Slashdot Mirror
New Disposable Digital Cameras with LCDs
del_ctrl_alt writes "Pure Digital Technologies are set to introduce the world's first ever disposable digital camera [ed. note: see below], retailing in the USA for $19.99. Ritz, CVS, Disney World and Longs Drugs are all going to stock the 2-megapixel camera, which somewhat amazingly has a color preview screen and allows you to delete images before you take it to the store for processing (where you will receive a free picture CD along with your prints)." It's not the first disposable digital camera, which was hacked shortly afterwards, but these include a LCD display (they're made by the same company which made the first ones). Have fun!
Film processing is expected to retail at $280 per camera.
How long before "disposable" becomes "free" with a simple hardware/software hack?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I really hope it is hackable. I mean, a 2 megapixel digital camera with LCD for $19.99 would be a pretty good deal, even if it takes a day or two, and even 1 or two broken cameras first. I hope someone comes up with a hack!
Help Fight SPAM today!
This is even a worse idea than the "2 day dvd lasting" media.
Why do this?
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Finally my point is proven - this is what happens when the marketing department controls projects !!
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
For exactly which economic bracket is $20 considered "disposable"? I consider myself middle-class, and I'm not going to throw anything away unless it cost under $8, if I can help it.
Hear that? That's the collective sigh of landfills across the nation.
Link to old slashdot post 404s Yeah I wonder if these work well? I guess all it means is more shitty pictures on the internet. Oh well.
First off, how in the hell do they charge so little for something with an LCD? Can we hope that such cheap technology could be used im other smaller devices? Also, why pay 20 bucks for a disposable digital camera when you can get a 35mm for like 7? Seems to be an amazing advance in technology/ price point, but nevertheless a futile effort to make everything digital.
Digital cameras make things so much easier - no bad pictures (as this one disposable will allow), you can see the picture after it's taken and you can get a copy of it digitally (non-scanned). There are so many reasons for a disposable digital camera - they include every reason to have a digital camera over a film camera.
How much do you want to bet that people will bulk buy these things just for the screens
hmm.. come to think of it.. i'll get my orders in now!!!
Tis, brakes that allow cars go fast!
I'm looking foward to sticking LCD gauges all around the house with these babies! :)
Controller
SMaL Camera Technologies
Numbering on controller chip:
AIC0021B
02TWN5103
C68051.00
Memory
16M x8 NAND Flash memory: Samsung K9F2808UO8-YCB0
4Mx16 SDRAM: Micron Technologies MT48LC4M16A2TG-75E
Preliminary stuff of interest
The edge connector of the PV2 electrically matches that of the classic Dakota, at least as far as the USB pins go; whatever cable/contraption used to access the classic should work for this one without modifications.
Holding down ALL the buttons at once (shutter, Display, Delete) while turning on power will display a diagnostic screen showing the camera's serial number, firmware revision and similar information.
See John's Dakota page with an update for the PV2, including some USB info, datasheets for the more interesting parts (including the LCD) and a gallery of good dissection photos.
USB info
Here is the dump-out from SUCR commandline, walking thru the device properties. (All versions of SUCR do this, in case the manufacturer decided to get clever and move the devices/interfaces/endpoints/altsettings around). This gives a good idea of the 'organization' of the camera's USB interface.
usb_set_debug: Setting debugging level to 3 (on) LIBUSB_DLL: usb_os_init: dll version: 0.1.8.0 LIBUSB_DLL: usb_os_init: driver version: 0.1.8.0 LIBUSB_DLL: usb_os_find_busses: found bus-0 LIBUSB_DLL: usb_os_find_devices: found \\.\libusb0-0003--0x058f-0x9254 on bus-0 LIBUSB_DLL: usb_os_find_devices: found \\.\libusb0-0004--0x0dca-0x0027 on bus-0 Looking at device with USB id 058F/9254 Looking at device with USB id 0DCA/0027 Found camera... This device has 2 possible configuration(s). Looking at configuration 0...This configuration has 1 interfaces. Looking at interface 0...This interface has 1 altsettings. Looking at altsetting 0...This altsetting has 2 endpoints. Endpoint 0: Address 81h, attributes 02h (Bulk) (In) Endpoint 1: Address 01h, attributes 02h (Bulk) (Out) Looking at configuration 1...This configuration has 1 interfaces. Looking at interface 0...This interface has 1 altsettings. Looking at altsetting 0...This altsetting has 2 endpoints. Endpoint 0: Address 81h, attributes 02h (Bulk) (In) Endpoint 1: Address 01h, attributes 02h (Bulk) (Out) Set config: 0 Found bulk endpoint 129 on Configuration 1 Interface 0 Altsetting 0 Set alt. interface: 0 [...]
The camera has 2 configurations, one is for 200mA and the other is for 100mA, but "seem" otherwise identical. (See the testlibUSB dump-out below for additional details.) When the configuration is set by SUCR, the camera emits a 2-tone ascending beep, and the LED comes on. However, regardless of which of the configurations is used, all control transfers produce a CRC error message from Windows: LIBUSB_DLL error: error sending control message: win error: Data error (cyclic redundancy check).
Here is the output from testlibUSB: DLL version: 0.1.8.0 Driver version: 0.1.8.0 bus/device idVendor/idProduct bus-0/\\.\libusb0-0002--0x0dca-0x0027 0DCA/0027 - Manufacturer : SMaL - Product : Digital Camera wTotalLength: 32 bNumInterfaces: 1 bConfigurationValue: 1 iConfiguration: 3 bmAttributes: 80h MaxPower: 100 bInterfaceNumber: 0 bAlternateSetting: 0 bNumEndpoints: 2 bInterfaceClass: 255 bInterfaceSubClass: 0 bInterfaceProtocol: 0 iInterface: 0 bEndpointAddress: 81h bmAttributes: 02h wMaxPacketSize: 64 bInterval: 0 bRefresh: 0 bSynchAddress: 0 bEndpointAddress: 01h bmAttributes: 02h wMaxPacketSize: 64 bInterval: 0 bRefresh: 0 bSynchAddress: 0 wTotalLength: 32 bNumInterfaces: 1 bConfigurationValue: 2 iConfiguration: 3 bmAttributes: 80h MaxPower: 50 bInterfaceNumber: 0 bAlternateSetting: 0 bNumEndpoints: 2 bInterfaceClass: 255 bInterfaceSubClass: 0 bInterfaceProtocol: 0 iInterface: 0 bEndpointAddress: 81h bmAttributes: 02h wMaxPacketSize: 64 bInterval: 0 bRefresh: 0 bSynchAddress: 0 bEndpointAddress: 01h bmAttributes: 02h wMaxPacketSize: 64 bInterval: 0 bRefresh: 0 bSynchAddress: 0
Some dissection pictures
Back of the PV2. The case is held together by 3 screw
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Is it possible to make something like this that's more trouble to hack than it's worth? How much work would it be?
