Digital Cameras Go Disposable

iforgotmyfirstlogon writes: "Three Japanese companies are trying to make money off "disposable" digital cameras. You pay for using the camera, take it back to the store to get your pictures, and they recycle the camera so someone else can use it CNN story here. I think it's just a matter of (little) time before hordes of enterprising geeks figure out how to get the pics out and reuse it without paying the fee, or simply gut the camera for parts. Can't see how they'll make money..." And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

Comments

I've already got one

[sllort]

I've got a disposable digital camera right here. My friend called it an "Imac", but whatever.

Re:I've already got one

[xZAQx]

LOL, this is really funny. Mod this parent up.

Seriously, though, I'm an aspiring EE, it couldn't be hard to tear that thing down. This is, without a doubt, one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of. As a matter of fact, this is right up there with the infamous list:

Copy-protected CDs

the RIAA legally hacking your boxen for mp3s

DoS'ing your boxen if you trade mp3s, moviez, et al

There are 2^1024 stupid people in the world. The list above is a marginal fraction of that number.

Re:I've already got one

[xZAQx]

OMG...I was replied to by the Taco!

No, I realize the list is from the last month, but this digi camera idea is a new idea and the other things on the list are also new, stupid, ideas. Don't you think they should be grouped together? Silly me, thinking logical again.

Re:I've already got one

[Zigg]

OMG...I was replied to by the Taco!

No, you weren't. You were trolled. And you don't know how to reply to a post.

Re:I've already got one

[silphium_laciniatum]

"Aren't all cameras disposable?"

Re:I've already got one

[uchian]

OMG...I was replied to by the Taco!

Actually, I think you'll find it was "cmdrtaco on", as in note that there are two "on"'s at the end of his name instead of one.

This doesn't happen with anyone else's name, and I doubt that Taco would reserve a bug for his own, private usage :-)

Re:I've already got one

[MindStalker]

No you wern't notice the digustingly high number, its a fake. Notice it says "by CmdrTaco on on"
the on is printer twice, the guy hacked a space in his name and made it "CmdrTaco on"
old stupid trick

These sound......interesting.

[Trinn]

I agree, these will not be around long. They are not a terrible idea though, someone just needs to make ones out of better technology. Right now the picture is probably on par with a webcam.

Re:These sound......interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn. I was joking about the day of disposible digital camera (oxy-moron) 6 months agao. I should have filed a patent for it. :(

gimmick

[motherfuckin_spork]

fad

passing fancy

need I say more?

I think we can all see that this is not a "long-run" type product.

Re:gimmick

[Green Aardvark House]

Nah. I thought the same way about disposable cameras, but with time, these disposables will have more resolution, etc. And of course the initial investment is lower, so you do not have to be as cautious with it. The only drawback is that you have to return it to the store from where it was purchased, unlike traditional disposables. (Think of the problems if you buy one on vacaton and take ithome with you!)

IMHO, it's just the next step in disposable cameras.

Re:gimmick

[fjordboy]

Uhh...I dunno. I agree, it is sorta expensive...but then again, regular disposable cameras are quite expensive....9 bucks for a nice kodak flash one. However, people still buy them! Why? If they have a nice camera, maybe they don't want to take it camping where it might get broken; or maybe somone that doesn't plan on taking a lot of pictures in their future decided it was better to spend 15 bucks on a couple of cameras for a trip to get the pictures they want rather than spending like 70 or 80 bucks for a nice point and shoot. I see disposable digital cameras being in the same boat. The price isn't all that much different, and a lot of people wouldn't mind saving time/energy to get the pictures they want for on the web, no matter how low res they are (look at the casio watch camera which any geek would love to have).

economics

[shibut]

A similar cost argument could have applied to disposable cameras and yet they do have their uses and have a real market. I think this could be a great replacement for those disposable cameras, although I agree that there may be a problem with people hacking them. Perhaps they'll use a "deposit" like for bottles or credit card guarantee like for hotel rooms.

Re:economics

[RadioheadKid]

I have to disagree. One of the great selling points of a disposable camera is that you can bring it somewhere and you don't have to worry about losing or breaking it. If you do you've lost a few pictures and you're out $10-$15. I can't imagine the digital camera renter's being as forgiving, even if it is a low-end model.

KidA

Re:economics

[allism]

Nah, the beauty of disposable 35mm cameras is that I can buy one at the gift shop in the airport in Cincinnati during my layover on the way to Ft. Lauderdale, then wait to get the pics developed when I get to Denver instead of having to make a trip back to where I bought the camera. The only way this'll be a real moneymaker is if some big chain (think Wal-mart, Texaco, etc.) does a nationwide thing and lets you get the prints printed at any location.

Re:economics

[RadioheadKid]

Actually I f-ed up, I should have read the article more closely:
"Customers are under no obligation to return the camera to the store or collect their prints, once the service fee is paid."

Oops..

Re:economics

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. You can bring a disposable camera into a concert, and if security confiscates your $15.00 throwaway, BFD.

Re:economics

[jiheison]

I agree that there may be a problem with people hacking them.

It is a simple matter to take apart a standard disposable camera and load new film into it, yet these are still on the market. Why would digital cameras be any different?

The average user isn't giong to bother with hacking into a sufficently cheap disposable product.

Re:economics

[agdv]

It is a simple matter to take apart a standard disposable camera and load new film into it

...as long as you do it in a perfectly dark room. IIRC there is no rewind mechanism, so all the film is out of the roll.

Re:economics

[jiheison]

...as long as you do it in a perfectly dark room. IIRC there is no rewind mechanism, so all the film is out of the roll.

Actually, the film is unwound when you buy it. As you "advance" it, it is actually wound back into the canister. This was the case with a Kodak that I took apart years ago.

This would leave you with the problem of getting the new film into the camera, but (I assume) this would not be a problem for the average photographer used to developing their own film. As it happens, the already employ "perfectly dark room(s)" (called Dark Rooms, funnily enough). For something like this though, they would probably use a special bag or some other kind of smaller scale enclosure.

Of course, it wouldn't be worth the bother, which was the point I was making in the first place.

Re:economics

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be worth the bother because not everyone has a darkroom and enlargers and all that to print their film. Just about everyone (and certainly, anyone who's hacking their disposable digital camera) has a computer to load the pics onto.

The real issue is the price - current disposable cameras are some film and cardboard. Wow. A digital camera is a lot more expensive to make, which is why they'd be reused in the first place.. if you make a camera for $50, sell it 10 times for $10 each, you make $50. If you make it for $50, sell it once only for it to never be returned, you lose money

Re:economics

[agdv]

the already employ "perfectly dark room(s)" (called Dark Rooms, funnily enough).

I know. There is one right at the other side of the wall in front of me, and I've used it before. My point is, someone who doesn't have one may not want to just lock himself in a broom closet and change rolls in the dark to save a couple of bucks. And I believe I still have a taken-apart disposable camera too (or did I throw it away already?) which I got years ago by my parents using one, taking it to get it developed, and asking if they could have it back for their kid. They would have thrown it away anyhow. Oh well.

Re:economics

[Zeno_1]

I took apart a Kodak Advantix disposible camera.. found some interesting things out..

First off, when you take the camera to a shop, they just break it open, and take out an Advantix film roll, just like a normal one you would see in a normal Advantix camera.

So after I took it to a shop, I figured it might be easy to reuse these cameras.. So i took another one I had apart.. and be careful, it doens't really hurt, but you can get a shock from the battery that runs the flash.. Not sure if its a battery or what, but it shocks you.

Anyway, when the film was all done, and I took it apart, the film was all the way wound.. I am not too sure how you could unwind a new canister of film in the disposible camara, there was no mechanism for unwinding, it probably is done with some special tool or something at the factory.

Now, with this disposible digital camera, I can see some better uses for the parts its using, especially if there is an LCD viewfinder on it.. which I kinda doubt but one can wish.

I dont see why you would have to take it back to the exact store you bought it from, id imagine that any store that had the machines necessary to pull off the photos should be able to do it.. (im thinking a garden variety pc with usb). Anyway, id like to see how good these things work.. I dont have a digital camera now and I wish I did have one, they are pricey for a good one though..

Better images than the watch

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

Cassio released a few days ago, and cheaper too.

and is not wrist mounted...

What's the point?

[Dark Legend]

What's the point? if you have to take it back to the shop U might as well use a normal camera and get the pics developed in 1hr??? just why???

Re:What's the point?

[Dark Legend]

you do loose all the benefits of a digital camera this way, namely being able to print out the pics yourself, at your leisure, in your own home.. I assume there will also be no LCD (aricle doesn't mention) to preview the pics and see if they are any good, this is a function I often use on my camera, if the picture is crap, I take another...

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Japan we are talking about. These are the same people who would prefer a robot cat to a real one, even though it can't walk and costs quite a bit more.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your stereotyping of the Japanese people is a sign of low intelligence and ignorance.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I unintentionally used the word "people" when really meant to make a comment about a culture where almost any new gadget will be popular whether or not it's really better than what it's meant to replace, even if only for a short time (that certainly doesn't mean that I believe every Japanese person will feel the same way about it).

BTW, my "low intelligence and ignorance" is a result of my fascination with this culture who's people I was stereotyping.

same problems as the iOpener?

[sllort]

"Profit-making relies on how many cameras we can collect and how many times we can recycle them, which can be recycled for several times," says Katsuhiko Miyata, an Asahi Optical spokesperson, noting that the manufacturing cost of the camera, even at this quality level, is still more than the service fee.

This is going to have the same problem those subscription-based internet appliances had. As soon as someone figures out how to hack these into a webcam, people are going to buy them and not return them.

As the company spokesperson admitted, the problem is the cost differential. They're depending on a certain percentage of customers actually returning the cameras X number of times. If they can hit that percentage and that X, they're good.

My guess is the first person to put out information on how to hack one of these is going to get slapped with a lawsuit.

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[FortKnox]

Unless they ask for credit card number before you return it. Keep it, and they charge you.

Honestly, I don't see the difference in this and just renting one...

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[famazza]

• My guess is the first person to put out information on how to hack one of these is going to get slapped with a lawsuit.

Please, try to remember this. Not all the countries have stupid laws (like DMCA or SSSCA) to avoid this kind of hacking.

There are many other places where you have the right of full free speech (different from limited free speech, AKA as DMCA limitations).

I don't think Dmitri was dumb, he just haven't even imagined that in the so called country of freedom he would have full free speech, just like he have now a days in Russia.

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[stripes]

My guess is the first person to put out information on how to hack one of these is going to get slapped with a lawsuit

Perhaps to make it harder to crack whenever you fail to give the camera the right handshake it dumps the charge it normally uses to fire the flash (speedlight) into the I/O port frying everything on the other side...

Bzzzzzt!

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[aclarke]

This is like saying that as soon as people figure out they can KEEP their rental car forever after only paying for the first day, they can have a car for $20...

