Slashdot Mirror
The Wi-Fi Cameras are Coming
Vcullen writes "This week will see many 'new' digicams released at CES but few will be more than cosmetic tweaks and updates on current models. However Kodak have just announced something new (for them) - a Wi-Fi enabled digital camera that enables online photo sharing and viewing without the need for a computer. It also has 256MB of internal memory and stores up to 1500 images." Of course, to actually get on a wireless network, a special card is required for the camera, and the firmware has yet to support WEP, so one has to wait until a Q3 2005 update to join most authenticated networks.
finally I can peep on chicks better!
How many times do they need to reimplemebt something? Can't they use WEP chipsets that already exist?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
maybe if they're the size of postage stamps...
Now I don't have to stop and swap cards when they get full, but swap batteries because I'm constantly uploading them to my server.
No WEP? It'll be like wireless X10 - you'll be able to see whatever your neighbor is taking pictures of. This could be a good thing, heh.
canon already have wireless adapters for their high end cameras
hardly a first
The real question is with they be bannked in Saudi Arabia like camera phones where?
This phonecam rules!
PepperHacks - Hacking the Pepper Pad
This is in the relms of "That's so obvius, the guy who patented it died laughing" :).
I mean a wifi camera is neaded by a lot of people. Let's say you are a jurnalist and want to take pictures where it's not exactly alowed. With wifi, the pics can get out imediatly so that if someone takes your camera to destroy incriminating pics you can let them have it (while recording that "transaction" too).
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
How about WiFeye? or maybe WiFiEye?
Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
Average Joe would not only benefit greatly by not needing to connect cables to the computer to transfer files, but this is likely to open up a digital convergence gateway where cameras, computers, and phones can transfer photos to each other. We all know that media sharing has become the next big thing, not just in P2P, but in a hardware sense, too.
Think about it - how many times have you taken pictures at a party with your digicam, and your friends ask you, "I want a copy of that pic!" Now you can without batting an eye!
Very useful for those working in the field needing to get photos back to the office.
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
and, it's been around for a while, AND has ALWAYS had WiFi ... and you won't believe what this multisession, multiuser camera can do. Too bad they don't have the marketing clout the Big Boyz do, but that is how it goes I guess. I don't know what I would do without the six I have... exactly what was needed and still going great http://www.iqeye.com
Who has those? Most networks are wide open. If your pix are private you probably shouldn't be using this device anyway.
sulli
RTFJ.
My cell phone can take pictures and send them [at broadband speed!] over email, or to the local bluetooth network, or over the infrared port, all built in with no "special card" or extra gadgets needed. That and its an mp3 player to boot.
Why would I want a WiFi camera?
nearly every new cellphone being released these days has a camera built in.
i just recently saw one with a 2 mega pixel camera in it, and i'm sure it's only a matter of time until we see great quality 4 mega pixel cameraphones (4 megapixels seems to be the break point for cheapish snapshot digital photos).
plenty of people already use their cameraphones to send images directly up to their blogs or internet services like flickr.com, it's just a matter of when wireless cameras meet with cameraphones.
then they just need to roll in a large digital media player and we'll all be happy... make calls, take photos (and send them to your server/website immediately from anywhere) while listening to the latest mp3 all on the same device.
peeping toms...
You could perhaps take pictures of the areas you are wardriving with your camera. Go figure, it's the obligatory wardriving post.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
like this one: http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.v iewProfile&friendID=5078956&Mytoken=20050105201659 /
Consumer camera yes, but Kodak is hardly the first to wifi in a digital camera.
Also found the camera, here. Also note that while my times were theroretical (and ideal), they achieved about 10KBps (or 80kbps out of the theoretical 721kbps). That would make the 128MB take nearly 4 hours. Two mega pixel image? About two minutes. So the 5MP would be something like 5 minutes. Ouch.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
photos can run upwards of 15-20MB/photo in RAW, this would be a photojournalists/sports photographer's dream not to have to switch out cards every 50 or 80 pictures.