Embedded CPU with built-in mask-programmed or fusible-link ROM. Encrypted images in the flash, with the key in the CPU's ROM so it can't be read out. It shouldn't be impossible to lock something like this down hard enough that it'd cost more than the value of a cheap digicam to unlock it.
It doesn't mention how much memory is inside one of these things. Presumably, it could easily be enough for a couple of hundred 2MP pictures. If this is the case, combined with the preview/review LCD (one of the biggest advantages of digicams when on the road, IMHO), it could certainly be successful.
...or the third-world slums where this senseless 1st-world waste is gonna end up? What I'd really like to know is which creates more waste: manufacturing traditional film and then developing it, (i.e. two-stages of chemical production, film cansiters, etc.), or manufacturing a digitial camera (lots of chemical waste) but no development waste (except of course the computer you need to upgrade to edit a 10 megapixel image, and then you buy a 12 MP camera next year, etc.).
huh? why exactly is it a _bad_ idea, if they just can make it profitable?
ever used crappy disposable cameras? the worst thing about them is that a lot of the pictures you take turn out as total crap. a preview screen on them would be a great improvement.
it's a replacement for MEGACRAPPYSHIT disposable cameras, and a lot of folk visiting disneyworld or whatever would like one of these. it's cheap for them(customers), so they don't have to have even any stress about if it breaks in the rides or if they lose it and yet they can take better pictures than with a normal disposable one.
20$ for a rent of a 2mpix camera and service to get the pics on a cd isn't _that_ bad at amusementparks & etc..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
One more thing...when something is made to be thrown away after a couple of uses, I think it would be a great idea to make that company have a decent recycling program for the items that just load our land fills.
Forget the 2megapixel camera, I want cheap LCD's.
Hopefully the hardware gurus recycle all of the parts, so we can have a webcam, a display, and a memory stick, all for the low low price of $20.00
Face it, 99% of the digital cameras out there are sold for the recording of the owners' bedroom adventures. Nobody's going to pick one of these cameras up when they realize that Betty Lou Bluehair down at the photo counter at Wal-Mart will get to see them rubbing up against some fat guy in a squirrel suit he had shipped over from Japan.
No mention of batteries! They can't expect Joe Consumer to know how much power an LCD eats, and therefore, AA's are NOT going to be enough. Also, I doubt that $20 includes any batteries...yet another couple bucks onto the price.
You could blugeon someone to death with your camera
So, uh... I guess that film career didn't work out for you ?
A $20 color LCD for all your cool projects!
Of course, in this case Disposable == Recyclable. Or do you really think they simply pitch the 2 megapixel CCD sensor, LCD display, internal memory, camera body, etc. in the garbage after you bring it in?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Simple. Why make a $50 camera that will last for 50 years, when you can make a $10 camera that will last for 2 years? Make things cheap and easily broken, and people will buy a new one every few years. That is the mentality.
This looks cool, not that I would use it as I have a digital camera that I am happy with already, but the retailers can reuse the cameras making it a little cheaper for them, and the disposable camera market seems to do pretty well. I think they can replace the disposable 35mm cameras with these fairly well. However as an end users more than maybe 7-8 uses of this becomes pointless as you can get your own one for that much. Though if they are hacked and they turn into $20 digital cameras then I think the company will have to go back to the drawing board. It will be interesting to see if these become mainstream soon or not.
Even with amazingly inexpensive Chinese labour, you can't make a camera with LCD panel for $12 (the probably wholesale cost to the shop). Instead, they "refurb" and resell the camera to the next person - even if they replace the plastic case and battery, it'll probably only cost a couple of dollars to do. SO, they're amortizing the cost over a longer expected life-span. I wonder how many times these will get recycled. And I wonder how they work after being tossed around at a dozen or so frat parties...
While digital camers are great for features and useability you still cannot beat 35mm film for quality.
My college course in photography demands students have a 35mm camera, no digital allowed. And thats for a pretty good reason as well.
Especially for the price i'd rather have a 35mm disposable than a digital the quality will always be so much better.
Like we need more things filling up landfills.
im suprised the mods didn't see this!
the cameras do NOT, i repeat, do NOT go in the landfills, they are resold back to the public from the store after use.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
But with more camera's integrated in phones, that market will also dry up pretty soon.
You must mean the market for low-res, low-color, grainy images.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I did the original hack on the old camera, and, of course, I'm working on the new one... here's my web page on it.
The next step is a ROM dump -- then we can see if there is any code in the flash memory, or if it's stored on the ASIC. I suspect that there is a bootloader on the ASIC and the bulk of the code (certainly the pre-programmed images) is on the flash. Don't know if it's encrypted or scrambled yet.
We're still working on the resolution of the sensor. I read the part number last night, but didn't return any google hits. We can't really rely on the size of the pictures one would get back from processing because, in the past, they've upscaled it.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
They'll mark it up and charge $30 for it to make a larger profit.
I think there's a name for that.
"Built-in obsolescence"
Live forever, or die trying.
Why would anyone want this when you need to bring it to the store for processing? One of the selling points of digital cameras is that you can edit, print, etc your pictures from the comfort of your home. How about software that allows you to dump pictures from the camera once before it formats its internal disk?
I suspect that the guts are re-sold a few times rather than being disposed of.
I am not a crackpot.
im suprised the mods didn't see this!
:)
You must be new here.
the cameras do NOT, i repeat, do NOT go in the landfills, they are resold back to the public from the store after use
Yes, I am continually amazed by the ignorance. Disposable camera means the CONSUMER disposes of it, not the "film processor."
What I'd like to know is, how many times have these ignoramuses bought a disposable camera, taken a roll of pictures, and then tossed it in the garbage?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
The first disposable digital camera was the SiPix Blink I got for $50 from Fry's. After using it, you want to throw it away even if you have the receipt, because you want to prevent any other human being from undergoing the sheer torture. I looked at the $50 as a charity expense.
What's your damage, Heather?
that I should google first but... I haven't had my quota for abuse today:
Has anyone done any cool hardware hacks to utlize a digital camera's LCD for other purposes? (thinking case mod, mp3 jukebox (like a real jukebox (friend's site), not an ipod) display.
my understanding that trying to use an old laptop's LCD (separate from the laptop) is near unpossible or not worth the effort...