If these companies do a $200 authentication on your credit card, you're definitely going to have a vested interest in returning the camera. And if you don't, the company just cleaned up on you.

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[ChannelX]

Can you point to any country and give hard proof that it has 'full freedom of speech'? The US has never had it (regardless of someones imagination).

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[ichimunki]

From linked article which you did not read: Customers are under no obligation to return the camera to the store or collect their prints, once the service fee is paid.

It's not a camera rental, it's a camera purchase. But once you have used up the frames, you have no further use for the camera body since you cannot reset it yourself (just like with disposable 35mm cameras, which you cannot reload easily by yourself), so you may as well let the store re-use the camera body because in theory they are the only ones who can reset it.

Personally, I'd rather see camera stores rent out high-end digital cameras and offer to burn the images to CD-ROM for me (replaces negatives) and make some high-quality prints on glossy paper... the cost of maintaining all that (camera, burner, printer) at home is not cheap, and printing the images is a pain. But I *would* be willing to pay around $1 an image for processing and probably an up-front fee of about $10/day for use of the camera.

But as I ponder this business model, I don't see a good way to recoup the cost of the capital required to purchased the high end computers the shop would need and the cameras themselves without trying to provide additional services to people who have their own cameras. And people with their own digital cameras tend to have their own computers right now, otherwise I think most consumers are fine with analog film. I suppose the massive advantages of digital would have to appeal (i.e. no dust, no negative to degrade, PhotoShop filters-- have all your beach shots look like Monets!-- that sort of thing) for people to want a digital camera that they wouldn't use on their home computer (if they even had one).

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[geekoid]

Not really, the Iopener and other net appliences have all had the same problems.
Bad advertising. Every person interested in computer I know have heard of these things, but not one person who would actually be in the demograpihic for these ever heard of one. A net applience would be great for my mother, and her friends, but that demographic wasn't marketed to.
Net apppliences locked you into one dial-up.
Some people will hack these cameras, but I will wager the end product from hacking just won't be worth the effors, except as an intellectual exercise. As opposed to hacking something and getting something you can use regularly to replace a more expencive item.
The current market for regular cameras that are disposable is huge, and they can be hacked.
Most people will be attracted to there convience. pay 3 bucks, snap you pictures drop them off in the mail, get a disk with the picturs on it before you get home from vacation.

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet that no matter what country you are in, you'll _never_ have your so-called "full freedom of speech". Just go to any country and start speaking about how you're going to hurt or kill their president/prime minister/king/dictator/etc. or explicitly describe sexual acts to little children. See how long it takes for your ass to get busted.

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[Kanasta]

Or another way of thinking about it, if you were a competitor, what's the best way to crush your competition?

Buy lots of their cameras and junk them!

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[famazza]

This is not about full freedom of speech, this is about limitating it. There are many countries around the world where you can speak whatever you want to. And if you do this you won't be guilty.

This is what I mean, let's see what Dmitri has to speak about this. In Russia anybody who feels harmed by his speech must first proof that he's being harmed (not guilty until proved otherwise). He couldn't even imagine that in the "country of freedom" he would need to care about such a thing.

US citizen used to have speech freedom, but with laws like DMCA they don't anymore. They can speak whatever they want but the exceptions included in DMCA.

Re:same problems as the iOpener?

[famazza]

Here where I live there is a music by a famous rapper, it says the following:

• "I'm very happy, I killed the president." (this was in 1990)

After six monthes it was censored, prohibithed for public exibition, less then 2 years later, after some legal fights, the music could be public presented again.

This is freedom! Initialy the rapper was not guilty, and after a fair judgment he was considered guilty and his sentence was to no execute the music in public. After another fair judgment he was considered not guilty and now he can repeat the music how many times he wants.

Now, think a little bit more about free speech. It means you can speak whatever you want, but not whoever you want! You can describe sexual acts, but not for children (what kind of sickness is this?)

But always remember, you always need to be careful of what you speak. If someone consider itself harmed by your speech, then you'll be sued. But in countries with freedom of speech you'll be not guilty until proved otherwise.

Think about it.

I would pay $10 to $20 for this

[WillSeattle]

Seriously, I'd love to rent a high-end digital camera, cause I can't justify wasting more than $300 on buying something I don't use that often.

But I'd love to rent one when I have guests from out of town, fill it up with pictures of us doing the town, take it back and get the pictures.

Will they be offering those digital movie cameras too? This is something I'd also be willing to rent, take it on a short trip, maybe film a ski trip with friends, then turn it in.

Re:I would pay $10 to $20 for this

[DShor]

I don't think that the issue is whether or not people will pay the $16 or what have you for the camera. The issue is whether the company will lose money on people hacking the cameras. Remember, if they can get in to get your pics (even if they encrypt the data), you can get in too. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out how to get the pics out, and/or bypass whatever security measures are in place.

The only way I see this working is if they place a hold on your credit card for the value of the camera. The problem is, most people won't want a $300+ hold on their card just for this.

Besides, at $10 to $20 per use, you could've bought your own unlimited use digital camera after 15 or so uses of which you would probably need 4 or so uses per trip. It just doesn't pay.

Re:I would pay $10 to $20 for this

[stripes]

Seriously, I'd love to rent a high-end digital camera, cause I can't justify wasting more than $300 on buying something I don't use that often

These are not high end, 0.3Mpixels is not enough to make a good 4x6 print (2.1Mpixels is more then enough).

Places like Penn camera do rent high end digital cameras (Nikon D1, D1h, D1x, Canon EOS-D30, and I would assume the EOS-1D in a few months), but they run more like $100 to $300 a day (oddly enough a weekend is one "day").

I think you are going to be better off "renting" one of the disposable film cameras. The quality from them is pretty bad (far worse then a good $100 film P&S like the Stylus, or T4), but a lot better then 0.3Mpixels!

Re:I would pay $10 to $20 for this

[schon]

I'd love to rent a high-end digital camera

The problem is that these are not high-end.

They're very low end. I have a D-link with more than double the resolution that cost me $120 Canadian - that's about $65 US.. at that rate, you rent the thing 4 times and you might as well have bought one (and have a better camera to boot!)

Agred, if you could rent a high-end one, that MIGHT make it work better, but the current cost is way too high for what you're getting.

Re:I would pay $10 to $20 for this

[khofTim]

really? you would actually pay 16 US$ for 24 pictures at 640x480?
sorry but i wouldn't.

.

Re:I would pay $10 to $20 for this

[WillSeattle]

The only way I see this working is if they place a hold on your credit card for the value of the camera. The problem is, most people won't want a $300+ hold on their card just for this.

Besides, at $10 to $20 per use, you could've bought your own unlimited use digital camera after 15 or so uses of which you would probably need 4 or so uses per trip. It just doesn't pay.

Well, whenever I rent skiis, they put a hold on the credit card, so I don't see how that's any different. Note I bought some, after I decided on which kind of skiis I liked the best and what features mattered.

But I don't use a camera all that often. So it would save me money, and be a lot easier than worrying I'd buy one that got outmoded quickly. If I found I was doing it too often, I'd try it out as a rental first, and then buy one. Maybe even buy a used one.

Re:I would pay $10 to $20 for this

[peter]

Remember, if they can get in to get your pics (even if they encrypt the data), you can get in too.

Yes, but you may have to break RSA to do it. This isn't like the situation with DVDs and such where you have something that can get at the data, but it will only do it in a certain way. In this case, they don't have to give you anything that will have the decryption key in it. After it JPEG-encodes a picture, it could encrypt it with the company's public (RSA) key, so only the company's private key could decrypt it. You have no way to get at your picture, other than getting the data out before it's encrypted (making the camera a bit inconvenient, or at least bulkier with the stuff you've got hooked up to it.), or breaking RSA.

The only reason they might not do that (other than not thinking of it) is if they wanted the camera to be able to show you previous shots you've taken, etc. In that case, the situation is like DVDs, because the camera has to be able to decrypt the images, so the decryption key is in there somewhere. A way around that is to store thumbnails unencrypted, but leave the camera no way to read the encrypted full-quality images. It could delete one of them if you decided you didn't want it (which makes sense if you could see a thumbnail to know which photo it was).

Where have these people been?

[deitrahs]

"Profit-making relies on how many cameras we can collect and how many times we can recycle them, which can be recycled for several times," says Katsuhiko Miyata, an Asahi Optical spokesperson, noting that the manufacturing cost of the camera, even at this quality level, is still more than the service fee.

Um... is it just me, or is this yet ANOTHER variation on the Cue:Cat? Is Japan so far behind that they're just NOW getting to the dot.com bubble stage of their economic collapse?

"We're selling them at a loss... but we'll make it up in volume!"

Of course, that doesn't stop me from wanting one. This is just screaming "Hack Me!".

Cheers,
--bmc

Re:Where have these people been?

[jiheison]

Is Japan so far behind. . .?

Nice troll. I'll bite. . .

Of course, that doesn't stop me from wanting one. This is just screaming "Hack Me!".

Perhaps they figure that no Japanese person would waste their time hacking a cheap disposable camera so that they can get low quality digital pictures for free.

How much time do you waste reloading film into standard disposable cameras, just to save a few bucks.

Re:Where have these people been?

[deitrahs]

>> Is Japan so far behind. . .?
> Nice troll. I'll bite. . .
Wasn't a troll, actually.

Cue:Cat - distributed for less than the cost to manufacture, profits to be made from owners following a specific path of usage.
DDC* - distributed for less than the cost to manufacture, profits to be made from owners following a specific path of usage.

(* - DDC == Disposal Digital Camera)

Where's the difference between the two?

> Perhaps they figure that no Japanese person would waste their time hacking a cheap disposable camera so that they can get low quality digital pictures for free.

That's poor planning on their part, then. The hackish spirit / desire to kitbash and otherwise play with things to see how they work and make them work differently is just as alive in Japan as it is in the US or the UK or wherever. Man, being a tool-using animal, is seemingly programmed to tinker with his tools to improve them.

> How much time do you waste reloading film into standard disposable cameras, just to save a few bucks.

None, actually - I have a digital camera. :) But I do recycle/refill inkjet cartridges for my Stylus Color and toner cartridges for my Mopier. Not from any particular environmentalist bent - I'm just frugal (yeah, go ahead and say it - cheap!) and will attempt to save money where it's both feasible and practical to do so.

FWIW, my own personal "oh neat!" with this came from the idea of taking the guts out of the shell and mucking around with them a bit, trying different form factors and testing its suitability in non-traditional applications.

Use it in my own personal Shooting Back efforts by putting it in a baseball cap or other head-mount format.

Set it up as a doorbell-ringer imager so I can see who's at the front door.

Whack a USB interface onto it and feed it into the Shuttle ugly-cube so I can watch my front porch on Halloween night...

...or hook it into a computer system in my car and periodically take pictures of the driver's seat occupant to use as evidence should my car get stolen again (like it did last week).

That sort of thing. Clearer now?

cheers,
--bmc

Re:Where have these people been?

