Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: epi-centre.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to epi-centre.com.

Comments · 9

  1. Re:Single Pixel? by danknight48 · · Score: 1 · on Single Pixel Camera Takes Images Through Breast Tissue

    comment suggests he has only the most limited understanding of the concepts of "pixel" and "camera", and no apparent knowledge of the advances in single-pixel imaging in the last several years.

    The correct definition of a Pixel.
    http://www.epi-centre.com/basi... , take clear note of the single pixel example at the top.

    Now, if you guys with cameras want to use existing terminology and spin it to suit your needs, surly your the one with "no apparent knowledge of the advances in computing in the last 40+ years."

    Go fuck yourself and your camera. ;)

  2. Re:I foresee... by Solandri · · Score: 1 · on Kodak Sues Apple & RIM Over Preview In Cameras

    As soon as we heard that cameras were digital, we pretty much immediately thought, "Oh I can't wait until we can have tiny screens to see what we're taking/took.

    I was a hobby film photographer at the time closely following the development of digital cameras in the early 1990s. I can tell you no, the first thing to cross everyone's mid was not the ability to review the picture you just took. Everyone was used to the film workflow process (take picture, develop, print negatives or review slides). Back in those days, just decompressing a 640x480 jpeg took 5-15 seconds on a PC (the processing power required for JPEGs was a big disadvantage vs. GIF at the time). So the digital workflow was similar - look through viewfinder, take photo, camera writes to hard drive/memory card, download to PC, review photos. It was not at all obvious at the time that we'd be able to quickly review photos in the camera immediately after we took them.

    The first digital SLRreleased in 1991 followed this workflow model. So did the first consumer-grade digital cameras released in 1994. The first digital camera I can recall which had an LCD to review picutres (not sure if you could preview them with a live feed) was the Casio QV-11 released in 1995. I recall lots of comments from photographers and reviewers about how innovative that concept was (but the camera's crappy resolution and toy lens killed it in the market). You have to remember that back in those days, most LCDs on laptops were greyscale. The few which were color were split-screen passive matrix with poor color reproduction and fidelity. CRTs were vastly superior and still dominated the desktop, so it never occurred to most people that they would want eventually want to review the picture they just took on a LCD built into the camera.

  3. Re:I foresee... by Solandri · · Score: 1 · on Kodak Sues Apple & RIM Over Preview In Cameras

    As soon as we heard that cameras were digital, we pretty much immediately thought, "Oh I can't wait until we can have tiny screens to see what we're taking/took.

    I was a hobby film photographer at the time closely following the development of digital cameras in the early 1990s. I can tell you no, the first thing to cross everyone's mid was not the ability to review the picture you just took. Everyone was used to the film workflow process (take picture, develop, print negatives or review slides). Back in those days, just decompressing a 640x480 jpeg took 5-15 seconds on a PC (the processing power required for JPEGs was a big disadvantage vs. GIF at the time). So the digital workflow was similar - look through viewfinder, take photo, camera writes to hard drive/memory card, download to PC, review photos. It was not at all obvious at the time that we'd be able to quickly review photos in the camera immediately after we took them.

    The first digital SLRreleased in 1991 followed this workflow model. So did the first consumer-grade digital cameras released in 1994. The first digital camera I can recall which had an LCD to review picutres (not sure if you could preview them with a live feed) was the Casio QV-11 released in 1995. I recall lots of comments from photographers and reviewers about how innovative that concept was (but the camera's crappy resolution and toy lens killed it in the market). You have to remember that back in those days, most LCDs on laptops were greyscale. The few which were color were split-screen passive matrix with poor color reproduction and fidelity. CRTs were vastly superior and still dominated the desktop, so it never occurred to most people that they would want eventually want to review the picture they just took on a LCD built into the camera.

  4. Prior art by Lookin'+for+work · · Score: -1 · on Scribbling On Digital Photos

    The old 1997-era Nikon Coolpix 300 would let you scribble notes attached to an image:
    http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9711dcs.html

    I guess they didn't have the "back of the photo" function... ...whatever.

  5. Re:Apple Portable CD music player...and camera by Ahruman · · Score: 1 · on Apple Applies for a Touchscreen Gesture Patent

    Yep. They were early in the digital camera market, too.

  6. Re:OS X on Intel by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1 · on Apple's Focus is Still Software


    I've never seen an Apple-branded camera

    Well, now you have. That was 1994, btw.

  7. Re:It's neither the razor or the blade CAMERA? by Moofie · · Score: 1 · on Is iPod the Razor or the Blade?

    Well, this is the first digital camera I ever saw.

  8. Re:Still a small margin by Don+Negro · · Score: 1 · on Some iPod Fans Dump PCs For Macs

    The Quicktake was a digital camera made by Apple, though it was discontinued a long time ago.

  9. Re:Why not? by D_Fresh · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Apple iPhone Rumors Resurface
    If Apple does this, expect a device that seems like other consolidated gadgets, e.g. Handspring's Treo, but upon closer examination is different in subtle but crucial ways. I don't think they'll veer from the basic iPod formula much - they'll start with a technology that's up-and-coming, like iPod's tiny HD, support it with a thoughtful combination of hardware and software, like firewire and iTunes, and they'll create a device that is so useful and good-looking we'll all wonder why nobody thought of it before. Only in this case the up-and-coming technology is Bluetooth, the supporting software is iSync, iCal, iChat, Address Book, Jaguar's Bluetooth support, and maybe even OS X Mail. Who knows what the cool hardware is - maybe there will be an integrated camera, or a clever way to use the screen, or a higher quality speaker, or an organic LED color screen. (The camera idea is intriguing, but that may end up being an entirely separate device - with their emphasis on iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto I'd be surprised if they haven't at least prototyped some combo still-DV models. It's not unprecedented, either.)

    I don't think Apple management walks on water - any engineering company can create new gadgets - but their design philosophy and willingness to push beyond what's already been done make all the difference. Of course they won't manufacture it themselves - again, the iPod showed their willingness to admit their limitations. When it comes to consumer electronics, they're not a fabrication outfit, they're a design house, with an emphasis on integration with their existing line of software. I'm excited to see what they come up with next.