*shrug* some sort of dimented light bulb went off when I saw the post...
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
We have digital camera phones, we have disposable phones, now we have disposable digital cameras...next up, disposable digital camera phones - take an uninteresting picture of your cat, send it to someone you don't really like that much anyway, call them to confirm they got it, and throw the whole thing away before they answer.
drink beer, and let the water run the mill
Don't expect it to look better than the 1.2 Megapixel camera it really is.
You're not look far enough. At what point do they realize that they can't re-package and re-sell it again?
Being "disposable", people aren't going to care. They'll bring it back in the worst shape possible. Scratches on the lens, chips in the body, cracks. At some point it IS going to be disposed. And for what it's worth, somewhere along the lines of the design phase, they factored in the cost of actually having to throw out cameras and building their replacements.
Sometimes you need to read between the lines of the article.
Live forever, or die trying.
I'm glad you laid the blame on society, because if people didn't buy disposible crap, there'd be no money in it, and companies would stop making it.
Of course, the decades of Marketing that equate "disposible" with "convenient" have been a major contribution to the problem in the first place, but it goes to show that although there is a lot of lip-service paid to "environmentally friendly" options, the actions of the consumer show that, in reality, he couldn't give a fuck.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
I'm sure these things will be hacked and that will drive sales, but that hacking will kill their revenue stream which is banking on selling them 6-8 times over. I wouldn't be suprised if they put some type of non-tampering clause in with the packaging or stored the pics in some proprietary format. Of course that won't stop anybody from hacking it, but then how do I get the pics to my computer?
By the time these things become popular they'll be obsolete. Being bought out by Kodak (or whomever) is probably the best thing that could happen to these guys.
Another unfortunately titled /. article leading to hundreds of pointless conversations by people who do not RTFA. I blame /. editors more than /. readers for this one though.
The cameras are meant to be used once and returned to a printing facility, whereby the images are off-loaded and then the camera itself is put back into circulation.
LCDs are manufactured using an resource-intensive process, AFAIK, with large volumes of contanimated water as a waste product, and large volumes of dangerous chemicals being used/reused/disposed in the process.
The same goes for CCDs and the electronic guts.
How the fuck can anyone conceive this as a good idea? What an utter disregard for the inheritance of our children!
That said, I want one, just to hack. But, shit, surely we humans have *got* to get a clue one of these days.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I disagree. I, for one, don't use a camera often. It's cheaper for me to just use a disposable camera once in a while for $20 instead of purchasing a $200 equivalent. In addition to that, the technology behind digital cameras is upgraded almost on a weekly basis. When you purchase one of the top of the line cameras, you are outdated by the end of the 2 month period or so. As far as the old-school metal quality cameras are concerned, do you happen to remember the price of those things? There was a reason for the high price tag - they were well constructed. While the overall quality was higher, it was fairly useless. Unless, like you say you want to bludgeon someone to death with it, it doesn't need to be used as a hammer. There are perfectly good hammers for that. If you treat you fragile electronics nicely, they will (usually) treat you nicely. Besides, how do you convice someone to buy a new camera every year or two, when you built them to last for life? :)
For 20 bucks US the batteries and a set of prints are probably included. I mean i can pick up a film camera for 5 bucks CAD that includes a set of single prints. The poster says it includes a photo cd but i wouldnt be suprised it it included a set of prints as well. Also I have yet to find a disposable/recyclable camera that DOESNT come with batteries
It is not anywhere near as good a deal as you might think. The 2 megapixel sensor (CMOS I bet, from either Micron, Omnivision or the likes) are going to be flooding the market at about $5~$8 in bulk this year. This technology is booming and going straight for commodity prices. The lens technology is desperatly trying to catch up but is still lacking. Trust me that the lens on this thing is tiny and crappy. Good enough for a quicky vacation pic, but not good enough to replace a regular (sub)$300 digital camera. All the other parts are trivial....except the LCD. Can someone tell me how they managed to get a super cheap LCD in there?
Why does society insist make making more and more degenerate retards? Like we need more ijits filling up web forums.
This whole retard movement just devolves us to jumping more conclusions that has lower and lower sense. Hence the saying "You've never taken a disposable film camera back to the drugstore!?!? WTF!?!?!?!".
Sound familiar? Back in the day, ALL slashdot posters were sensible enough to figure this was the same deal, flash substituting for film. You could blugeon someone senseless with your big antique camera and they would still be alright enough to know this. You can't do that with today's slashdot ijits.
Granted some "disposable" stuff do in fact get reused, such as moronic slasdot rants, but for others, we should actually take the time to decide if they are truly disposable.
Why do people insist on calling these cameras disposable?
The business model is basically to rent them out for a rather steep $20, which gets you use of the camera until you fill the on-board memory and then a CD with your images after.
My guess is that the retailers have a minimal markup on the camera with the expectation that they will make their money doing digital prints.
The manufacturer makes their money by being able to rent the same camera multiple times.
Certainly some of the cameras will be "lost" to hackers, but this is a cost of doing business and is probably far cheaper than creating and inforcing some sort of deposit mechanism since, for the average user, the "deposit" is the precious memories stored on the camera that they can only get back by returning the camera.
If "hacking" of the cameras become widespread, then one can expect that the company will either take action or go out of business.
If they take action, there will no doubt be much grousing among the slashdot community, but really, what right does a parasite have to complain when the host its bleeding dry seems to extingish it? Better to keep a low profile.
The primary reason they're doing this is purely economical. They're using cheap plastic parts and hiring some guy in China or India for $2.00/day to put these things together so that they can sell them for $19.99. That's almost pure profit for the company, and the average American consumer won't give a flying fsck as long as they can buy this shit at Wally World. But the irony is the fact that these same American consumers are the same ones that are whining about where all of our manufacturing sector jobs have gone,...
Goes to show the intelligence of your average American consumer.
Sadly, durable stuff is likely to outlive its usefulness.
I've got an old Toshiba laptop somewhere - powered by a 7.14MHz 8086. The machine is heavily built and works fine, has decent battery life and, apart from being a bit grubby and yellowed, works just the same as it did when new.
Except it's almost entirely useless when it comes to working alongside modern computers. It and my modern iBook have no ports, disks or anything in common. I'd need a third computer to get data between the two.
Then there's digital cameras. I've got a Fuji FinePix 6900 Zoom, which I've had for a bit over two years now. It still takes really good photos, and continues to work extremely well, but I have a feeling I'll be replacing it because of obsolescence rather than it breaking.