[jiheison]

Wasn't a troll, actually.

My mistake.

Where's the difference between the two?

I think it's pretty obvious that the difference lies in the "path of usage."

As I recall, the CueCat's path of usage didn't generate any direct revenue for the manufacturer at all, no matter how many people used it for it's intended puepose. Moreover, the "path of usage" held absolutely no appeal to consumers, whereas many people use disposable cameras.

The fact remains that the average person here OR in Japan, isn't going to waste their time hacking these things. Let's remeber that these are the same people who already buy disposable cameras, even though durable ones with better features are dirt cheap. These people will more than make up for a few curious hackers.

slashdot editors are too rich.. junkbust ads now!

[Anonymous Coward]

And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

Is it me, or is there something inherently spoilt about someone who doesn't see much difference between $16 and $1000 ?

I see sub$10 usable disposable digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

in 1 year

Bargains

[dmorin]

You're telling me that of all the people who might benefit from a digital camera, that the majority will see 4megapixels for "under a thousand" as the better buy? For a large part of the universe, "under a thousand" could very well mean "more than I paid for the whole PC in the first place". When the heck did our perspective on price get to be so...so....so Rain-Man? How much is geek toy X? Bout a thousand dollars.....

We got my dad his digital camera about 4 years ago. Cost like $400. I'm sure its resolution is a tiny fraction of what can be done now. But he's gotten 4 years out of it and is still going strong. He's still the hit of the family parties. Still the only one in the immediate fam that even has one. If we're at a point now where the disposal version can do even a piece of what his can, I'm sure they will be an instant best seller, not a novelty.

Re:Bargains

[JohnHegarty]

Exactly.

Would this camera find a market where under $1000 is a years income.

Re:Bargains

[gorilla]

You can now get 2megapixels for about $200 US. I got one a couple of weeks ago, and I don't think I could find a use for anything greater. 2megapixels is 1200x1600, which is full screen at the resolution I run at.

Re:Bargains

[stripes]

I don't think I could find a use for anything greater. 2megapixels is 1200x1600, which is full screen at the resolution I run at

In a word: printing

2Megapixels from most digital cameras (say the Canon PowerShot 100) will not make a good 8x10 print. The Nikon D1 is a pretty big exception, it's 2.7Mpixels can make decent 8x10 prints, you have probably seen some on the cover of Newsweek or Time. However it has exceptionally noise free images (as does the EOS-D30, Nikon D1x, and Nikon D1h, and some of the other $2000+ digital cameras).

Another good reason to have excess pixels is for cropping. Most good photos have their subject off center, like about 1/3rd over and up or down. Most cameras either only have a central focus point, or have the best focus point at the center, so cropping is useful. It is also useful if your viewfinder doesn't show a 100% view...

Wander over to DP review (digital photography, not double penetration) and see how disappointed people are that the new Canon EOS-1D has only 4.1Mpixels!

Re:Bargains

[EisPick]

I too gagged on the notion that "less than a thousand dollars" enough of a bargain to squeeze a $16 product out of the market.

I see this a the Polaroid of the future, and part of the reason that the Polaroid of the past is circling the drain.

It used to be that if you were headed to a wedding or to the beach or to a graduation and you wanted a cheap way to take some pictures and make prints with no hassles, you could go to a drug store, pay $30 bucks or so for a cheap Polaroid and a cartridge or two of film, and you were in business. No advanced planning required. No photographic ability. Just point, shoot and share pictures.

This product seems to have the same virtues, so I don't see why it doesn't have a decent chance of success.

Re:Bargains

[gorilla]

But not many people print 8x10s. 4x5 or 5x6 is as big as the average person goes.

Re:Bargains

[stripes]

But not many people print 8x10s. 4x5 or 5x6 is as big as the average person goes.

Yes, but see my reply to the other message almost like yours. Also for no apparent reason large digital prints seem to cost less then large wet prints, er film prints. Like $10+ for a 8x10 or 8x12 from film, vs. $3 at ofoto.com, shutterfly.com, or any of a dozen (down from 100 last year) other places. Oh wait, that's the reason ".com" :-)

The lower cost may give some incentive to having larger prints made.

Even if not, it is pretty nice for ray tracings (my former hobby), ofoto even does 16x20 prints now...

Re:Bargains

[WNight]

Oh yeah, there's a huge market for digital cameras in Albania. People display the pictures on their PCs.

Oh wait. Most places where the yearly wage is under USD1000, most people won't have PCs and will be buying food instead of renting cameras.

This rental scheme might be good if you needed a Camera *now* and didn't care about quality. But the resolution is low and the price doesn't look much better than film. If it allows people to browse the pictures and delete crap to make room for more shots it might be good.

But anyways, if you're willing to pay $15 or so to rent a camera, you're probably in the market to buy one. The fact that 3Mp cameras are under a grand makes 1Mp cameras about $150...

Re:Bargains

[bill_kress]

I just bought a camera on sale at Frys for $20--no rebate either, it was $30 off a $50 camera. It also included cabling and software.

How is $16 for something you essentially rent better?

Re:Bargains

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

"...and I don't think I could find a use for anything greater. 2megapixels is 1200x1600, which is full screen at the resolution I run at."

Someone else mentioned printing, which is the big one. But I also find that the images too noisy for use strait out of the camera. Halving the size seems to make then nice and crisp, but that takes them from a 4MP imgage to a 1MP image.
People also like to crop their images.
And don't forget about the future, screen resolution always increases. 2 years time, and 4MP camera might not be big enough for even a desktop image.

Re:Bargains

[LetterJ]

Ezprints.com goes to 20x30.

Re:Bargains

[Anonymous Coward]

The best all-around buy for home photography is a low-end to mid-range 35mm SLR, with through-the-lens flash metering and a powerful bounce/tilt flash (for avoiding the red-eye problem that plagues every type of point-and-shoot).

You can get a decent 35mm SLR outfit for about the cost of a minimally-acceptable digital point-and-shoot (2.1 megapixels, optical zoom).

Re:Bargains

[swv3752]

Except that one can get a $50-$100 camera that is three times what that one is. Plus, you can save your pictures to a Flopy or cd or whatever and have some kodak film place develop them if you want. Or just do it online. Remember the Kodak & Microsoft spat a few weeks ago over XP? It was just for processing Digital Film to Prints online.

heck they give the cameras away when you buy some cheap computer peripheral like scanners. And the scanners only go for $100-$200.

Keeping It

[JohnHegarty]

Any reason you can't keep it and continue to use use it... or there a contract / restions on the camera ?

why do we need more disposable stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with having something of decent quality that you reuse many times, that you don't toss away to make extra trash? What is wrong with our species?

Very Cool Device

[Brontosaurus Jim]

A buddy of mine is interning in Japan, and has told me stories about these things.

Aparently in his city (Kyoto, iirc) these things are around in a few places. He had the oppurtunity to play around with one, and the pictures were pretty good. He sent a few to me, and I could definatly tell they were low quality, but they were definatly useable for anything you'd use a disposable

I personally can't wait until these get to America. Should be fun to hack. Aparently he opened one up and it looks like there is a removable chip in it, that he thinks is the memory. He's working on figuring out how to access it. He has a website about it that I'll post when I get back home to my bookmarks.

Oh, cmon!

[lumpenprole]

Normal digital cameras are down to like a hundred bucks for the cheap ones! I know that's not free, but the attraction of disposable film cameras has always been that they're not that much more expensive than the film. This way, you take 15 pictures, you've just paid for a camera with unlimited "film". Who's really going to use this?

Re:Oh, cmon!

[GTRacer]

My wife, maybe?

I just bought her a Polaroid I-Zone Digital combo for 30 bucks and she's thrilled. Sure, she'd love something with better than 640x480. But odds are good she'll lose this thing within the year.

I wanted to buy her a true digicam, but, as much as she loves photography (for scrapbooking/family projects), she couldn't stomach the $400-odd price (plus printer).

I'm sure someday she'll *WANT* a real camera, but until then, she's very satisfied with the Polaroid.

GTRacer
- "But this is HDTV...It's got better resolution than Real Life"

Re:Oh, cmon!

[jridley]

Well, you can get a camera that's basically a reloadable version of a disposable camera for about $10, and then save several bucks on each roll as opposed to buying just film. They're good for a lot of rolls, which is probably years and years, since the average person without a dedicated camera probably doesn't burn more than a couple of rolls a year. Yet disposable film cameras still sell. Beats me why.

I personally don't see why disposables have that big of a market. To me there are only a few uses for disposables:

1-You are going somewhere where you want to take pictures but a normal camera might be damaged or lost (hang gliding, parachuting, etc).

2-You need a specialty camera (underwater, 3D, panorama, etc) for one time use.

3-You forgot your camera before leaving on a trip.

4-You're dirt poor and can't afford even a $10 camera.

Personally I never turn in the disposable cameras either; I take the film out and keep the AA battery and flash unit inside, then turn in the film for processing. I actually have reloaded disposables, though they make it hard.

Why worry?

[MrKevvy]

I think it's just a matter of (little) time before hordes of enterprising geeks figure out how to get the pics out and reuse it without paying the fee, or simply gut the camera for parts..."

All the manufacturer has to do is "encrypt" the camera's internal memory by XOR'ing it with 0xFF and then getting the data out of it is a DMCA violation, at least in the U. S. of A.

Re:Why worry?

[dillon_rinker]

The manuyfacturer is not the copyright holder. The photographer is. Those disposable cameras from Kodak "encrypt" photographs by storing them in an unusable state, substituting for each color the complementary one. (They call these "negatives"). Kodak develops (or could, anyway) the pictures for you but does not hold the copyright.

I suppose it would be possible to award the copyright to the manufacturer in the rental agreement, rendering my point moot.

Re:Why worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO. The photographer is the copyright holder of the images, and has the right to decrypt his own images without anyone else's permission.

Their business model is based on the premise that no one will figure out how to do it.

Re:Why worry?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

All the manufacturer has to do is "encrypt" the camera's internal memory

Ok, that might delay the hackers for about a week.

Re:Why worry?

[jiheison]

I'm pretty sure that cracking the means by which the data is protected from being retrieved for free would still be a violation of the DMCA.

Re:Why worry?

[vectro]

No, the DMCA only concerns devices that "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a protected work".

All we need now...

[jonfromspace]

...is a disposable OS! Oh, wait... we already have one... hmmm.

.3Mpix though... not really very good now is it... I wonder if these will fly outside of the tech-hungry Japanese market?

Re:All we need now...

[jonfromspace]

Off topic? Fuck, some of you moderators are stupid.

We do this at Virginia Tech...

[mickeyreznor]

We can just go to the library and borrow a camera for free for one day(though we don't have that many cameras to go around). Oh yeah, and we can take as many pictures as we want.

The above system seems much better than what these japanese folks are doing. It would seem rather costly to make digital cameras that are restricted in use. Why not just let people borrow it for x amounts of hours or a day? The only problem there is figuring out how much people are willing to pay for a day's use of a digital camera.

