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."
It's not _disposable_ it's _reusable_. The camera is returned to a
Ritz Camera store where the pictures inside are downloaded to a CD
or printed. The camera itself is kept by Ritz and recycled to another
customer. In other words your $10.99 is a _rental_ of the camera
with processing of the pictures included in the rental price.
There's a picture of one of these cameras here.
The USA Today article has some more details
on the camera and its use including the fact that it is likely to be sold at Walgreens
and Walt Disney theme parks (seems like a good idea to me).
The camera has a 2-megapixel sensor.
John.
Seems pretty cool although disposable is a bit of a misnomer because they are really just recyclable, not like Ritz is throwing all the bits in the trash after processing them.
:)
Not being able to review the pics instantly is a drag too as its one of the main reasons I like using digicams (well that and not having photo guy check out my, um, arty pics) and I'm also a little dubious of their claims that a 2 megapixel camera can give you decent prints at 8x10, all that being said having a self timer is neat and I'm sure they'll be pretty popular.
In fact thinking about the recycling a bit more, I wonder if you could ever grab somebodies old pics off of a recycled unit.... I know you can recover deleted pics from a normal digicams media.... Something to think about..
how hard could i tbe to determine the method used to download the pics, and then sell a cable & driver for 20$?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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.
I'll take it! Just don't expect me to return it...
Why are these called disposable? Won't Ritz just check the battery and put it back out for sale until the mechanicals wear out or electronics fry? Or maybe they'll advertise those as "previously-disposed" cameras? Isn't this actually a form of rental? Maybe consumers feel they are getting a better deal if they "own" the camera.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
...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?
Depending on how they recyle these I wonder if it would be possible to recover other peoples pics from the reused memory card ?
You can just get a regular disposable camera and send it to one of the places that offer digital images with developing (like Snapfish). About three bucks for a disposable camera and three for developing. And if you lose the camera (which is why I get disposables anyway) you're only out three bucks, not eleven.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Wait. That's an MS idea. Damn.
Sounds like a good source for some inexpensive CCDs.
Now I can build a camera for my telescope cheaply.
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...
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).
...we have over 200 posts here all asking the question, "How long until someone figures out a way to hack this camera?"
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!
Well, there's either 2 ways (2 models).
One is properity IR connection. The other is a headphone jack that somehow sends/receives data. And it DOES connect through a usb dongle to either type of camera.
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?
It's not stealing. They make a product that can be purchased for $x. They provide value to said product when it is returned to them.
If I can provide said value on my own, I have no reason to return it to them.
Simple economics ^_^
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
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?". .... " about anything, so I'm gonna make good use of my $10.99 camera, thankyouverymuch.
It's hard to tell if you're trolling or just missing the point. If IHBT, then IHL.
It's not stealing. They're selling a $10.99 camera. They're also telling you that the only way to get your prints is to bring that camera back to them.
I'm buying a $10.99 camera, but I don't like someone telling me "The only way you can
And yes, I do have a CueCat. No, I didn't ever install the software, so I never agreed to the EULA that was on the software CD. No, I didn't steal my CueCat.
--
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.
25 4"x6" prints, an index print, and a cdr of the images?
Walmart runs prints from a digital camera (bring in your own cdr or flash card) for $0.29/print. That runs about $7 for 25. Index print and cd-r will be an extra $1-2.
That's $8 in product, for $11, or only $3 for the rental of a 2MP digital camera, which makes perfectly good 4"x6" prints. (Bearable, but not good, 8"x10"s.)
That's not bad at all, for people that primarily want prints, and not just digital images. Myself, I have a digital camera, and my preferred output is just the cd-r with image files. I get prints made, but far fewer than I keep image files on cd-r.
I'm curious how many rentals each camera has to make to pay for itself. $3/rental, camera probably costs... less than $100. Say about 30 rentals to pay for the camera and related labor expenses?
I can see how this would be a good thing at theme parks, where people are likely to rent and return them in the same day, possibly several times per day... They'd reach break-even in a month, and after that actually start making money.
The nice thing from the business point of view is that the continuing costs are lower. You just wipe the storage card and recharge the batteries, and you rent it again. Don't have to pay a couple bucks in film every time you rent the camera. The battery cost is higher than for a "disposable" film camera because the power draw is higher, but without the LCD, not that much higher.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
What it says. looks like a fairly small camera, flash, plastic, "Dakota" brand?