I'm eyeing up Canon DSLRs, looking at new things they can do which my camera can't - new advances that simply hadn't been (affordably) available when my camera was designed. Long, low-noise exposures, high-capacity rechargeable AA batteries, higher resolution, and so on...
Technology advances ridiculously quickly. Yes, you can stick around with something prehistoric, but unless you have very limited needs you're likely to constantly lust after what's you're missing on a newer device. I'm not advocating disposable hardware, but at times I understand why things now are rarely (over-) engineered to last. By the time they break, they'll be dinosaurs surrounded by smaller, faster, cheaper descendants...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
I would not be opposed to buying a 20$ digital camera to take with me on say a pub crawl, or to a paintball game or other sort of hazardous-to-technology event, rather than take a 100-500$ digital camera. If a 20$ camera gets broken its not a big deal all you are out is a few pictures and a couple bucks.
The same people who are buying VHS tapes at walmart, will use this.
Please, it's just LCD. Liquid Crystal Display Display is redundant. It's like when gas stations advertise an ATM (Automatic Teller Machine) Machine inside. One day people will decide to abbreviate it as ATMM, and the cycle will continue until ATM's are refered to as ATMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . .
So, please stop the redundancy.
In other news Pure Digital Technologies announces they will offer access to the biggest image database to customers.
MOM?!?! NOOOO!
I thought that was the purpose of the Darwin Awards? To try and filter out the gene pool,... Perhaps the filter needs replacing again?
I'd be willing to overlook the common misuse of "LCD" with "display" if it's prefaced with "an", as in "an El See Dee display". But beginning it with "a" makes it a clear case of saying "a Liquid Crystal Display display", which is just plain wrong.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
This will replace the disposable film camera, which does NOT get recycled, and ends up in the landfill.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Why does society insist make making more and more disposable crap?
Because at the rate (this) technology is advancing, you might as well consider all digital cameras disposable within a few years. Also, there are people who demand desposable cameras so they won't be afraid to take it on their mountain climbing trip.
This whole disposable movement just evolves us to making more stuff that has lower and lower quality.
Yes, because we all know that this 2 megapixel camera with LCD display is of extremely poor quality as compared to the 1 megapixel cameras that cost several times more. (Won't even bother to tell you that these are returnable, not disposable)
Hence the saying "They don't make 'em like they used to."
Reminds me of another old saying, "Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." -- Ecclesiastes 7:10
it is not wise to ask such questions." People have been complaining about how good the old days were for 3000 years already. Maybe you should just accept progress and be happy with our improvements in medicine, travel, etc. (You can mod me down now, for mentioning the bible.)
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I'm having trouble seeing step 2. in the business plan.
Exactly how does one make money selling $20 digital cameras?
There's not a lot of profit in 20 cent digital prints.
The article states that they can be recycled 5 to 8 times - but each recycling costs them money, right?
Is this a low profit, high volume scheme? Can I short their stock?
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
No, garbage bags are still made out of non-biodegradable plastic! I never understood that. I am sealing my garbage up so that it may be preserved for the next 400,000 years? Good for future archeologists I guess. I wonder what they would think of our society?
That would be ideal, but it's also illegal. Youc annot sell as new something that has been preowned. You'd have to sell it as refurbished.
Now at $20 a pop for new, what's the price point for a refurb? If it's too close to $20, you'll hardly sell any. If it's very much below that, new sales drop, and the camera mfrs are angry and raise prices on the imaging equipment.
You cad always call them ReFurbies and stick a cute sticker on them, but then you'd have to pay a royalty...
"...which was hacked shortly afterwards..."
It's truly amazing that the editors can find stories months or even years old but often dup stories in the same day.
*Note: I'm not saying this story was a dupe.
It'll cost 20 bucks at the local Rite Aid, but I can guarantee you that once past the gates of Disney, it'll cost at least 40 or 50. Or any other amusement park, for that matter. Enough that it'd negate any economy. But, you forgot your own camera, so you pay.
Actually, I envision the park security no longer allowing you to bring your own camera. You know, to improve safety and give you a more enjoyable experience.
Hey, a bottle of water costs 3 bucks in there.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
actually this device is going to be used more than one customer, they take the camera back and sell it again to the next customer - the point is that they don't send it to the landfill after first customer returns it.
back in the day you used to also have cheap cameras and then again the good cameras.
(also if making it "durable" costs 50 times more.. then whats the point.)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
the new megapixel war this year: 5mp a95,
canon 7.1mp g6,
canon s70 7.0 mp,
canon EOS-20D 8.2 MegaPixels
The new leaked cameras (shameless plug)
why not buy a bunch over time and combine the lcd's to make a composite lcd screen? or better yet how big are the lcds/what resolution? you can place them inside a set of glasses and make your own wearable display.
The LCD is detailed on the Maushammer pages. DataSheet for the LCD is here.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
From the article:
The slashdot writeup also mentions that it is a color lcd, though I know some people are too busy to be bothered with reading the writeup.
I believe there are portions of your reply that are similar to my copyrighted works. Therefore, please be advised that you will be receiving legal notification from my SCO lawyer to take down your work, or submit to financially compensating me.
Live forever, or die trying.
I know most of the people on here are looking at this as an opportunity to get a usable digital camera for cheap (with a little elbow grease), but even if the attempts to hack it aren't successeful, the camera is still worth more than they're selling it for. You see, for hobbiest electronics people, LCD screens are ridiculously expensive. In single quantities you'd be lucky to get a lower resolution, monochrome LCD display for twice the cost of this camera, more likely three times the cost. LCD screens, more than any other products are given great discounts in bulk and huge price inflations in small quantities.
*sigh* I am sure others have a similar experience, but I bought a 2MP Kodak (DC280) back when they were $600. That was when I worked for a company that actually gave out bonuses. Don't get me wrong, I am really glad that I got it, but wow. I never would have guessed that 5 years later a $20 disposable camera would be of comparable quality. (I know mine probably takes better pictures, but it also weighs about 30 lbs and eats batteries like Cowboy Neal eats tacos).
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You realize they would have to raise their prices in order to pay for such a program, right? Everything is a "great idea" when it doesn't cost anything.
How about we move away from disposable products, period? But this is offtopic, since the cameras are reused, not disposed of. The term "Disposable digital camera" is a complete fucking misnomer.
These might be fun for vacation. I usually don't bring my computer with me when I travel, and I could get digital prints developed at a local drug store.
:).
