Slashdot Mirror
Disposable Digital Cameras Have Arrived
damiangerous writes "American chain Ritz camera has begun offering disposable digital cameras for $10.99. The price includes 4x6" prints and a Photo CD of the camera's 25 photo memory. Pictures can be deleted, but there's no LCD."
Hmmm. I suppose that it could be cheaper than film alternatives, but I want more and in the long run, an investment in my Canon digital camera will be cheaper while giving me more control.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
How is this any different from a standard 35mm disposable camera? I can get one of those, and get the same features but for half the price. Its not "Digital", but I can get a PhotoCD, index prints, etc for about $7.
True, that is just the common term for the concept. Reusable film cameras are often referred to as 'disposable', even though they are reused in much the same way.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
My Nikon D1H has a 2.something MP CCD and I can easily print up to 16"x20".
Just use a spline-based Photoshop plugin to enlarge your prints.
...a clever individual figures out how to download the pictures and reset the camera at home? That way you could basically get a basic digital camera for $10. Is there anything that requires you to return the camera within a certain period of time?
I'm sure that will be in violation of one of those "bad business model protection" laws the US seem keen on passing these days.
Do you think these guys might be related to the Digital Convergence guys?
You can bet that somebody is going to figure out how to open it and extract the images without destroying the camera, and then Ritz camera is going to have a loss leader on their hands.
It's going to be just like the cuecat. Many, many geeks are going to acquire them, and not recycle them in the way that allows Ritz to make it's money back...
Always someone out there looking to steal I suppose. Would not life be easier for the society as a whole if people voted with their earned dollars rather than stealing? Seriously, it's sad that this is the first thing that some folks think of when a product like this comes out. "how can we steal this thing?".
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Obviously, if the camera store can download the photos quickly, it can't be very hard for the rest of us. It's probably got either a hidden/internal USB connector, or some proprietary thing (unlikely, would require new equipment at all the places to print/burn the pics).
While its is undoubtably possible that I am the one missing the point, it sure seems like Ritz is off its rocker. The major benefit of digital camera IS the lcd screen. The whole point is to take pictures that you are certain will be good. While the concept is coming, and it sure is fun to delete things randomly (which is exactly what you would be doing with the delete feature), I think there is a lot more ground that needs to be covered before I'll be picking this over a different disposable camera that is cheaper and has comes with a free photo cd.
Burninating the villagers, burninating the country side. TROGDOR!
Heh.. Almost EVERY post up till how has had the basic idea of "this is sooo going to be hacked: cheap digital cameras for all!"
Honestly, I love slashdot. As we read, there are thousands of geeks pondering ways to circumvent whatever protection Ritz has installed on these things. Even better, odds are Ritz has no idea. It will probably take them a few weeks -after- the cameras are hacked before they even notice.
Then, the lawsuits will fly, but by then it will be too late. The cameras will be re-released with stronger protection, and shortly-after they'll be hacked as well. Ritz will at this point likely give up altogether and drop the product. End result: every geek on the planet gets a cheap digital camera (or three).
Buy them early, in case Ritz catches on! In five years, these things will be as "cool" and "old-school" as the old Cap'n Crunch whistles.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
you can begin and complete step 3 in 15 minutes?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Doesn't this seem like a bit of a semi-useless feature? Most of my bad shots, I can't even tell are bad until I get 'em on my laptop. There's a couple I can decide to delete just from the camera's screen, but I'd say that with most of my bad shots, I didn't know they sucked when I took the shot.
So without a preview (review?) unless someone walks in front of you right as you take the shot, or some other way you know it's screwed up, it's just like a disposable film camera, in that you pay out the nose, only to get your shots back and have 2/3 stink.
You know what?
Probably about the same time that crappy 2 megapixel cameras come down ot 10.99 in price.
Harder than it would be to just buy a 2MP camera with no LCD for 20-30 bucks.
Hacking stuff is neat and all, but this would be like hacking xboxes for linux. You spend twice as much for a second rate result.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
That or everyone will figure out really fast it's a crappy little camera and hacks will be only for the novelty of it. And they will throw away their camera (or three) and get a good one.
Nonsense. They are advertising this as a disposable camera. When I buy a disposable camera at a store I am under absolutely no obligation to return the camera. I can keep it, or develop the film myself, or any number of other things.
The article didn't say that the cameras were rented (meaning a rental agreement, a promise to return the camera, etc) though it may be an ommission on the writer's part. If they are sold like disposable cameras than I see nothing either illegal or immoral about buying one and using it in a manner the seller didn't intend me to.
If I rent a digital camera (which sounds like a pretty good thing to try actually) I'd be under obligtaitons to return it, not to mess with its innards, and so forth.
This is exactly like MS selling the X-Box below production price and then whining when people use their legally purchased hardware in a way that MS doesn't like. There is absolutely no legal or moral obligation to support a business model that doesn't work.