These sound perfect for doing a "Matrix" type effect. 45 of these could be used to make a nice 3 second sequence for less than $500. If disposable film cameras were used, registration would be a bitch.
Now it's only a matter of time before it pops up in Bar Mitzvah videos.
Each camera has a UUID -- a universally unique identifier, like a MAC address.
Before sending the camera out, I'd create a pair of public/private keys. I store the public key on the camera, the private key at the camera store (or centrally, whatever, so long as it can be retrieved later during processing).
When the camera takes a shot, it is stored *only after being encrypted* using the public key.
When the camera comes back for processing, the private key is retrieved (thanks to the UUID) and used to decrypt the images.
W/O the private key, the data retrieved is worthless. Generate a new key set before sending it out again.
This being the case, I'd use standard USB or IRDA or whatever and not worry about people violating my rights by reverse engineering the system.
Mozo - DVD sharing networks
...hacked yet?
No!
Is it hacked yet?
No!
Is it hacked yet?
No!
Is it hacked yet?
Fine! Yes, it's hacked! Are you happy now?
Does it run Linux yet?
Arrrrgh!
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Wait, plan, then strike!
Here are a couple more tidbits: I believe this is similar to a older kodak camera, in which case the interface is probably a serial to 1/8th jack.
This /. post describes a possible icky drawback (60 bucks down, 39 refund on return ) Hope that isn't the case!
This is a little more detailed about the marketing behind the camera, and it gives the location of the test store.
If this post is not karma-whorelicious, your money back!
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.
I dunno... you could do some sweet things if you could get CCDs that cheap... I'm thinking of cheap robotics.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
It's mostly better for the stores, because they don't have to spend money on film with which they fill those things.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Close, but not quite.
Standard framerate for film is 24 frames per second. If you want to slow it down to two seconds, you need to shoot 48 successive frames in the course of one second and then play those back at the standard 24 per second, so to get 3 seconds, you'd actually need 60 cameras.
And 60 at $10 a pop (not counting tax) has already got you up to $600...and that's not counting the equipment to synchronize all 60 of those camera's to fire on cue.
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
It's not like anyone actually reads the articles or the posts before shooting their mouth off in this place.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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.
That or everyone will figure out really fast it's a crappy little camera and hacks will be only for the novelty of it.
:)
Exactly. For all the "Wow, 2MP for $11!" posts, I wonder how many people have thought about the quality of the lens, or the non-adjustable (and probably very high) jpg compression level used by the camera, or just how crappy the auto-focus probably is? (And that's for the brand-new cameras; what if you get one that's been reused a few hundred times?) For that matter, is this camera a true 2 megapixel camera, or is that an interpolated 2MP?
Once all the costs of hacking this camera are known, it might just be a better deal to get a $30 toy 640x480 camera. For less effort and possibly less money, you might just get better picture quality!
The Japanese have had fairly low-resolution (640 x 480) single use digital cameras since at least Nov 2001. I saw them there on a trip to Tokyo.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
because slashdot readers buy the cameras and never return them in anticipation of a crack...
I'm going to try it out... I have the good fortune to live near Dallas, one of the test markets (info thanks to this link from another poster).
:P
That is, if I can get through the cloud of Clueless Salespeople.
Despite their positioning as photography experts, I haven't had the best of luck at Wolf Camera (part of the Ritz family). We took some film to them one time, in the hopes that they would push-process the low-light pictures, and got no better results than we would have had at Wal-Mart. Having to explain push-processing to the clerk should have been our first tip-off.
So this time, I called the big store in the industrial section of town (Harry Hines Blvd store). They sounded knowledgeable, but said they didn't stock them. I was referred to the suburban Irving location.
The clerk in Irving... didn't know what I was talking about. He said I'd have to hold for the "camera person"... hello, I thought the store was called [Wolf|Ritz] Camera, shouldn't they all be camera people? While waiting, I asked the non-camera person where he was located... he mumbled a bit and gave me a location several miles south of where I really, really thought the store was. Asked him for the store's address... boy, that really threw him for a loop! He found it, finally, and it was right where I thought it would be.