However I don't see why these would be beat the ease of my personal digital camera, iPhoto, and or Kodaks print service when I'm at home. A child could use that software; pictures can be printed, mailed to me in a day, or printed that day at a local photo lab; and I can be totally nude while sending my photos off to print
As cool as disposable cameras are, it's nice not to go down to the local drug store in order to turn in my film.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
My old 2.2MP gets 95-100 pictures per 64MB CF card*. Ballpark figure, the 16MB in the disposable would probably hold a maximum of 30 pictures (again, depending on composition).
* And that's the way I likes it!
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Okay okay, so for regular people we are talking about a nice, expensive, digital, disposible camera... But I'd expect so much more from slashdotters. A lot of you out there are saying that you rent the camera, they reuse it 8 times... blah blah blah.... The fact is that you can PURCHASE THE CAMERA. There is no rental agreement, you do not have to garuntee that you will return the camera to the company so they can recycle it.
This should be great news! On-board this baby has a 16MB memory of some type(probably great for a lot of projects) and even more importantly a COLOR LCD screen. All this for $20? 20megapixle digital camera parts a plus!
This is one of the best hardware parts purchase you could make ever. I for one am going to be running my AIM conversations on an array of digital LCDs taped to the side of my monitor about a year from now.
Your mammas flamebait.
"This is even a worse idea than the "2 day dvd lasting" media."
Hell, you can BUY a brand new namebrand 2mp digital camera for $80 US if you hunt the sales. So for the cost of 4 of these "disposable" cameras you can own one that can take all the pictures you want.
Last time I was @ WDW it rained a couple times (typical FL weather) and I was worried that my digital camera would get wet and quit working. It's not a really expensive camera... was only a couple hundred bucks, but I don't really want to replace it due to it getting wet and shorting out or getting broken on a ride. I also don't like having to worry about losing it or getting it stolen. If I had been able to rent a digital camera while I was there, I would have done that instead of using my own. The quality may have not been quite as good but @ 2 megapixel they would have been good enough. I wonder if they will offer versions with larger capacity. If you could rent extra memory cards, that would be a bonus. I don't want to have to carry around 10 cameras with me... with mine I had a nice large memory card so I didn't have to swap it the entire trip and the spare I brought was tiny and fit in my little camera bag easily. Fitting 10 cameras into a camera bag would be a bit more difficult, not to mention trying to take all of those on a ride with you. So maybe cameras with quite a bit more capacity for those of us who want to rent one and have it last several days worth of pictures.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
People still buy disposable film cameras that don't take very good pictures, and are bulkier and less convenient than these things. I've used them on vacation, where I didn't want to risk losing a camera that was worth anything.
This costs a bit more than those things, but it almost certainly takes better pictures (the snaps I took from disposables didn't even blow up to VGA very well) and it's clearly got more features.
And a lot of people go to the drugstore regularly, so it's not like it's really an extra trip.
People wouldn't be buying it as a digital camera, they'd be buying it as a high-end "disposable".
Thanks for the chuckle (actually, I'll probably GMAO all day) at the idea of some knucklehead buying a "disposable" camera, taking pictures with it, and then chucking it into the trash instead of taking it back to the drugstore.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
this is ugly.
I wrote a paper about how some of this stuff is impacting the environment not to long ago. I thought I had an idea, ends up the actual numbers are WAY higher than I ever would have thought.
http://robert.accettura.com/archives/000380.shtml
for anyone interested.
It was an Environmental Bio paper, for my gen ed lab requirement. I'm a Business MIS/Comp Sci student, so like all students in the class, you orient the paper towards your field.
Cheap cameras have existed ever since Polaroid entered the scene.
Hell, people used to make their own pinhole boxes, and just buy the photographic plates to slide into the back. This is what I suggest for the OP.
Take your giant, wooden, inefficient, and ridiculous contraption to disneyland, and ask the guy in the Mickey suit to hold still for 30 minutes in the searing midday sun.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Sound familiar? Back in the day, ALL cameras were made of a metal body. You could blugeon someone to death with your camera and it would still be alright to take the murder scene photos afterwards. You can't do that with today's plastic cameras.
And not being able to kill someone with your camera is bad because...?
Buy a knife, hammer or gun. Most do-it-all devices don't do anything well at all.
This whole thing depends on "taking the camera back to the store". What's wrong with this picture?
There's a desperate, last-ditch attempt by the camera industry to re-introduce consumables into a product that no longer needs them. Expensive incompatible flash memory cards, expensive special paper for inkjet printers, and, of course, the "printer ink" industry all fit this model. They're just delaying the inevitable.
Incidentally, the inkjet situation should open up in a few years. Key patents are approaching expiration. The basic bubblejet patent expired this year.
"Insightful"???? You thought that was "Insightful"?!? You moron, that was FUNNY! Sheesh, don't you recognize good mockery when you see it???
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Whitesheet on LCD:
L CD /AU%20Optronics/A015AN02V1.pdf
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/%7Edisplaze/PDF/
looks like it should be very easy to use for other projects.
Your mammas flamebait.
how do you think film "disposable" cameras work? If you RTFA, it already says the industry average of reuse for disposable cameras is 5-8 times. They dont just throw them away!
"illegal" indeed.
-
Best guess for SW1 and SW4 is ""
SW1 beeps because you can't go back to before photo 1 (you said you hadn't taken any photos yet) and SW4 dowesn't do anything because you're already at the last (first) photo.
Add two buttons and sell it as a cheap reusable camera with a USB interface.
"Pure Digital's San Francisco offices are typical pod-style workstations, with computers and posters everywhere. Large images of waterfalls, mountains and beaches adorn the walls -- all snapped by a Pure Digital camera, which has the equivalent of a 2-megapixel sensor. A megapixel is a measurement of a camera's resolution."
What does "the equivalent of a 2-megapixel sensor" mean? Is it not 2 MP?
Stuff doesn't decompose in landfills anyway. You can dig through landfills and find perfectly readable newspapers from the 60s.
Anyone who is buying a camera for non professional use wants the most features for the least amount of money. A modern camera with all the latest features with a hard metal case would cost a few grand. Would you pay this much for something to use to take vacation photos? When people complain that they don't make things like they used to, they fail to factor in the price difference. Cameras used to be a lot more expensive than they are now, factoring in inflation, and the same can be said for just about any device.
More sisposable stuff pollutiong the planet ;-(
Please think or RTFA (preferably both) before posting.
1) Even current "disposal" cameras are recycled (at least in part)
2) The article mentions that these cameras are ment to be "recycled" (think: rented) 6-8 times (probably much, much more than that.)