Hmmm.... I've seen 'Toy' digital cameras for less.

[Bonker]

At JC Penny, Walmart, ToysRUs, etc...

Isn't this simply a limited expensive rental?

[gelfling]

You're renting the camera and paying for someone to make prints. Both costs are bundled into one charge. Shit I could do this at Kinko's today. Even if I don't have a PC I can bring my camera to Kinko's download the images and manipulate them myself. If I want I can even burn a PhotoCD and hand that off to anyone to make an unlimited number of prints.

I don't see how this 'disposable' makes any sense.

that's a laugh...

[Sj0]

And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

Yeah! I mean, for the low price of 50 of these, you could buy a high end camera!

Seriously, high definition isn't really as important as an accurate picture. even a decent 640x480 picture is fine, as long as the picture is accurate(no glitchy pixels). my USB webcam sucks in this regard except outdoors in summer (and even then it's not always a sure thing). Spending 16 bucks for a camera to go on vacation and take a few pictures sounds fine.

Re:that's a laugh...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

"Yeah! I mean, for the low price of 50 of these, you could buy a high end camera!"

Don't forget. This disposable holds 24 pictures. Most digitals come with w 16-32MB card these days. I could get atleast 50 pics on my 32MB CF card. That was at full res(~1200x960), for .3MP it would pobably get atleast 100 photos.
Oh yeah... and it's reusable.

"Seriously, high definition isn't really as important as an accurate picture. even a decent 640x480 picture is fine, as long as the picture is accurate(no glitchy pixels)."

Most high-end digitals will produce an acurate picture, probably better than this dispoable, + they have a higher res. aswell.

I spose it depends on how oftern you use a camera, and how many photos you plan on taking.
It's definitly talored to the occasional photo snapper.

Re:that's a laugh...

[Kanasta]

Sure, but for $16 you could buy a tried and tested regular disposable camera, which will give you better quality pics.

The only thing digital adds is a preview screen and perhaps 15min wait to print out instead of 30min for film. Tho it'll be heavier, and have a battery life. What if you buy one with an almost dead battery?

Seriously, we have a 24min film processing here.

I hacked one.

[Anonymous Coward]

I got one and hacked it already... surprise! surprise! it's got surplus :CueCat parts inside. I don't know what they're gonna do when they can't get 'em anymore, but enjoy 'em while them last.

No files?

[Syris]

The cnn article doen't mention if you even get the pictures in digital form.

It won't last for a number of already mentioned reasons:

1. 640x480 isn't good enough, even for $16.
2. many of the camera's will be hacked (I'm looking forward to trying).
3. the quality of the print won't approach other disposable cameras that are cheaper.

Printed???

[brunes69]

At the store, they can view all the photo images on a display screen and choose any 24 images to be printed.

Excuse me, but I'm not paying 20 bucks to ent a digital camera so i can just print the pictures on some paper. If all you want is hardcopys then go buy a 35 mm camera for 20 bucks, and you're way ahead of the game. These guys need to get a clue and at least let you ave the images to a floppy.

Re:Printed???

[myc]

Personally I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately, most (non-geek) people often dislike digital images. I bought a digital camera before my daughter was born, for the purpose of uploading pictures to a website so that all the relatives, grandparents, etc. could see new baby pictures immediately. But all they wanted were printouts. To paraphrase my mom, "I don't want to have to boot up the computer every time I want to show my friends a picture of my granddaughter!" The only thing that digital has going for me now, insofar as baby pictures for the grandparents goes, is that I can see what the pictures will look like before they are printed, and therefore decide which ones I want to print in the first place. Which is what these guys are probably trying to sell, I guess.

Re:Printed???

[brunes69]

Well that does mke sense for technophobes, but if I ended up printing off all my picures I'd just go buy a 35mm. End up with better quality (than you get with inkjets, I doubt you have a color laser), and its much cheaper when you factor in all the color ink your using. Plus everyone and their dog can take 35mm images to a photo shop and get reprints, grandmothers especially like to get this done I hear :)

I invented that

[cr@ckwhore]

Hey! I invented that about 6 months ago... it was an idea I had while drunk one night. Then I figured, whats the point?

why digital?

[pcardoso]

what's the use for this? just to have disposable cameras? we already have that, for about the same price, if not cheaper. I don't know about the price factor, as I just use my regular 35mm rechargeable.

why would I use one of these digital models? to say "cool, it's a digital camera", and then realise that for the same price you could have bought an disposable analog one, with much better pictures?

it seems that everything that is digital is the way to go these days... in a way this is true. it's much more hackeable :)

Ooo, I almost hate to say it...

[dmorin]

But it seems like one way they could make money is to offer some sort drop off / email service where you turn in the camera, and then they email you the pictures. Of course, that means that you have to give them your valid email, thus automatically opting you in to whatever evil schemes they have in mind.... :-/ I don't particularly love the idea, but I've also watched people with traditional cameras who rush to the 1hr place, and then gleefully proclaim "The pictures are ready! Let's go get them!" so to these people the idea of having the pictures show up right on your home PC would be a major win. It would never even occur to them what else it's costing them.

Duane

(Note, on that "automatically opt in" thing. While I don't agree with it, it's the logic that a "bulk email provider" friend of mine used on me once: register with a company and you are implicitly opting in. Yeah, sure. Glad she's out of work now :))

Re:Ooo, I almost hate to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

They could just give you a URL and a password.

Re:Ooo, I almost hate to say it...

[_ph1ux_]

Ihave a thought on the email aspect of this in regards to spam. is it now possible - or some sourceforge project should be made that creates a series of "PO Boxes" within your email...

basically you should have certain boxes that are designated "PICs only" and you give out this addy for pics to be emailed to you. It should parse the attachments and allow .jpg .gif etc attachments only to that box. plus you should be able to manually add rejection rules which will parse the body of the message for keywords like: "sex,make tons of money fast, your advice etc"

and you should be able to setup "disposable" addresses for certain vendors for a certain amount of time - like "fotomat@pics.myemail.com" and fotomat can send you the pics for a period of a week or something before that po box is closed.

anything like this exist?

Re:Ooo, I almost hate to say it...

[unformed]

That's why you use sneakemail. This way you can have a unique email address (whichs forwards content to your actual address) for different things. Once you've got what you need, you just tell sneakemail to delete that address.

Re:Ooo, I almost hate to say it...

[sulli]

I get pix by email from Ritz Camera. What's the problem there? No additional spam.

Re:Ooo, I almost hate to say it...

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Or /etc/alias...

once you're done with an address, you remove it.

Or Hotmail for that matter.

Not everything is possible...

[Mike McTernan]

I think it's just a matter of (little) time before hordes of enterprising geeks figure out how to get the pics out and reuse it without paying the fee

If they use public key cryptography they can make this impossible...

The camera just has the shops public key embedded and encrypts the pictures as it encodes/saves them. Without the private key held at the shop, even the best geek is scuppered.

Also assume that the public key held in the camera can't be swapped changed and is in ROM

Re:Not everything is possible...

[netsharc]

That's a cool idea, but how powerful of a processor/how much memory would be needed to encrypt pictures on a small device like that? And what if I prefer to return the camera to a different branch of the store? They could use a standardized private key, but that weakens the security, how hard would it be for a geek to get a job at one of the stores, and, while no one's looking, copy the private key and put it on the net ?
Of course if the private key is embedded in the program that is used to process the photos, and the program is secured so that it can only be executed on a certified computer (dongle?), things will get a bit harder. Solution: copy the program and disassemble the key out of it?

Re:Not everything is possible...

[Mike McTernan]

That's a cool idea, but how powerful of a processor/how much memory would be needed to encrypt pictures on a small device like that?

Well, the CPU in a camera does a pretty good and fast job of JPEG compression, so it's likely to be able to do public key encryption pretty well too. What would probably actually happen in the camera is that a message key would be chosen for an image. The image is then encrypted with a bulk cypher using the message key (bulk cyphers are generally faster). The message key is then encrypted with the public key and added to the message. What might be slow is picking a secure random key for the bulk cypher...

Of course, key length is a factor here too, and that will affect speed. I doubt it would be that slow, but if it was, you could always implement in hardware (The AES candidates were tested for hardware implementation suitablilty, so should be easy).

Solution: copy the program and disassemble the key out of it?

So security now relies upon the physical dongle. I like it - steal that and you have broken the law in quite a conventional manner, that should be easy to prosecute for etc...

I guess you could always use an iButton for the dongle - that would be more secure than most dongles (and they break if you open them up to look for data :)

megapixels are not that important anymore

[jdesbonnet]

I really couldn't care less for megapixels --
I'd be happy with only 2 megapixels if I could
only have a SLR digicam at an affordable
price.

Japan... where *everybody* orders off the menu

[Bonker]

Let us not forget that these will be distributed in the land of conformity and social obligation. If people are told 'These are to be used only in this manner', it *will* siginificantly deter those interested in chewing up their guts. Even those who do manage to make their disposable camera into a real camera will never be seriously considered by the companies distributing the camera because they will not significantly impact profits in any way. No, this would not work in the U.S., but it just might in Nippon.

Re:Japan... where *everybody* orders off the menu

[hrieke]

Er, no, it will be hacked. The hardware otaku will make a short number on it, I'm sure.

Re:Japan... where *everybody* orders off the menu

[Rogerborg]

• Let us not forget that these will be distributed in the land of conformity and social obligation [...] this would not work in the U.S., but it just might in Nippon

That's a pretty piece of ethnocentricity you're peddling there. Got any evidence to back that up, or are you just reenforcing comfortable US-A-OK stereotypes?

Re:Japan... where *everybody* orders off the menu

[dvdeug]

Let us not forget that these will be distributed in the land of conformity and social obligation

That's a pretty piece of ethnocentricity you're peddling there. ... are you just reenforcing comfortable US-A-OK stereotypes?

How is that ethnocentric or "US-A-OK"? He didn't say they were bad, or the US was good - he didn't assume his culture was better than others, or that all cultures behaved the way his did.

If you want to claim that that was an inaccurate portyal of Japanese culture, then say so, but that's entirely different from calling it "ethnocentric" or "US-A-OK".

Re:Japan... where *everybody* orders off the menu

[Riktov]

>>>
Even those who do manage to make their disposable camera into a real camera will never be seriously considered by the companies distributing the camera because they will not significantly impact profits in any way.
>>>

...where "seriously considered" would mean "sued through greedy corporate lawyers or trade associations for violations of morally bankrupt intellectual property laws".

Yep, this would never work in the U.S.

Re:Japan... where *everybody* orders off the menu

[Rogerborg]

Allow me a measured retort: you're a fuckwit. I'd clarify, but I'm sure you'd delight in picking holes in the semantics of any expounded argument, while ignoring the clear veracity of it.

Re:Japan... where *everybody* orders off the menu

[dvdeug]

Words are the tools of any communicator. If you want to communicate well, use them correctly and precisely. Semantics matter.