But when I talked to the "camera person", it turned out I didn't need to make the trip. At first, he said "Yeah, we have plenty of digital cameras." Explained the concept of "single use" to him. "Yeah, we have Fuji and Kodak, but we only develop the Kodak". Now, he was talking about the disposable film-based cameras that come with "free" developing to CD. It took a while to explain to him about this new product, big buzz on the 'net... so he gave me the number of another store. That's 15 minutes of my life I won't get back.
So I called location #3. This guy seemed very clueful, and assured me that yes, they have it... yes, they develop it... no, it's not the film-based version, it's the real single-use digital camera.
I'll head over there after work... details will be posted here! Hope my wife doesn't get upset about my new toy...
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
To which I say "Print them out? WTF d00d?"
Ritz' target market is "Less-technically-inclined people who want to print their pictures out and look at them in photo albums with their friends."
There is another market out there, however: the market for "Ten-dollar 2-megapixel digicams, and who the hell ever prints their photos to dead trees anyways when it's cheaper/faster/easier to just email the pics to your friends?"
The relative sizes of these two markets is what will determine whether Ritz' business plan succeeds or fails.
Netpliance of I-Opener fame made the same mistake - their target market was "people for whom AOL was too complicated and who didn't want to buy a $799 eek-its-scary e-machine computer thingy when they could have a $99 flat-screen appliance that'd give them the ability to do email and teh intarweb for $20/month."
Part of why Netpliance failed was that there was a small - but sufficiently large - market of people who thought "$99 flat-panel PCs that can be h4x0r3d to run Linux! Wow, I gotta get me some of that! The parts alone are worth $500!"
Moral of the story: Don't be nearsighted when it comes to your target market. Think ahead and make sure you're aware of any other markets, particularly non-target markets that break your business model.
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.")
Just makes the hack a bit more difficult.
Flash the encryption memory with "null" key.
Add a circuit to circumvent the encryption.
Since the encryption would work like "fifo" just remove the encryption chip and replace with plain bus buffer.
Get the CCD and attach it to self-made "backend" circuit.
Just hack 'doze box they use to download it and steal damned keys.
Brute-force the encryption if weak.
There's no uncrackable solution.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
If this camera is anything like a standard digital camera, there could be some bad consequences to this. I lent my camera to someone once, so they could take some pictures. They deleted the pictures when they were done. However using dd if=/dev/sda1 of=~/pictures.iso i was able to get a copy of all the deleted pictures, since it's fat32, and the pictures don't actually get overwritten. Using a Hex editor, I was able to find the headers, then just copy down to what seemed like the end of the preexisting picture file. And PRESTO, lots of nice pictures for me. I'm sure these cameras will be hacked no problem, since, in order to make the price this cheap, i'm sure they would have gone with standard components.
They informed me at the store that it was a 1MP camera, not 2. The packaging does not say anything reguarding this. Also it does NOT include 4x6 prints, it's includes a cd with the pictures however. This matches what the box says:
FREE Photo CD
FREE Index Print
* Camera price does not include processing
The I/O connector is a PCB card edge with 10 wires. Kind of looks like the cassette port on a C64.
Deuteronomy 13:06-9
I just rushed out to the store and got their catalog. I'll just transcribe the best parts:
New! Available in June in selected areas
- Delete & Retake last shot
- self timer
- Return the camera to Ritz Camera or Wolf Camera and get:
-- 25 hires prints
-- index print
-- Your pictures on a Big-e CD
$10.99 Camera Only
Digiprint processing package: $10.99 (Frequent Foto Benefits not applicable)
Avalable at selected stores in the following areas: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Birmingham, Chicago, Dallas, North Carolina, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Tenessee, Washington DC.
I talked to the lady in the store, and she said that only the stores with a Pioneer system would be able to process it (whatever that is). There was only one store in the RTP area that had this, and they were already closed at 7:45 pm.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
There's really nothing that obliges you to return the camera to Ritz to have the pictures developped is there? It seems to me you could just find a way to modify the camera so you dont' need ritz to download your pictures and then you'd have a 11 dollar 2 megapixel digital camera that you could use as many times as you wanted (rather tahn returning it to ritz where they'd simply resell it).