3) I want a $20 color LCD. Don't you?
Required reading for internet skeptics
I wonder when they will release the disposable underwater digital camera...now THAT would be fun.
Momma told me that sigs are for the devil
WDW did rent cameras at one time. I went there with my parents when I was 9, I'd recently bought myself a 110 film camera at a garage sale but I dropped and broke it. My parents rented me another camera to use. (Incidentally I remember it used an odd daisy wheel film- a disk with the film around the edge. Haven't seen that in a long time.) I'm surprised they don't still do that with digitals- for an exorbitant price of course.
The Internet couldn't tell a good bit from a bad bit if it bit it on its naughty bits.
I've a DIGITREX DSC3000 (a 3.2 megapixel camera with LCD) that I bought at OfficeMax. It cost $20 after rebate. (I had to buy an Epson printer -- but I'd already decided to buy the printer before I found out about the camera deal.)
"Disposable" makes me think you use it and throw it in the trash. I don't think of those Blue Rhino propane tanks as disposable. It's more like "returnable". Hopefully the cameras you get will be in better shape than some of those Blue Rhino tanks I've seen.
First off... All of these "disposable" cameras aren't thrown out. When you return them from whence they came to get your piccies off of them, they refurb them, and resell them, exactly the same way as is done with analog "disposable" cameras nowadays. They rip the worn thin plastic shell off of them, develop your pictures inside, sell you the pictures, and re-sell the camera with a new shell.
Also, what's the big deal with having a disposable mindset? It's extremely good for the economy, and no worse for the environment providing you recycle. You _do_ recycle, don't you? Anyway, if you bought say... a window fan back in the 1930s, you'd still have it today. It's ruggedly made out of steel and brass, and other nice metals. Look at the brand name on the bottom of them. Doesn't look familiar, right? That's because they sold 10,000 fans to everybody who wanted one, and then everybody who wanted one had one, so the company closed. All of those people in the company are now out of work, and can't buy any more window fans. Stagnation due to selling overly durable items is far worse than a disposable culture. Disposable things keep the money flowing, which is important for a healthy capitalistic nation.
Most of all, relax.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I don't think this is going to last very long. I'm sure most other people think that also. The production cost is just too high and the only way they are going to keep this going is to sell a large mass of them... or raise the prices, of course. Hopefully it'll work though, because it is a really good idea. I just know those little LCD screens aren't that cheap...
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
The PV2 has been out in stores for the past year and a half... with an LCD screen, and 1.2 MP quality (though it advertises as 2.0MP, hence the confusion in the posting).
I don't know why USA Today posted a story about a year and a half old product...possibly because they repackaged it (it has a new front end appearance, but same camera underneath it sounds like). Either way, this is an incredibly old story.
-Vendal Thornheart
What the hell is the point of a disposable digital camera?
*Dirt Cheap* color LCD with bonus CCD
Ever price LCDs? Yeah, It'll be sweetest electronics purchase you'll ever make (and at the local drug store no less!)
Required reading for internet skeptics
Then it becomes interesting to know how many frames are available, if ~50 it becomes a great deal compared to paying like $0.50/print otherwise + extra for the CD.
Paul B.
The article didn't mention anything about batteries; usually a big concern with digital cameras. Does the end user have to supply them? Are they built into the camera? What happens if they run out before your one-time use is done?
The ONLY thing these things are good for is being hacked and used as a cheap non-disposable camera with a USB port (I've done the hack on the non-LCD ones). The pictures that come out of these things are crap compared to common disposable 35mm cameras. Besides the novelty of "digital" and an LCD, I can't for the life of me imagine why your average consumer would chose these things over a standard 35mm disposable. Aren't the disposable 35mm's cheaper than $19?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I don't know how much profit there actually is, but remember that "not a lot of" does not necessarily equal zero. In this particular case, if there is 1 cent profit, that's 5%, 2 cents, that's 10%. In both cases, greater profit than a lot of consumer businesses enjoy. IOW, it looks doable.
I would think that amusement parks would be all over this, however why would they not add to the price? Use the camera for $40 or $60 and get a CD plus cash back when you turn it in. This would seem a better way to prevent losses.
Why on earth is any digital camera disposable? What part NEEDS to be replaced in order for the machine to be used again?
Batteries?
Quite apart from the quality of the images. 3.2MPxl is a minimum.
:-)
Okay the web can get away with 640x480 or less, but for prints? C'mon...
There is also the issues of privacy when the pictures are of any, uh, salacious nature. How do you know your pictures won't end up where you don't intend?
People got into digital photography and web pron got a lot better. But they knew what they were doing, with signed releases and everything.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Ok- maybe its good for hacking, but for use as a camera, I don't get it.
A) The whole point of digital is to eliminate the need for development and taking something in to the drug store.
B) The quality probably sucks
[FromTheMorning]
It looks like it was maid till '98, I would have thought it was discontinued much earlier than that.
http://www.toptown.com/nowhere/kypfer/disctimeline .htm/
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
eats batteries like Cowboy Neal eats tacos
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I hate the entire "disposable" concept. Fuck knows how we're going to work out the landfills. There's so many different substances in there, it's not like you can just strip mine them for all the carbon, or just the polymers.
I'm no tree-hugger, but there's a point at where you stop making things "disposable" just to get them into the marketplace.
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~displaze/PDF/LCD/A U%20Optronics/A015AN02V1.pdf
(to parent: you have a space after LCD in your original link)
Who said Freedom was Fair?
The Kodak disposables with the Max800 film are fantastic for daylight shots and flash at reasonable distances.
The prints are almost always as sharp as my 20-year-old professional gear with the same film.
Now, if you need a zoom, slow film, or exposure control, or don't like spending the extra $$$ on a throwaway, spend some bucks on a real camera.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/08/18/bear.beer.re ut/index.html.
Try that.
see SneezingDragon for how to properly create links.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
but for use as a camera, I don't get it.
That's for the people who are completely computer illiterate (thats most 'em).
I hear things all the time like: "When I head south this winter, I'll need to have my email address changed." (From a woman who though that her email address was somehow tied to her telephone #)
Digital cameras cause alot of confusion: "If I get a digital camera that means I can use it for email but not get pictures right?" (That disconnected statement provides alot of insight into how people view digital photography.)
I also hear alot of "My friend has a digital camera and he/she says [Insert mind virus here]"
You really want to know what disposable digital is good for? Cheating the masses out of $20 bucks. Only they don't believe, nor can they understand how they're being cheated!
I hope that made sense...(I'm not using the preview button!)