What a great idea!

[BillyGoatThree]

Here I am, like a fool, with a digital camera I spent $250 on and requires me to own a computer with a "hard drive" and "monitor" and "serial port". Instead of that massive outlay I could instead pay $15/pop for the priviledge of driving back and forth to the store for my digital picture needs. The more I use it, the more I save!

Whats the point?

[chinton]

I guess I'm missing the point. The reason I have a digital camera so I don't have to bring anything anywhere to get my pictures. I don't see how this is any better than buying a disposable camera and then bringing it to a 1-hour photo lab. Am I missing something?

Re:Whats the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just another way to get pictures of you for the face recognition program. Come on, aren't the Japanese and US allies?

Re:Whats the point?

[FozzTexx]

Not only that, but you could probably get the same results as these digital cameras, for about the same price, by just getting a disposable camera and then taking it to a 1 hour place and having them scan your prints for you too.

In fact, this is probably the way to go. Not only do you get prints and negatives, you also get your digital images, plus the camera is still an ordinary camera that there's nothing to "hack" with. The general consumer isn't going to understand that his pictures are being recorded on film which is later scanned. He just knows "Ooh, I get my pictures on disk! It's digital!"

Composite images?

[scorp1us]

Just take 10 camera at $16 ($160 total) and you will have a 3 megapixel camera. Then send each image through a a rendering algorithm where it is combines with the others, so you can get detail from the historisis from each camera.

Re:Composite images?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please die.

Re:Composite images?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Just take 10 camera at $16 ($160 total) and you will have a 3 megapixel camera.

Why not save money and take 10 shots with one camera?

Quality will suffer severely-

[purduephotog]

I work for an imaging company...

At 0.3 megapixel, or 640x480, you are BARELY able to make a full resolution screen image. Yes it will probably look OK on that screen, but the typical person can see to 150 lpi (lines per inch)- benchmarking on that your print will be roughtly 3x4 inches.

Now, without even going into the sensor... the size that the image could be safely res'd up is probably 1.5, which gets you to the magic 4x6 print that consumers have come to expect.

Don't think about it going to 8x10 without some serious degradation. JPG artifacts alone will prohibit that sort of enlargment- blocking artifacts, clipping...

I think for parts the camera might be on the right track, but this has got to be the wrong approach.

I'd go into the other issues like noise, light sensitivity (speed), robustness... alignment... but i think that would rather bore most people.

Re:Quality will suffer severely-

[Shotgun]

My GAWD!!

Excuse me for just a moment while I rant, but every time we get a story about some sort of technology that deals with human perception such as sound or sight, we have to have someone who steps up to the plate and explain how the quality sucks.

For instance, in nearly every article about MP3s, we have people telling us how badly the MP3 format trashes CD quality; blithly ignoring the fact that the majority of the people out there listen to those MP3 out of $10 speakers stuck to the side of their monitors which are fed by a $5 SB(arely)Live chipset stuck on their motherboard.

Heh, buddy, here's a clue. Nobody gives a shit!!

These cameras won't be used for artclass. They'll be used by drunk-assed people to take pictures of their mates at company parties. Would you want ultra-clarity in THAT picture? Most people take their drugstore developed snapshots and cram them in a shoebox at the bottom of a mouldy closet for years before ever looking at them. Do you think they give a shit that their yellowed picture of their college graduate when he was standing at the plate in little-league is a little grainy? Here's a little help with the question. NO!!! Hell, they want to remember that he was the one who won the league championship for the team, instead of what he really did which was act as lead benchwarmer. (The great thing about memories is that they get better with the fading 8*)

So take your chitzy "I work for an imaging company..." ass out of here, along with your "MP3s sound bad" buddies, because the rest of us have priorities that rank 'trying to decide if a pic is 150lpi vs 160lpi' right there at the bottom with 'trying to decide if I should rip at 128 or 146 bit.'

Re:Quality will suffer severely-

[dvdeug]

The difference between 640x480 and 1600x1200 is noticable to pretty much everyone. The difference between MP3 and CD isn't. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Re:Quality will suffer severely-

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

But my point is that Joe-'taking snaps at a party'-Drunk could just as easly use a disposable film camera instead. Since Joe Drunk can only have either printed out at the camera store.

Also, even Joe-'Don't know shit photography or computers'-Drunk could tell the difference between a disposable film printout, and a 640x480 printout. Infact, Joe Drunk would probably start complaining to the guy at the camera store.
Encode a MP3 at 12kbps, at tell me the average Joe won't care.

The only usefull thing that I can think about these disposable digitals, is the fact that you can view an delete images you don't want. But then again. I'm not sure if Joe Drunk realy cares that the lighting in the last shot was a bit off.

Re:Quality will suffer severely-

[jawtheshark]

Encode a MP3 at 12kbps, at tell me the average Joe won't care.

Strange, I just received a 210KByte large MP3 file encoded at 24Kbps, 11025Hz, Mono.....and I enjoyed it. Not because the quality of the sound was good, but because the content was funny. The parent, you replied, to tried to make that clear: sometimes it's the content that matters not the quality if the media.
Unfortunately that (content above everything) concept has disappeared when the WWW came along, but that is of course another story :-)

Re:Quality will suffer severely-

[Shotgun]

No I'm not comparing 640x480 to 1600x1200. I'm comparing a crappy 640x480 snapshot to a crappy celluloid snapshot.

I have a crappy snapshot of the 'bosses day' stunt we pulled on the best manager I ever had. Only a year old and already yellowed. But who cares, it's stuck to a cubicle wall with tack pins, for the love of... Why would I care if it was stuck on a website at only '640x480'? Hell, I thought it was cool in '92 when I moved from CGA to a 640x480 monitor and could look at 'high resolution' porn.

Besides, it's the color depth that I usually notice anyway.

I dunno...

[motherfuckin_spork]

I can see the purpose of a dispoable film-based camera. They're cheap, they serve a purpose, you don't need to worry about up-keep.

But a disposable digital camera, such as is discussed here, isn't really "dispoable" at all... I think you lose the bang-to-buck ratio that you have with the film based cameras. Plus, why bother? Why not just buy a non-dispo digital camera, and keep using it? I just don't see any value being added here.

license the camera

[gmhowell]

License the camera (or lease it). You don't sell it. That's how you make money.

Wake up and pay attention.

Re:slashdot editors are too rich.. junkbust ads no

[DShor]

But you pay $1000 for unlimited usage as opposed to $16 for a certain number of exposures. If you go on a trip with one of these things, how many would you need to take, or how often would you have to replace the camera? I saw some nice 2.1MP cameras for a hundred dollars, and this is a .3MP camera for $16 a use... Do the math:

SiPix SC-2100:
Price: $150.00
MP: 2.1
Mem: 8MB Compact Flash

Other:
Price: $16.00/use
MP: = .3
Mem: = ? (probably 8MB)

If you use your camera more than 10 times, then you have made your money back. On top of that, you get much better image quality at 2.1MP.

Hack!

[TheMMaster]

Let's put it this way if they can make a furby talk english
I rest my case

Geeky Digital Camera Resources?

[truffle]

Are there any good resources out there for geeks to help us in selecting our digital cameras?

Digital cameras have become so mainstream, it's difficult to find those gems that provide both the basic features and value you want from a digital camera today, but which also include geek friendly features that most normal people won't use, like Linux compatibilitity, unusually high amounts of memory, programability, etc.

Re:Geeky Digital Camera Resources?

[phillymjs]

Take a look at this site. It has an interactive buyers' guide of sorts that lets you pick the features you find important and spits back the camera(s) that do what you want.

~Philly

Re:Geeky Digital Camera Resources?

[Yunzil]

Well, this might not help much, but I just bought a Sony Cybershot DSC-S85, and I think it's pretty cool. :) It comes with a driver disk, but I don't know if you really need it -- it might just work with a standard USB driver. When you plug it in under Windows, it just shows up as a removable drive, and you can copy files to and from the camera the way you would any other media. It also comes with a cable which lets you plug it into an RCA jack to display the pictures on a TV.

As for memory, the Sony cameras take a (proprietary) "memory stick", which are available up to 128 MB capacity, which at 640x480 can store over 700 images. The max resolution is 2200 something by 1700 something. You get a 16 MB stick with the camera, but that's pretty small if you plan to take high res pictures.

It has some "special effects", like black and white, sepia tone, and solarized. It can record mpeg video in two sizes. If you want to get into it, you can manually set the shutter speed, aperture, and all that other stuff that I don't know anything about. :)

Battery life is about 3 hours on a full charge (taking pictures with the LCD on). It works well in low-light, even without the flash. I have some pictures online that I took with it. If you really want to see them, mail me and I'll give you the URL.

As for programability, well, if someone could figure out how to h4x0r it, there's obviously a lot of stuff you could mess around with.

Mind you, I imagine a lot of other cameras have these features, but I'm happy with the overall package. The bad news is, with the 128 MB stick, it cost me right around $1000. Give it a few months though and it'll probably be half that. :)

Re:Geeky Digital Camera Resources?

[kaimiike1970]

Try this out:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Lots of good info for geared towards photographers so you get lots of geeky details.

The do have a market...

[Once&FutureRocketman]

And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

No they're not a substitute for one's personal primary camera. But they're excellent for two applications:

1) Taking pictures in places that put the camera at significant risk (hiking, rafting, Burning Man)

2) Handing out to lots of people -- i.e. weddings -- without spending a bunch of money.

Re:The do have a market...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but in both of those situations, disposable film cameras would blow these disposable digital cameras away. From the article, it was not even clear whether these cameras had LCD screens (and my guess is that they don't).

Especially in the wedding scenario where you may want the resulting prints to have decent quality!

forget disposable camera for concerts

[www.sorehands.com]

Why use a disposable camera? Use the Wristwatch Camera. How will they know what is is, when it is up your sleeve.

HERE'S THE POINT

[Spameroni]

Think of it this way. With a 24 exposure disposable, you get 24 exposures. period. With an 8MB flash card and a digital camera, you get to take many more exposures (especially at 640x480), and choose your favourites (as mentioned in the article).

Now I'm not saying that this is definitely the way to go, or that it's all that revolutionary, just that there IS a point to this.

Re:HERE'S THE POINT

[chinton]

Its not really clear in the article that you can take more than 24 pictures... At the beginning it says:

At the store, they can view all the photo images on a display screen and choose any 24 images to be printed.

But later:

The camera is equipped with a flash and 8MB of flash memory, which allows users to record 24 images.

They also don't state whether or not you can delete pictures from the camera before you bring it back. Being able to do that would let you get 24 (relativly) perfect pictures for your $16.

OR

[aclarke]

...this is like commenting that those companies who rent DVD players at airports have a stupid idea because people are just going to take their DVD players home with them and not return them at the destination airport...

Preview

[b0bby]

I think that the main attraction of my digital camera is that it has an lcd to let you look at the photos right away. It's the same attraction as a Polaroid. A digital camera without an lcd is much less attractive, and is really no better than a disposable 35mm...

Re:Preview

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see the LCD view finder on mine out door mid day in the summer. :(

On the other hand, it had no problem getting a good clear picture under that situation even at highest resolution doing a zoom and holding it by hand.

two examples at $25 from pricewatch

[Anonymous Coward]

I think both of these are made by Mattel and are the same camera. It stores something like 6 low resolution images when detached from the computer.

I have seen the Barbie one for $10 somewhere.

Barbie Photo Design Digital Camera complete with Photo Design software $19 + $6 shipping

Nick Click! Digital Camera Complete Retail Package with Nickelodeon Software $19 + $6 shipping

Quality may not suffer severely

[eAndroid]

150lpi? This is an odd way of specifying what a person can see. I mean, at what distance? Many billboards have FAR less lines per inch. if you used 640 x 480 on a billboard most people probably wouldn't notice, and here is the experiment to prove it:

1) find a billboard. bring along something you can measure with, even very approximately, like a business card (the narrow end is 2 inches wide).

2) stand as far away from the billboard as you would normally be to find it comfortable to read.

3) raise your measuring device up to your eye about as far from your face as you would normally view a photo.

4) take that width and imagine filling it with 640 pixels. For me, to the billboard out my window, that's about 500 dpi which is far more pixels than needed for not just a smooth photo, but to be able to read it.

So 640 x 480 does have practical uses. And I haven't even touched on web sites, business cards or even Ebay auctions.

Well you'll have to excuse the poor ones Tim...

[Telek]

And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

$1000 vs $16

I see a big bargain! Not everyone has deep pockets, not everyone can afford a digital camera. Some one wants to go on vacation for a week, snap up 3 dozen pictures (because they still take pictures like they would on film, not like us geeks who have had digital cameras for ages and take 100+ on any given night because, hey, it's free!), come back home and bam they have them all wonderfully on their computer, send them to all their friends, etc, etc, etc.

And I'm sure that the pixel range will increase with time, just give it a little to prove itself (or fail) as a buisiness model and then you'll see the bigger ones coming down too.

Oh wait, you can already rent digital cameras, and the big boys too, for not too expensive. One of my friends went on vacation for 10 days (I think he paid about $70), brought an old laptop and took well over 800 pictures at 3.1MP 1.2MB each. Damn. I'll just stick to my 2.1MP for now =(

Re:Well you'll have to excuse the poor ones Tim...

[geekoid]

most people do not want to carry there laptop with them on vacation. They want to click, drop in box, get pictures online.

Re:slashdot editors are too rich.. junkbust ads no

[tmark]

All your original analysis does is presuppose that the user has *need* for more than, say, 10 usages. Which, by itself, admits that if you did NOT need this many usages, disposable cameras could well justify itself. All the arguments about why disposable digitals make no sense could be made verbatim to argue that disposable 35mm cameras make no sense, for these cost far more than the contained film. But disposable 35mms are hugely popular and appropriate for many situations. I keep thinking I should pack a disposable in my backpack/glove compartment/office just for those special occassions where I wouldn't otherwise have a camera handy.

Fine, what about the files?

[ferreth]

I would want at least the option of a CD/disk/web storage of the pixs.

I don't see the point of this otherwise as it sits. A disposable camera will give you *way* better quality than the 100dpi that they're talking about here.

Is is a little more instant? I assume you look at your pixs, pick the 24 you want and get them back in less than 10 minutes.

They're targeting young users who prefer to use digital still cameras, of which about half prefer to print their images. Did they bother to ask themselves about reprints, photoediting, archives that you get with a file? They just throwing the other half of their potential market away by not offering a file option.

For me, I'd be more interested in paying for a "disposable" camera that gets me a CD back with all my pictures on it.

Defeats the purpose

[drodver]

Think of the homemade p0rn! You really can't take those kinky pictures of the misses if you have to take it into the shop to get the pictures. That would cut out a big chunk of the reason why people want digital cameras!

Timothy is so rich!

[Anonymous Coward]

And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

900/16 = 56.25

.3 * 56.25 = 16.875.

So in order for this stupid statement to be true, today's sub-$1000 cameras would have to be nearly 17 Megapixels. Plus it seems apparent that Timothy completely missed the entire point of this story, that there may soon be $16 digital cameras available (though the quality will surely suck ass).

Voyeurism!

[Occam's Hammer]

I think that the marketing strategy could work itself out with the masses constantly being bombarded with "digital" buzzwords. Regardless of the quality people will still follow. As for the profitability, they require a lower percentage of returns because they are charging more ($16) for something that could cost less than a disposable film camera AND the prints could be from an expensive printer rather than a much-more-expensive photo processor.

I agree that the hack is the interesting angle. Once they are hacked and I can create my own adaptor to download the images, I essentially have a $16 digital camera that I'm not afraid to put in a bag and take SCUBA diving, or take surfing.

I'd like to go a step further and apply data forensics to the hack by recovering the images of the previous user before I use it. Found art! (I guess I should register "www.littlebrotheriswatching.com" as a repository)

Re:slashdot editors are too rich.. junkbust ads no

[jiheison]

I keep thinking I should pack a disposable in my backpack/glove compartment/office just for those special occassions where I wouldn't otherwise have a camera handy.

Good idea, in case you ever witness a car accident or crime.

Re:slashdot editors are too rich.. junkbust ads no

[DShor]

True, I do assume that the user will use the camera more than ten times, but unlike film cameras, there is no need to constantly purchase film. The film in a digital camera is reusable. Also, a non-digital disposable camera has much better resolution than .3MP.

What is the point?

[DrXym]

Someone tell me why *anyone* would want to use a disposable digital camera that costs twice as much as a conventional camera and where the resolution is so laughably bad as to be useless?

Re:What is the point?

[Niksie3]

because its cool damnit!!!! especially if you have hacked it, then it suddenly becomes an extremely cheap digital camera with a total cost of less then a analog camera + a few rolls of film

Re:What is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree, but so far as to include _all_ digital cameras. Until such time as digital cameras measure their quality of pictures by the quality of the lens, I'm not even remotely interested.

The camera holds the film - the lens is what's generating the picture.

- S

8x10 printing? ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, there's a -lot- of us out here that use relatively cheap cameras for 4x6 pictures taken at birthday parties.. Not everyone out there is looking for 8x10 prints.

Re:8x10 printing? ha

[stripes]

Ya know, there's a -lot- of us out here that use relatively cheap cameras for 4x6 pictures taken at birthday parties.. Not everyone out there is looking for 8x10 prints.

I don't disagree that most pictures are only printed at 4x6, or even that most pictures not only don't deserve to be 8x10, but many don't even deserve to be printed :-)

However if you get a really nice shot, whether it is via luck, or skill, it is nice to be able to have a reasonable size print.

Oh, and if you own a film camera and never got anything you want bigger then 4x6, don't assume it will be so with digital. I had a few film cameras over the years. I tended to shoot a roll or two on vacations and family gatherings and the like, never get anything astoundingly good, and put the camera away for months. Sometimes long enough to lose it (thus the "few" in "few film cameras"). Then I got a digital camera (because the new economy was still working for me, and I had $600 for a toy-of-no-clear-value).

Digital cameras are cool for learning. I don't have to pay for my bad pictures snap snap snap, I can see almost right away if the shot was good snap snap snap, I can show them to people 3 seconds after I take them snap snap snap. I took about 30 to 50 pictures a day for the first few months after I got the thing. Really. That is in a single week I took more pictures then I use to in a year. And I got kinda good at it. In fact lots of people who take that many pictures tend to get good at it.

Now I have a new hobby, a new reason to spend money, and if computer jobs get scarce enough a new skill :-) (actually most photographers are quite poor, so I think I'll try to avoid that!)

Hmmm, where was I going with all this? Oh yeah, go out and buy a digital camera, but don't expect to stay pleased by 4x6 prints after you get good. I had to buy a film camera a scant six months after the digital! (no, you can't have my digital, it is still my pocket camera, the film one is too bulky to fit in my pocket!)

Re:8x10 printing? ha

[Anonymous Coward]

I went from digital to film too. But it was more about the image quality itself, not just the resolution. Colors are better - more accurate on film. Not to mention much more pleasing. Digital cameras have very low dynamic range compared to film - meaning shadow details are often subject to noise.

I still do 'digital photography' - but my process is a bit different. Have a 35mm SLR, shoot slide film (which has anywhere from the 8-13megapixel equiv. resolution), scan it into a film scanner (as 40MB TIFFs, although I usually save them as 6MB JPEGS at what would be 8 megapixel size) and print them out on an Epson Stylus Photo 870 printer (epsons are by far the best photo printers out there today and are generally considered to be as good - if not even better - than traditional prints as far as quality is concerned). Sounds expensive, and it is. But you get so much more for your money. For about $1000 you can get a good entry-level SLR camera (which is far better than the point-and-shoot types, including the digitals), a film scanner (which scans slides and negatives at 2700-4000dpi optical resolution - with much better range than flatbeds) and a basic Epson photo printer ($99 today will buy you pretty much the best quality on the market - $300 will allow you to print that quality on much larger paper. My film scans blow my digital photos away in color, resolution, and dynamic range. When I print them out on photo paper (white film) they are in many cases better than pro lab reprints I have had made in the past. And I have much more control over how my photos look.

Bottom line: if you really are serious about photography - forget digital cameras for now. If you take snapshots here and there and do not care much about quality, maybe digital is worth a look.

Re:8x10 printing? ha

[stripes]

I went from digital to film too. But it was more about the image quality itself, not just the resolution. Colors are better - more accurate on film. Not to mention much more pleasing. Digital cameras have very low dynamic range compared to film - meaning shadow details are often subject to noise.

Depends on the camera, and the film. I like the color off of my Canon PS100 better then the color off of Kodak Gold. I like Kodak Portra 160NC, and Fuji Realia 100 a lot more then the PS100.

The color off of the Canon EOS-D30 is very nice, as nice as most films. Of corse at $2500 one would hope it looks good on print. I have heard very nice things about the Fuji S1 Pro's color, but other then that it is a dog of a camera (and also about $2000).

If you look at luminous landscapes he favorably compares the D30 with ciba printed slides (and he is a cibachrome master printer!). Even if it isn't really that good, it is quite nice.

Bottom line: if you really are serious about photography - forget digital cameras for now. If you take snapshots here and there and do not care much about quality, maybe digital is worth a look.

I am going to agree with that, almost. If you are spending over $2000 you can do very well with digital. Under $2000 film is giving you better quality (this year!). Digitals do still help you learn a lot in a very short time though.

"from the japan-is-wierd department"

[c0rtez]

You think THIS is waht makes japan wierd? Not cars with emotions or robotic cats with lifelike skin?

Alright, maybe your right, disposable digital cameras make japan wierd... those other things make it creepy. That and the old man I saw on the Hanzoomon line reading Rapeman comics.

Re:"from the japan-is-wierd department"

[phillymjs]

I think 'weird' might be if you were assured of getting someone else's photos back, and not your own.

Or perhaps simply having the option of paying a little extra to get access to the photos taken by the last few people that used that camera. I'm sure they'd get a lot of business from the exhibitionist/voyeur crowd that way, at least.

~Philly

Re:"from the japan-is-wierd department"

[varaani]

And the tv shows.

Re:"from the japan-is-wierd department"

[c0rtez]

There's a Rapeman movie?

Sweet.

Actually, more like 6 Megapixels for about $500

[SONET]

I haven't had the chance to try it yet, but there are places offering the Fuji Finepix 6900 for just over $500. It shoots at up to 2832 x 2128, which comes out to a little better than 6 Megapixels. Pretty amazing for the price (I paid about $800 for my 640X480 digicam three or so years ago - being an early adopter is lame). I wonder how much it compresses the image, and more practically how long it takes it to stuff an image that size into it's memory. It probably shoots at something like .01 fps at that resolution heh.

--SONET

Re:Actually, more like 6 Megapixels for about $500

[IronChef]

I don't know that camera, but my keen digicam shopper's intuition tells me that the Fuji's resolution may be inflated. For example, many flatbed scanners come with ludicrously high resolutions, but those are interpolated values. The "pure" optical resolution is generally much lower, and that is the only figure you should be concerned with.

Digicams do the same stuff with "digital zoom," which is totally useless. And I have seen some digicams doing interpolation jive with their resolution numbers too. Caveat emptor.

Re:Actually, more like 6 Megapixels for about $500

[Anonymous Coward]

I own one of these. It's a 3.3 megapixel beastie, with an interpolated 6 megapixel mode. It's not strictly 'inflation', because the interpolation is
done on an 'interwoven' CCD - so the camera can do rather better than photoshop could.

The 6 megapixel mode thus has slightly more information than the 3.3 (which is a squared approximation of the interwoven CCD just the same).

So, not six million real pixels, but also not half bad. It's a really great camera, and if you can find one for just over $500, I seriously advise
investigating further.

Mike

Re:Actually, more like 6 Megapixels for about $500

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interpolated resolution. I have the 4700 and it takes some pretty good pictures. Might want to just do a web search for the camera. There were quite a few for the 4700.

Geeks don't need 'resources'

[TeknoHog]

..they find out about things by themselves :-)

I have chosen the Canon G1. It's really a gem among the hyped up market, with features that are actually useful and not gee whiz candy. Compared to professional cameras, it's only missing SLR and changeable lenses -- but then again it's the size of a 35mm point'n shoot. And the 3x zoom lens has macro and telephoto adapters available.

Linux compatilibity comes via USB (gphoto2), though I prefer a PC Card adapter to read the CF card directly. The camera can also use Microdrives of (currently) 1 GB.

The new G2 version has just come out, but the differences are not very stunning (4Mpix instead of 3.3).

I don't know about hackability (maybe via the binary-only firmware updates), but I'm more interested in 'photo geek' features which let you choose every possible setting when taking photos.

Unfortunately, one interesting feature requires the use of a windoze: creating panorama pictures from multiple shots. This is now the only reason I'm left with a windoze partition :-/

Re:Geeks don't need 'resources'

[stripes]

The new G2 version has just come out, but the differences are not very stunning (4Mpix instead of 3.3).

FYI, the G2 also (apparently) works better with Canon's E-TTL speedlights, esp in M mode. If you don't plan on using those the G1 is a great bargain (at least until Nikon'ss CP5000 comes out).

Cheapest, best digital camera, IMHO...

[cr0sh]

I currently own a Kodak DC3200 - cheapest looking piece of shit camera that was ever made (ok, next to the Photorun DJ1000 - which I also own). The DC3200 cost me about $150.00 a few months ago (and just noticed on PriceWatch it is much cheaper now). It has all the features I want, and despite looking like shit, actually gives great pictures:

* "megapixel" quality (1280 x 960 or thereabouts, I believe, on highest setting)
* 2x digital zoom - which sucks because it only works on the 640 x 480 setting
* LCD preview display
* Serial interface and video out
* Flash
* Built in 2 meg memory
* Uses CompactFlash memory cards, as well
* Linux "compatible" via gPhoto

It really does have great quality, even in low light levels - I picked it specifically because it stored the images in jpeg format on the card, guaranteeing me that I could use an operating system of my choice. A serial interface that guarantees no proprietary lock in. Wow! All of that cheap! My complaints:

Lens cap and charger for the batteries not included - they are seperate items to buy. Plus, there is a small lag time when taking a picture, about a second (that, and the "speed" of the camera is very low - no capturing high speed shots - but I am not a professional photographer, so I don't care much).

All in all, not many complaints - and far more worth it than a disposable digital (which, I have to admit, have hack value attractiveness for me). I think maybe having one of these as a backup or standby for bad situations (where you wouldn't want to lose a good camera) is also an idea.

To be honest, I have wondered for a while when these kind of things would come out - I am now waiting for "disposable" video cameras...

This could work:

[A_Non_Moose]

The could use all of the hacked cue-cat scanners to read a bar code off of all those cameras they make and your credit card.

It just might work.

{SEG}

(offtopic-kinda-sorta-rant)
Has anyone else noticed that humorous posts have been getting modded down recently?
I try to metamoderate everyday and invariably have several comments that are funny as heck, but are "troll/flamebait/overrated/redundant".
Advice for metamoderators: look for the above labels, read the context (i've noticed that was recently added, I think) and decide with a "benefit of the doubt" attitude and rate as unfair. Obvious F/R/O/T's, fair...or don't metamod it...your decision.

(ok, this could be considered a "rant-lite", but maybe it is meant to get ppl to browse at -1 for a good chuckle...I dunno)

Moose.

Windows 95 had "Start Me Up" as a theme song. XP needs "Run Like Hell".

Shorter argument:

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a 4x4 grid of pictures with the disposable camera, and you've got 16*0.3 = 4.8 megapixels, still for $16.

They're not selling to us (geeks) ...

[LoudMusic]

I see so many times on /. all the geeks coming down hard on some new product. The manufacturer probably didn't even take geeks into consideration when they started marketing their item.

If you think about 35mm disposable cameras, and the people that use them, they don't own all the equipment that goes along with 35mm because they don't want the hastle and expense of dealing with it. They just want to take some pictures and get their prints made. The same is true for these things. People that don't own computers can still run around taking nice digital pictures that they use either to print out (at the photography shop) or have them put them on a CD to email from a cyber cafe.

We wouldn't use their service because we have our own equipment. Just like 'real photographers' don't use disposable cameras because they have $3,000 Nikon F5s and a spare room turned into a darkroom.

But yea, the quoted resolution is a joke, by anyone's standard. They need to get that up to par with the midrange cameras of today (:

~LoudMusic

makes sense

[Splork]

film companies like kodak and fuji have been retreating from digital cameras by making disposable film cameras with special features (panaoramic, waterproof, etc.). this is the only market left to be conquered digitially before film becomes extreemly expensive and returns to being an esoteric medium.

Is this the next new thing?

[blazin]

No, seriously, we've gone through the companies that failed with the .COMs, maybe now they want to try the .CAMs.

And CueCat would have worked better if it just had better marketing...

Patents

[wiredog]

Kodachrome used to be patented and had to be developed by Kodak. Might still be that way. I just used Ektachrome. Almost as good, and I could develop it at home.

35mm vs laser

[wiredog]

35 mm slides have much higher resolution, in terms of lines per inch, than any laser printer. Well, some of the >$10,000 lasers might have that level of resolution.

Quality is irrelevant

[dmoen]

Okay, you work for an imaging company, and you're obsessive about image quality. Most people don't give a damn about image quality, and it's "most people" who are the target market for this thing.

I have a 1.2 megapixel camera, but I always run it in .3 megapixel mode, because its good enough for the family snapshots I take, and because the ability to cram a huge number of photos onto a single memory card is more important than having more than 640x480 pixels of resolution. I will also note that my parents get prints made from my 640x480 snapshots and they think the quality is comparable to film quality. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, it's the perception that counts.

So even though your comments about image quality are probably correct, I don't expect the average consumer who is paying $16 for one of these devices is going to care.

Doug Moen

Re:Quality is irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 0.8 Megapixel camera. My photos suck because I'm not a good photographer.

Anybody who might be reading this and doubts it, go have a look at www.digitalphotocontest.com. Very many of those winning photographs were taken with sub-megapixel cameras, and what you see on the website is already shrunken down to about 0.5 megapixels!

It's the photographer, not the camera.

Its stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why waste $16 on a Crappy and Crippled thing like that? For a few hundred $ you can get a REAL Digital camera with infinite film and is far more flexible. Just say NO to disposble stuff!

Just bought JamCam for $25

[mik]

I just bought a JamCam for $25 for my 3-year old daughter at Staples. I figured it would be more durable and cheaper in the long run than any film camera.

Sure it only does 640x480, but it takes MMC cards and has USB and at maybe $0.15 to "develop" a "roll" of film, it'll only take maybe 3 iterations to break even.

Yeek - Amazon is selling it for $80 and has a $30 rebate... gee, maybe I'll end up $5 ahead for buying this thing...

It's the development cost, stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about anyone else, but for me, the lure of owning a digital camera was not that it was 'cool' or 'hip', but that it effectively cut out the middleman.
Once the purchase price is paid, thats pretty much it. No more buying film, no more paying for development, ...not to mention the added benefit of easy archiving and being able to manipulate your photos in whatever way you like.

Just bought a JamCam for $25

[mik]

I just bought a JamCam from the bargain bin at Staples for $25. I figured that it would be a better deal than a film camera for my 3 year old kid.

Sure it only does 640x480, but it's not like a preschooler will care, and it has an MMC slot and talks USB... and at maybe $0.15 "developing" (printing) costs per "roll" (capacity of camera), I figure it'll pay for itself pretty quickly.

Re:slashdot editors are too rich.. junkbust ads no

[homer_ca]

This is stupid. It has all the hassles of film plus the disadvantage of crappy 640x480 resolution. Just like film, you can't preview, have to shoot the whole roll then wait for processing, and can't easily copy to your computer. Why even bother?

Doomed to fail because...

[Asikaa]

...the only reason anyone uses digital cameras is to take "those" kind of pics without getting a strange look from the photo shop clerk when you pick up your photos. :)

Er... no, that just looks like a well-buttered hamster... Wow... er, my neighbor must've borrowed the camera... no, I don't have any idea how that goat got in the shot.

I see these things Taking Off...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Theme Parks (ala WallyWorld). Cheap enough that you don't wanna steal em. Rugged enough that you'd be able to play with them near food/water.

Big booth at the front gate, rent camera (place security deposit), wander around shooting stuff. when it's "full" go back, store the pics you want "in booth" and continue on.