If its a purchase, not a rental, than it can't be stealing to use it any way I want to.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
If they really think 8x10's will turn out very well on a two megapixel sensor, they must be kidding themselves. Sure, they can enlarge it, but the quality of the camera is minimal and blowing it up will just make it look worse. However, for 4x6's this should be fine, although I'm sure people who are used to regular cameras will be unimpressed.
Fantastic! So now I don't have to ruin a $200 camera, I can get one of these to disassemble and wire into my shoes for those "upshots".
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Not sure about that. What kind of CPU would you need to encrypt 2 MegaPixels of data in a decent amount of time with public key algorithms? You might be surprised by how much power would be needed to be able to take 2 consecutive pictures within a decent time frame.
Are you really so broke and so bored that you would actually attempt to swindle an $11 2 megapixels camera? There's nothing insightful about your comment.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Sure, Ritz makes money selling cameras, but the core of their business for years was selling film and development for those cameras.
With digital, that part of the business evaporates. Sure, they can sell printer ink and flash cards, but so does everyone, and they can't sell the 'service' of developing the film and printing, which has a huge markup. Last time I got film developed at Ritz, it was something like $25 a roll. When I got my first digital camera three years ago, I stopped using film -- and stopped going to Ritz. My story is typical, I'm sure.
I see this as the last act of a company clinging to a decades-old business model.
What occurs is that hiring of decent digital cameras might well become commonplace as well. Let's face it how often do you use your camera? Why not just hire one while you go on holiday? You pay a deposit, the hire fee includes insurance, and everybody's happy.
It would be interesting if that wasn't a good business model.
A simple non-standard camera-to-PC connector, even only on the camera side, would deter most casual attempts.
A camera with the public key can encrypt all uploaded pictures to deter nearly everyone without the corresponding private key. For added security, use multiple key pairs for different batches of cameras (so that if one key is compromised, not all the cameras are compromised).
It's hard to decide whether I want to moderate or post...
Coming from an ex-Ritz camera employee, if you want to go through the work of engineering all of that, printing them out and all the rest of that work Ritz does, it will cost you more (in time and materials) then it will to have Ritz do it in 1 hour.
Then again you will spend less money and get better quality images if you buy a 35mm disposable camera (about $5 for 24 exp)and then get them to burn you a CD at 1600x1200 resolution (1.92 mega pixel equiv.) for ~12 dollars.
just my opinion
dave
What is this, the latest fad? "Disposable" everything? Instead of filling up the dumps as fast as possible, we should try to get *reusable* commodities. Get a real cell phone, a real camera, and some cheap plastic plates and cups that you can put in the attic after the party. It's amazing what people will do for convenience.
More specifically about this one-time digital camera - They removed the only real advantage that digital cameras have: the ability to preview. In this case, you still turn the stupid thing in when you're finished playing with it.
Having a digital camera changes the way you take pictures.
Since there's essentially no processing cost, you can take pictures EVERY DAY, and keep an album of the good ones. These are the kinds of shots you don't bother to take with a film camera.
I suspect that after a few rentals most people would decide that they want one of their own, so I doubt there's much of a long-term market for this.
"not quite" is more than good enough
video is 30 frames/second
do frame doubling (or "twofers" if you're an oldschool stop motion animator) and you're at 15 frames per second, so 45 are enough for 3 seconds.
As for triggering them, I'm assuming that they will be duct taped onto horizontal poles or 1x2's or whatever, so rigging up a string attached to a little lever to depress the shutter button shouldn't cost too much.
so what would be a slashdotty way of wrapping this up? hmnn, maybe;
In Russia, YOU circle the HORA
My bet: Standard ports, nonstandard pinouts. Standard protocol. Standard format for the data on the media.
Rationale:
1) Nonstandard ports = cost to develop a new controller from the ground up.
2) Nonstandard pinouts = no cost.
3) Nonstandard protocol that can't be trivially reverse-engineered: cost to code and test.
4) Nonstandard format for the data on the media: Cost to develop controllers and firmware.
Summary: "Oh, fuck it, use a two-pin connector and a standard USB controller. We'll supply +5 and GND at the photo lab. Nobody'll ever suspect it's USB with only two pins! Rot13 the bits as they go onto the chip. Nobody'll ever look for permutations of known plaintext like 'JFIF'. Everything else can be the reference design from the chipset's datasheet."
(Alternate: "Oh, fuck it, use a 3-pin headphone jack and RS-232 signals. Nobody'll ever guess. And Rot12 it, just in case anyone looks for ROT13.")
How is it that the camera can store its pictures on regular film (implying a purely optical process), but allow the user to erase a picture after it is taken? What exposes the film?
(Unless the 'film' is really some kind of magnetic media, I'm stumped.)
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.