Required reading for internet skeptics
For 4"x6" prints with archival properties, it's still cheaper to go to the store and get your digital images printed on a mini-lab than to use an inkjet with archival paper and inks.
Even if it weren't cheaper, it's more certain:
Color silver halide prints have decades of history and you can "believe" it when the printer says "will last 80 years under proper storage conditions."
With ink-jet archival materials, the manufacturers have to use accellerated aging to test their materials with. That's good, but not as good as real-life data.
Now, when they get something with the archival properties of silver-halide prints affordable for home or photo-intensive small business users, that will be a Very Good Thing.
Oh, and with many ink-jet glossy prints, you dare not get them wet.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't know who allegedly taught you economic theory (or common sense) but maybe you should ask for your money back if they didn't teach you about a thing economists call a "demand curve" which relates demand to price. It is the simplest model, but it adequately demonstrates that not all consumers are willing to buy at the higher end of the price range.
Also, the profit (price minus cost) per unit is more important in determining how much money you actually have when you're done than sale price.
In light of the business plan you just described, here is mine:
...
1. Hack a cable to download images from these.
2. Mass produce the cables with a detachable component inside the camera.
3.
4. Profit!!!
You figure if I sell the cable for $10, it's less than buying the next camera.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Because at the rate (this) technology is advancing, you might as well consider all digital cameras disposable within a few years.
Actually I see the complete opposite.
Digital camera resolutions are finally getting high enough so that OTHER things are starting to matter, like like lenses.
See, once your digital camera can shoot better than you can see, you don't really care how many megapixels it has.
I predict that within a few years, cameras will no longer be marketed based on megapixels but instead on lens quality and light sensitivity.
In a couple years, just about any decent camera is going to have all the megapixels you could want. You're going to care a lot less about 20 MP vs 30 MP than you will about a cheap, shitty plastic lens vs real quality optics.
You can already see the beginnings of this trend now with major companies like Sony and Panasonic buying lenses from Zeiss and Lecia to use on their miniDV cameras.
Life is too short to proofread.
LCDs are manufactured using an resource-intensive process, AFAIK, with large volumes of contanimated water as a waste product, and large volumes of dangerous chemicals being used/reused/disposed in the process.
These cameras are reusable. Sure, there may be some waste during manufacturing, but the fact that the exact same materials can be used for hundreds of photos makes up for it.
Film, on the other hand, uses equally nasty chemicals and byproducts, if not worse, and is a 1-shot deal. You can't "delete" a film photo and take it again - its commited to the silver halide crystals, like it or not. And the stuff they use to turn that film into prints is much, much worse than the ink in a digital printer.
Get your priorities straight, bud. This is good for the environment.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Well one use (I could sell these by the dozen in the UK) is for nightclubs... you want the convenience of digital (instant review, quick uploading the morning after) but don't want to have hundreds of quids worth of equipment lost, stolen, trampled or dropped in a beer!
You pretty much summed up mine.
Is this some NEW kind of photographic process?
Because most of my current 30+ YO color prints have faded badly. They have not been exposed to the light or any sort of extreme "weather". I live in a very dry state. The blue, and green is just gone. Left with red/yellow prints.
B&W prints do seem to last 80+ years, but color? Not that I've seen. Unless by "last" you mean "Can see any image at all". But the color fastness of the color process (at least 30-40 years ago) is (was) pretty bad!
I've also found that the optical printing process from digital source has a bit of blur introduced into the picture. It's slight, but visible to the naked eye, and very obvious when using a loupe.
Tests I've done with a profesional lab (No not the drug store, a real photographers lab) vs my own priting on a canon i9900 show that the printer produces a MUCH sharper and more color accurate print. The canon prints are razor sharp, people I've shown them too have been in awe, they had never seen such a sharp print before and they didn't even guess it was printed by a printer, it looks too good.
Comparing the optical print from digital source to optical prints from negative sources shows that there was nothing spefic about the digital source that was causing the blur, it's just part of the enlargement process.
We'll see about the longevity of printed images, but color film has so far had a pretty poor track record itself.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Also, what about swapping the 2 megapixel camera for a CCD board camera that can pickup infrared? Now we're talking a DIY nightvision headset for under $100!!
Also, I know most (all?) LCDs require a controller to use with any sort of viedo signal - to control the H and V and refresh rate etc. Does this LCD have the controller built in? Is it on the camera board and easily removed? Or is it built into the camera processor and intimately linked with that hardware? I've got a bunch of little mobile robots that could sure use these displays for full color state feedback and mapping displays!
Any help, hints, or links appreciated!
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
As long as LCD is taken to mean Liquid Crystal Diode in the phrase "an LCD display" . . . which is, I am sure, what you meant.
The Shining had this first... (NOT work safe, and watch out for the stupid pop-ups.)
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
Besides, how do you convice someone to buy a new camera every year or two, when you built them to last for life? :)
Obviously you do not enjoy photography. This is an addiction to guys like me. I'll buy as many as I can afford.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I'm sorry, but even at $19.99, the quality of images shot on a 2 megapixel camera cannot justify the effort it would take to hack the damned thing. It would be better to just buy a decent camera and devote the time to a more productive hack.
Actually most labs don't throw away disposable film cameras either. They are designed to be easily opened with out damage and get sold back to remanufacturers for about $0.25 each. Same thing on the waste from most of the photo processing. The developer and rise chemicals are degradable organic chemicals, and the fix, which has all the heavy metals in it cannot be dumped legally and is full of silver so it is processed and the metals are extracted.
In the end conventional film cameras and processing are friendly on the environment than electronics manufacturing for a digital camera. Admitted there are processes out there that aren't, but not too many people out there shoot Kodachome or use pyro developer any more.
We had disposable digital cameras here for one year or so. Lars
16MB (IIRC), 25 pictures.
Also, from what I've heard, it'll be $40 to $50 in Disneyland.
Granted, this is a discussion of the *new* Dakota cam with LCD, but I'm surprised the newest hacks of the old one haven't been mentioned:
(All of these can be found on Rodrigo Balerdi's page)
1) Run your own code on the camera
A code loader has been written that allows you to nondestructively load your own executable code into the camera's 8MB (slightly less of it usable by you) DRAM. A small demo program from his site demonstrates the concept by blinking out a pattern on the 'Ready' LED, but programs of arbitrary complexity could be written...subject to the limitation that you can't access/execute any of the onboard firmware in this mode. (Bracing for the inevitable Beowulf-cluster comments...)