End of day get back the security deposit (not refundable if it flys off the Whirlly-Gig and you lose it)

Two options for end of night retreval.
1)Burn to CD (10$ per disk)
2) Print the photo's right away ($1.50 per)

They'd make millions!

Rental

[Squeamish Ossifrage]

It looks like the business model is essentially camera rental, with two twists:

1. You're not actually obliged to bring it back, but

2. They encourage you to bring it back by making it difficult to get the pictures without doing so.

This could actually work. As long as they're not good enough to be worth keeping, most will probably be brought back.

Tsk - it's bloody cheap!

[Lars T.]

And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

But if you buy 13 of them, you can build your own 3.9-megapixel cam for just $199!

Re:Tsk - it's bloody cheap!

[Lars T.]

I just realised I made a terrible miss-calculation! The 13 cams would actually cost $208, blowing the budget of the project. I'm sorry for getting your hopes up :-(

Sounds like an eventual money maker

[Mr T]

I think it's a pretty cool and good idea. It's in the same vein as the disposable conventional cameras, I thought those were stupid and they are huge money makers for the film companies. I can get an APS camera that will take decent, not great or really even good pictures but decent ones (the smaller negative makes them more grainy) do the zooming and stuff, take 3 sizes of picture and be drop in loadable for somewhere between ~$70 and ~$400 depending on features and quality. Or I can buy a $5 disposable and for a lot of uses the disposable is much nicer even though it doesn't take great pictures. The way I see it, if I'm climbing a mountain and something goes wrong and I have to start dropping balast, I'd rather lose a $5 or even $10 disposable than my $200 (3 years ago) Nikon APS camera. If I'm on the bike and take a digger, I'd rather break the little kodak throw away then anything I've spent real money on and plan on keeping, which is ironic because when I bought the $200 Nikon instead of the $300 tiny Cannon elf my thinking was that I didn't want to spend that much money because I wanted something I wouldn't mind replacing as much. I wanted to take it every where, or so the intention was.

Now I've got a wicked sweet digital camera and I love it. It's a blast because you get nearly instant gratification and you can email the pictures to the relatives the same day rather than waiting to develop them and then scan them or pay for copies. Unless you're some kind of photgraphy buff, a 2-4Mpixel camera is going to be more than good enough for most of your uses, you snap the pics, download them to the computer, put them on the web or email them to the fam and then you take some more. It's highly cool. The only problems I see, a) still complex to get pictures in to the computer, your average grandmother is going to have some issues. b) Still a bit costly. c) this one is only a partial problem but my 3MPixel camera takes pictures that are too big for most uses, I've written a bunch of scripts to down sample them before I put them on the web or mail them and I usually use the compressed mode on the camera, the typical fun snaps user doesn't need 2048 x 1024 x 32bpp TIFF

I think this is an awsome idea. The pictures are going to be of lesser quality, no question about that. But if my grandmother can get them transfered to a CD (presumably, she could go to the drug story, drop off the camera, shop for 10 minutes and then pick up the disc) at minimal cost and the initial outlay is minimal then it starts getting interesting. Assuming there isn't a deposit or something, that would be the camera I'd take scuba diving and on the bike, or just leave in the glove box of the car in case there is a kodak moment. It's not going to be the geek's camera, those of us who pay attention and are technologically minded are still going to fork out the dough and get a nicer digital camera just like we have with conventional cameras but for people who just want to take pictures and share them with their families I bet this is the wave of the future.

If they make vending machines that put the pictures on to CDs right then and there then forget about it, they will essentially replace cameras. There maybe some screwing around with the prices but the economics are just too good. You have any idea how much a photo developing machine costs? You could build a digital camera vending machine out of off the shelf parts, from that fact alone there is economic insentive to make this happen. Also if you look at the digicam market over the last few years, they've steadily got better but the costs haven't really dropped that much, I think you can build the lower res cameras for dirt cheap these days. This idea as incarnated may not work but I think the bigger idea of disposable digicams is a winner.

640x480 is FINE for web pages, cheap cameras

[billstewart]

Don't be such a snob, dude! :-) Not everybody's an imaging professional. If you want a really BAD camera, my second digital camera was 160x120 for $39 a couple years ago...

640x480 is really just fine for typical web pages - pictures of your cat or your cousin's kids, and most really cheap cameras are that resolution. Sure, it's not what you'd get with your thousand-dollar SLR with really great lenses - this is the digital equivalent of an Instamatic.

The interesting quality thing they did here is that they're not compressing the image much - 8MB for 24 shots means they're storing pictures as ~310KB instead of the more typical ~75KB JPEGs that other digital cameras I've seen use for 640x480 images. I don't know if this means they're doing JPEG, or if they're doing some low-CPU compression algorithm and saving money on CPU, or doing 8-bit-per-pixel uncompressed images instead of more useful color depth (unlikely but possible, and that really *would* make color suffer.)

Re:640x480 is FINE for web pages, cheap cameras

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Sure, 640x480 is fine for puting on web-pages etc... But if you paid attention to the artical, they say this:

..They decided the service should be print-oriented because their market research showed that 50 to 60 percent of digital still camera users prefer to print their recorded images.

In the future, the companies also want to expand the services on the Internet for data distributing as well as printing, and increase the resolution of the camera up to 1.3 megapixels...

So at the moment, you can't get the digital copies. Only prints.

IMHO, if they want this business to succsed, they need to have an internet service from day one. Not sometime in the future.

Robotics

[uberdave]

When I first read this I was thinking "People are going to hack them and put them on their robots for vision." Also, if these cams are light enough, they can be mounted on all sorts of RC equipment.

That's right folks! Get a photo of the neighbour cringing in fright as you buzz his back yard bbq with your e-cam equipped radio controlled spy plane!

Not something you'd want to do with a "real" digital camera.

Film developing costs balance the price difference

[billstewart]

By the time you've paid for film developing, the cost of the disposable digital is about the same as the disposable film camera. Quality's nowhere near as good, but if they also email you the files, it can be ok.

Why disposable?

[Razzak]

Sounds like no one would return it.

Why not just rent the cameras out like ya rent DVD's? There's been many times I'd like to have a 4 megapixel camera for a week or so but I sure ain't gonna pay $1000 for one. 20 bucks doesn't sound that bad.

I think this is a company that invested way too much to create a technology that isn't necessary.

foolish thinking

[Evil MarNuke]

I pity the fool that think for one second this might work.

Re:Sounds like an eventual money maker

[IronChef]

If I'm on the bike and take a digger, I'd rather break the little kodak throw away then anything I've spent real money on...

Heh, there is a lesson I have yet to learn. When I go biking, my camelback is packed with the usual emergency bike stuff PLUS my Nikon 990, a ham radio, cell phone, and sometimes a pistol. It's heavy as hell, but hey, I'm out there for the exercise, right?

If all you want is a cheap and cheezy camera...

[ColGraff]

...Compgeeks (http://www.compgeeks.com/details.asp?invtid=KG-JC 3S-WB) has one for $35, and you don't have to return it to get your pictures.

Consumers dont really care that much for quality

[grahamsz]

Realistically i dont see that the quality will be THAT big a deal. My mother's main complaint with her digital camera is that the pictures are too big when she downloads them from it!??

If you care about quality then why would you be using digital anyway. I appreciate that there are some very high MP cameras, kodak's digital back should be 16MP if they've realeased it yet and some other company produce large format cameras that were touching 100MP (last i looked) for reprographics use.

My scanner will pull 8MP from a 35mm frame and that doesn't look close to maxing out the definition that the negative has. Yet how many home users ever blow photos up beyond 5x7". In fact the recent APS situation made it shockingly clear how happy the average guy on the street was to sacrafice quality in place of gimicks and convenience.

I suspect that the worst part about these is that the images will suffer from low light noise, poor colour balance and lens distortion. The MP count (imho) is a lesser factor.

Oh and if i'm out clubbing with my friends then 640x480 is a fine resolution, but if i'm capturing shots of wildlife or panoramic landscapes then I sometimes find my 2700dpi optical scanner limiting.

Once I get a bit of cash saved up i'm going to buy a small digital camera for casual photography, and a 5x4" large format system with a black cloth over my head for when quality is the overriding factor.

You're all missing the point

[CreativeInPdx]

Think in terms of good interface design. Currently, the interface for disposable cameras, apparently a profitable product, works like this:

* Buy camera for ~ $15.
* Use to take pictures
* Return somewhere and get pictures in a usable form.

The camera's a black box. So now maybe a company's substituting digital tech instead of optical, but maintaining the same interface. Could make sense. And maybe there'll be an added value to offset small price increase (preview, etc.)

So it doesn't matter "why people would or not use these"... That point is moot.

Why rent when you can buy it cheap.

[tinrobot]

You can get a cheap 640x480 camera for about 50-100 bucks. Why spend 16 bucks when you can get one of your own for about the cost of three uses? Not gonna work...

Timothy Warbucks

[SubtleNuance]

And at $16 for .3 megapixels, this sounds like more of a novelty than a bargain, considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

Timothy: I dont know what kind of dough your rolling in, but the rest of us mortals consider the difference between $16 (sixteen) dollars and 'less than a thousand' pretty significant.

Re:slashdot editors are too rich.. junkbust ads no

[Coyote]

And in addition to DShor's math, the per-pixel cost is 4 times as much for the disposable than a $1000 camera. In a sense you're paying 4 times as much for a lesser quality photo. .3/16 = .019
4/1000 = .004 - if you pay more than $16 for that ski vacation with your family and friends, a camera that brings back clear pictures year after year isn't such a big expense.

incorrect assumptions by poster?

[Jish]

uh... I don't see how somebody could subvert the costs.

I would assume:

1.) you put down a credit card when you borrow the camera so if you break it you pay for it.

2.) that you have to pay a flat rate for printing some minimum number of pictures, so even if you downloaded them yourself you would still be paying...

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, for people who like the idea of a digital camera but would never buy one... or only need one for a specific event...

Its not "disposable", its "renting"

[Anonymous Coward]

If this should be called a "disposable camera", then a car rental agency should be calling its cars "disposable cars".

they have something similar at Walmart now

[madmancarman]

You can go to your local Walmart and buy a disposable camera for five bucks, take 27 pictures, and then get your photos posted on Walmart's site for download or forwarding to family and friends. Sure, it's not a true "digital camera", but it's probably good enough for the masses looking to email photos cheaply. Somehow I think a service like this would have more applications than a disposable/reusable digital camera with terrible image quality.

Re:love to rent high-end digital camera

[la1n]

Yeah,

But that's a pretty fragile thing to rent. Imagine how many people would drop it, scratch it, ... The inspection process upon return would be kinda scarey. (Example, two rentals ago, someone dropped it setting up a hairline crack in a circuit that only caused problems while you were renting it.)

on the subject of novelties ...

[Nept]

considering that 4-megapixel cameras are available now for less than a thousand dollars.

and considering that 35 mm hasselblads are available for less than $1000 ... digital cameras seem a bit of a novelty too