The only flaw with this theory is that they've likely got the pictures stored in some proprietary manner that makes it difficult to extract the images for the average consumer.
As an employee of a major photo company, I can tell you that it doesn't matter HOW good the film in these cameras is (and often it's high-quality 800-speed stuff) - the plastic lenses are made in such a way that you get warping at the corners. Luckily some minilab systems automagically compensate for this problem, but you still lose light.
:)
Get a real camera. A nice film one. Developing film is cheap. Then buy a film scanner and you'll have the best of both worlds.
+++ATH0
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.
I made it to the Wolf Camera in Richardson (suburban Dallas), and found out what this poster had already discovered: the $10.99 price doesn't include developing. It's another $10.99 for the prints and photo CD -- though it should be pointed out that that's not much different from their regular price, IIRC.
The purchase itself was no problem: walk in, find the single-use camera section, and a cardboard display full of "Digital Single-Use Camera" was perched on top of the original display. Grabbed one, paid the saleslady (who was very sweet, and also very clearly working on commission), and left. No EULA, no strings, just eleven bucks for a 25-shot 2-mpix camera.
By the way, only 4 of the 6 Dallas-Fort Worth "Digital Labs" (out of 35+ total locations) are set up to handle the new cameras (3 Dallas, 1 Fort Worth).
Here are my scans of the packaging. The front is the same as seen before, but the back has the details:
* Tag line: "The only digital camera that's easier to use than film." Depends on your definition of "easier", I guess, but then, I'm a geek.
* A blurry picture of the back of the camera. It's got a typical disposable viewfinder, an unlabelled light that may indicate flash readiness, the LCD "information window", and buttons for "self-timer" and "delete". I haven't opened the package to see how closely the picture matches reality.
* The LCD window appears to have a frame counter, and the words "Wait", "Timer", "D[???]", "Formatting...", and "Return for Prints". I can't make out the "D" word, and I'm not 100% on "Formatting".
* It points out that "Camera does not connect to home computers. Return camera to a participating Big Print Central location for processing." FYI, these are Ritz, Wolf, Kits, Inkley's, and The Camera Shop.
* The "Ritz Camera Recycling Pledge: 100% of this camera (not including batteries) will be recycled or reused when returned to Ritz Camera for processing." Of course, it will -- 'cause it's not a disposable in the first place.
* 9 features listed under "Why Choose Digital?", most of which are basic digital stuff (deleting, no winding). But two of them are a bit misleading: "FREE! Index Print" and "FREE! Photo CD with your pictures", because of the last item:
* "Camera price does not include processing"
The only legalese is the "Limitation of Liability", which is mostly a boilerplate saying "will replaced if defective... except for replacement, you ain't getting cash for your lost pix of Grandma". Also noted, though: "This product may contain recycled parts." And, "Camera made in China", which sparks the whole [explotation|employment] argument.
No EULA, no deposit, no DMCA warnings, no expressed or implied committment to return the camera to anyone. I bought it, it's mine, I can clearly do whatever the heck I want with it. As far as I can tell, it would be perfectly appropriate to keep the two AA batteries for my own use when returning the camera for processing (though I'll probably just swap them out for a couple of dead batteries).
Of course, that's assuming someone on Slashdot doesn't take care of the "processing" part for us.
Here's my little challenge: I'll personally pay $15 via PayPal to whoever comes up with a way to hook up my camera to my computer that I personally can implement with my medium-geek level of technical expertise. I'm a programmer and I can solder, but I don't have access to any fancy testing equipment.
Of course, the Wolf Camera circular advertising the new camera also includes a 2.0 Mpix camera from "Concord" for $79.99 -- less than the price of four "disposable" digital cameras plus processing. But $11 is a small price to pay for this much geek value, right?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Got it:
Pin - Signal
__________
10 - Ground (Black)
9 - Data+ (Green)
8 - Data- (White)
6 - Voltage (Red)
9 and 8 might be swapped. I can't tell for sure. With the wires attached as above, when plugged into a USB port (without batteries) the LCD on the camera says "PC" and the green LED stays lit. Windows gives an error that it can't recognize the device, won't let you install a driver. I haven't made any progress under Linux.