2) Bye-bye 25-picture limitation
Another clever hack lets you reset the 25-picture limit to an arbitrarily high number. This allows you to take pictures until the camera's FLASH memory actually fills up completely (under "real-world" outdoor picture-taking conditions, I've found this to be about 50 shots, but it will vary with how compressible your images are).
3) Firmware updater and miscellaneous updates/bugfixes
Balerdi's patchfile for an existing Dakota firmware corrects several nits/bugs with the original. It makes the number-of-pictures display count upward from 0 instead of downward from 25 (very useful in conjunction with the previous hack), ensures picture numbering starts from 1 everytime the camera is cleared and always remains consistent (even if you delete shots), and fixes a bug in the original firmware that could result in 2 pictures having an identical number/filename (making one impossible to download).
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
It's a DIGITAL camera. Flash memory. It's a plastic shell.
When you take a picture, you jab "Display" to see it. You can then choose to delete it. Display only shows the last picture, and delete, well, only deletes the displayed pic. There are a couple buttons inside the case that are believed to be forward and back buttons, though.
Here I am refusing plastic bags in stores, refusing to buy milk in plastic bottles, minimizing air conditioner use, hating myself for using a gas-powered outboard motor, trying to be nice to the environment in every way I can, and here we have businesses mass-producing disposable digital cameras.
I thought everyone already knew that disposable stuff is baaaaad.
Simpy
Now THAT is something that I want to see hacked. Presumably the price point for such a "disposable" camera can't be much more than $30-35, and if these wodnerfully brilliant hackers can figure out how to
1) Connect it to your PC for repeated use, and
2) Swap out the onboard memory for a card slot of some sort (not too far fetched - the WalGreen disposable digital cam has such a mod) so that you can store an hour or more (limited by batteries?) of 'TV quality video'...
I would rush out to the store that very day.
Filling all of them with resin would be expensive.
If they were smart they would only fill the ones sold to hackers with resin.
I'm not going to reveal how they will tell which potential buyers are hackers.
Stop the world; I need to get off.
This's nice, but what I'd like to see is something corresponding to waterproof disposable cameras. Many times I've been in wet environments and while I refused to bring my $300 Sony, I'd gladly put a few tens of dollars toward a waterproof disposable digital camera.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
The 'trash' being stored in landfills won't last long enough for archaeologists to find.
It'll all be recycled within the next few centuries.
You want to make your descendents wealthy? Somehow secure the long term 'mineral rights' for some good deep landfill property now.
Biodegradable plastics have their place, but the people really excited about them are the people who love planned obsolescence. Cars that have components made of 'biodegradable plastic' will need constant replenishing.
IOW, the same bloodsuckers who are always doing and advocating things 'for the good of us all.'
resigned
If you're a greenie you don't put biodegradable stuff in garbage bags.
Sorry, I didn't mean to discriminate. Let me rephrase that:
It must suck to be visually impaired. I feel sorry for you.
Try getting your prints done on a REAL digital minilab - Noritsu QSS-3213, Fujifilm Frontier 3xx-series, etc. - and tell me your inkjet prints still look better. No way in hell, my man.
In addition, the emulsions major photo companies use today ARE in fact guaranteed to stay colorfast under proper storage conditions in excess of 30 years.
+++ATH0
getting the CMOS aligned properly with your camera's focal plane and keeping it there. Also, good luck somehow getting the shutter release wired to the board's shutter release switch.
+++ATH0
Yeah but it's good water. Plus it has Mickey's picture!!
One, another, and another device became disposable, the what is not disposable at last? Data, perphaps, perphaps not. Maybe we can use a google-like something to dig out the data when we want someday. What a crazy world!
Buy One device for $50 in 50 years. Total: $50
Except for the fact that lasting 50 years (in reasonable working condition) does not imply 50 years of useful life. Better quality (of pictures, using the camera example) and new features can make a product of a few years ago less desirable to a user than the newer cheap product despite the fact that the cheap version will wear out or break long before the older one. You'd probably have a hard time finding products from 30, 40, 50 years ago that were "built to last forever" even though the people who bought them are relatively plentiful. There's a reason for that.
Buy 25 devices for $10 in 50 years. Total: $250
The fact that you can make a product that will last 50 years in no way implies that a consumer will want or need it for that length of time.
But, even if you assume most of the population is stupid and doesn't see the benefits, you still only need 1/20 (.05) of the population to buy you product to acheive the same sales as the companies who need 10%
Again, sales are not the same as profit. You are assuming they are at least proportionate, which is often not the case. Businesses usually want to maximize profit.
In short- it's CHEAPER for the consumer, and it makes MORE money for the business. What's not to like?
It isn't necessarily cheaper, and almost certainly doesn't make more money for the company.
What's not to like?
It probably does not meet the needs of most consumers. You're only considering two factors: durability/long life and price. Will consumers chose a smaller, lighter product even if it means it won't last as long? Obviously. And that makes it less expensive too? C'mon. And depending the specific product, there may be many other factors involved as well. Do lots of consumers make poor buying decisions because they are mainly price-driven? Sure. But whatever you're buying, you should consider what best meets your needs. Buying cheap is not always a bad choice.
...that I try to convince my daughter that Mickey Mouse is EVIL.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
It's like carrying around a black plastic brick. The DC240/280 is a featherweight by comparison. The DC120 is still fairly slim when you compare it to its older brother the DC50
The only decent thing about the 50 & 120 is that they have threads for filters, zoom lenses or whatever else you want to attach to your camera.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
AC: Um, yes it does.
No, the fact that a product still performs the function it was intended to has no bearing whatsoever on whether that function is desired or needed by the consumer (i.e. useful). Try again.
Better quality? Pictures get printed.
Yes. I'm not enough of a photography enthusiast to argue the relative photo quality of moderately priced cameras of 50 years ago compared to cheap cameras then and now. But the point does not apply to strictly to cameras. Today's cheap piece of crap is often better (quality and/or features) than yesterday's good quality product.
As for New Features- a Camera is supposed to take pictures. Period. What new features can they add?
Auto-focus, electronic zoom, automatic advance and film rewind, faster or variable aperture speed, built-in flash, etc....
Houses. Cars. Buildings. Highways. Bridges.
None of those are consumer products. Cars might make it as an extreme stretch. Try to stay focused.
ME: Buying cheap is not always a bad choice.
AC: IT wastes money and fills up the landfills with waste.
No, spending $50 on a product when a $10 one meets all your needs is a waste of money. If you're worried about landfills, recycle.
I've got an analysis of the flash memory posted -- interesting stuff.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets