carts only cost about $16 or so.

The first printer I had was an HP Deskjet. It was loud, slow, print quality was poor, and it died after a year or so. The next one was an Epson, and it was also slow and loud, but it lasted about 3 years. Just recently I got a Canon. It's fast, and it's too quiet, because I can't even tell if it's working or not, since it's virtually silent. I've only had it a few months, so I can't compare life, but it was way cheaper than any other printer I ever had, print quality is as good as you could ask for, and it does the whole seperate ink cartridges for each color thing. I've been happier and happier with each successive printer I've had.

If anyone here is looking into a new inkjet printer, this is what I have and I would highly recommend it.

If you want economy, get a laser. But it seems like Canon printers are the most economical right now.

I bought a Canon i320 at Amazon for $40 (after rebate) and have been pretty happy with it.

I use a Lexmark laser for most of my work, but got the inkjet to print the occasional digital photo. Prints on glossy paper look durn good--not quite as nice as, say, a $300 Epson Stylus, but I'm not complaining--it only cost me $40! What's cool is that it can print borderless prints on 4x6 paper. It has a little sponge in the paper path and actually "bleeds" the image off the page a little.

Carts are reasonable, too. Black ones are $7 and (all-in-one) color ones only cost $17 or so. Their higher-end printers have higher-capacity separate tanks for each color and a multipack costs about the same ($35) as all-in-one carts from other mfrs. I think the main reason they can price their carts so reasonably is that unlike HP and Lexmark, Canon's cartridges don't include new printheads. But unlike Epson, the printhead is user-replaceable if it's ever damaged, which is nice.

Hope this helps a little.

so, would that mean that they would be shot with a canon?

Canon also offers a color scanner cartridge which is compatible with their two portable bubble jet printers. Not an ideal solution, perhaps, but very portable and apparently Mac-compatible up to OS 9 (which might include Classic under OS X).

Otherwise, according to Apple's own site, Canon's LiDE 30 is the most portable flatbed scanner I can think of with OS X support. Now, a flatbed isn't good for travel, because it's easy to bump around the components and damage it internally. The printer cartridge might be your best bet.

Canon also offers a color scanner cartridge which is compatible with their two portable bubble jet printers. Not an ideal solution, perhaps, but very portable and apparently Mac-compatible up to OS 9 (which might include Classic under OS X).

Otherwise, according to Apple's own site, Canon's LiDE 30 is the most portable flatbed scanner I can think of with OS X support. Now, a flatbed isn't good for travel, because it's easy to bump around the components and damage it internally. The printer cartridge might be your best bet.

Canon also offers a color scanner cartridge which is compatible with their two portable bubble jet printers. Not an ideal solution, perhaps, but very portable and apparently Mac-compatible up to OS 9 (which might include Classic under OS X).

Otherwise, according to Apple's own site, Canon's LiDE 30 is the most portable flatbed scanner I can think of with OS X support. Now, a flatbed isn't good for travel, because it's easy to bump around the components and damage it internally. The printer cartridge might be your best bet.

The scanner she has is something like this one, and I'm sure there are other ones. Pretty cheap too!

No, I do not work for them - but rather an evil empire that clears 9 billion a year worldwide.

Things we have to consider are the maximum distance from transmitter to receiver; power source, and if battery-powered, the average battery life; video quality; additional necessary hardware and software; outdoor/indoor capabilities; and weather resistance.

You don't give your requirements for the parameters that you mention. I suspect, being an Ask Slashdot, that you are looking for something on the cheap. If this is the case then X-10 is your only real choice and you will have to live with poor quality, short range and short battery life.

But, lets pretend that you really wanted the best. In this case I would recommend the Canon VCC 4, at truely great remote video camera. Of course, you will need power for this. For power, you should get a Honda generator. Finally for the wireless part, you should look into the Ikegami Microwave link or the Canon Canobeam DT50.

Now we're talking about a serious long range, high quality, remote control webcam. Ain't it cool?

Sorry, original poster was quite right. I must kill my source.

Here is an explanation.

nah... D30 is way to old, what you really want is a D60 or maybe a 1D... or am I missing something? :-)

Canon's 90ppm high speed scanner - only problem with high speed scanning is that they need loose leaves. Any decent books you have and want to copy will need a Stanley knife taking to the spine.

Please remember to make decent backups on a long lasting madium with a high chance of recoverability. Failing that place the loose leaf versions with a document recovery firm and take their insurance for the full purchase value of the originals.

I've had the same experience with canon.. I have sent them an email and got a polite reply that they would send my comments to the appropriate person. After that i didn't hear a word from them..

Well we are not doomed afterall.. There is still work in progress going on and I actually got my scanner (canoscan 656u) to work (not with the nice sane interface), so I could use it under linux.

Here are a few links regarding canon usb scanners that might prove useful:

Canon N650U Linux Driver Development

SANE backend / Tools for Canon USB Scanners

It might pay off if some more people wrote to canon about the need for linux-drivers:

Canon eCare <CareCenter@cits.canon.com>

Canon

OK, there are the two manufacturers of high quality photo journalism cameras. GUess what- no 3 CCDs. Please research before you try to post that junk, yourself.

Two- I say 12 bit. Thats because film holds 4 logE exposure information- in your terms that works out to be 12 bit, or 4095 levels of grey. That means it has to be stored in 16 bit, which means 2x as much information density as your standard 8 bit, 1 ccd camera.

Three- No jpeg compression because, wow, jpg doesn't work very well with anything other than sRGB 8 bit images. Go figure! You want to talk about jpeg 2000, however, you can, but I'm afraid that there are no hardware solutions that do that currently and there are pitifully few software solutions. Heck the spec hasn't even been finalized.
Four- no photoJournalist leaves his finger on the button for 36 frames- except maybe when the towers collapsed. You shoot in 3 to 5 shot bursts. Digital video is, wow, under 1 meg? Per frame? Captured at 1/125th of a second? Guess that wouldn't make a good large printed image, huh?

Five- Ever drop a 1 gig microdrive from a height of 6 foot? Guess what- it doesn't survive the landing. Ever drop a roll of film and had your pictures scrambled? Didn't think so.

I find you use arguments you've heard other people mention but have no insight into the technology, nor it's uses. Thanks for extrapolating Moore's law on storage devices- did you forget there is a quantumn limit to the size of information density on a magnetic platter? Guess what- you hit it. Might wanna look that one up yourself.

That's certainly the conventional (Slashdot) belief, but it's frankly not true. Patent attorneys will often work on a contingency basis if you have a real case. Prove it to me: Show me a patent that was filed by a little guy that was "smashed" by a big guy.


I was not implying that "little guys" who can actually afford the patent process are smashed by big companies. I'm talking about huge companies who can afford to build up patent war chests in order to intimidate competition from entering the market.

Not to mention the various groups of patents that have the capacity to hurt real people.

Sure, bad patents can be overturned one at a time, but this often requires lots of money and lawyers too.

(And here is my opportunity to be controversial): The only reason many Slashdotters are against patents is because they want to steal other people's ideas, not because they are worried about corporations stealing the little guy's ideas.

Not really controversial--this is the standard corporate party line. Actually, many of us belive that ideas cannot be owned, and thus cannot be stolen. It's no surprise our corporate government doesn't share this viewpoint.

Jacco (to e-mail me, please remove all yourclothes)
---
# cd /var/log

Now here are some gadgets that were/are awesome for their time! (and in no particular order)

1) Cyberscope
2) Trebuchet
3) Picavet Suspension
4) Cameras
5) Cordless stuff
6) Standard based home automation
7) Scale combat
8) Webcams
9) Thermos
10) Slashdot