Yeah, except that photojournalists and ESPECIALLY sports photographers can't shoot RAW because of the additional delays in processing (much easier to FTP JPEGs directly to the photo department, and most prepress deadlines occur DURING night games - and there's far more overhead than just prepress); besides, no sane photojournalist would trust a single point of failure for storing photographs. Many newspaper photogs use 256MB cards, for the simple reason that if one fails or its contents are corrupted (no time for Image Rescue or its ilk), you only lose a hundred JPEGs, rather than multiple gigabytes' worth of assignments.
As has been noted by other commenters, the Nikon D2H has supported WiFi transmission since its release, given the optional $400 adapter. It FTPs directly, and supports WEP and whatnot. The only interesting thing about this article is the consumer orientation; personally, I don't see people accepting the dramatic reductions in battery life... not to mention the storage issues...
You can have multiple HDs on you and they can mirror each other for example.
but Linksys has been selling wi-fi webcams for a while now: http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=3 3&scid=38&prid=650
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
I'd would not want to be the guy hiding in the toilet to take the pictures...
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
So now you're carrying around a RAID array implemented with mini-HDDs?
Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
With 802.11, there'll be quite some bandwith available for these cameras to use... so I see no reason why the following feature request(s) (HUGE points on my wishlist as a professional photographer for a long time now) should be hard to implement.
:-)
The cameras (after obtaining ip's, dhcp or static) should have a running webserver that streams video of exactly what the camera's lcd would display, A web-lcd per se. There should also be COMPLETE functionality of the ALL the camera's functions tied into controls on the web application. Basically, if you can use a function on the physical interface, it should be available for use over the air as well.
Is this too much to ask?
Nikon has had a wireless transmitter for their D2H (high end $2k+ SLR digital camera) for about a year or more. It's nice to see this filtering down into the consumer area.
Nikon WT-1 Wireless Transmitter
"This week will see many 'new' digicams released at CES but few will be more than cosmetic tweaks and updates on current models. However Kodak have just announced something new (for them) - a Wi-Fi enabled digital camera that enables online photo sharing and viewing without the need for a computer. It" .....
Actually, if you consider higher quality lens systems and much higher resolution a "cosmetic tweak", then um, we need to send you back to slashdot university for a while before submitting another headline.
The "Without a computer" part sounds more like marketing BS, too. Nine times out of ten, if you are in range of a Wi-fi router you have access to, you'll be within walking distance of your PC.
Yeah, I know someone will come in here and throw down their example of how this would be useful, but think about 99% of the other users out there. I predict this thing won't do so well, though a neat bit of technology.
I am guessing you meant for that to sound sarcastic, correct?
Just think about it though, for a moment. It may sound crazy...'CARRY a raid array around with you, that sounds crazy!'...but people also used to think a gig of ram in a laptop was insane. Well that isn't too uncommon anymore, and I think raid enabled devices such as this might become common one day.
Totally possible.
/* sig */
Oh please...
Ok...well...I'll jump on the band wagon as soon as Kodak invents a Wifi router and, say, network to go with it that fits in my pocket.
If I'm at home I can connect this camera to my computer anyway (read: unlimited picture storage).
Seriously, besides saving entire seconds in transfer time, what is the benefit? (btw, I didn't TFA)
Inject.
i just recently saw one with a 2 mega pixel camera in it, and i'm sure it's only a matter of time until we see great quality 4 mega pixel cameraphones (4 megapixels seems to be the break point for cheapish snapshot digital photos).
The megapixel count seems to be the big selling point to uneducated consumers. They think that the more megapixels, the better the camera. But in actuality the quality of the picture doesn't usually depend on the pixel count. You can have a crappy lens and a 99 megapixel sensor behind it, and you're going to get a very big blurry, distorted picture. Also, if the sensor is not a very good one, you'll get a picture made of a lot of washed out pixels.
Take an older high end camera where they put effort into giving it a quality lens and quality sensor and compare it to a heavily marketed modern camera with lots o' megapixels. The difference in picture quality will speak for itself. There are lots of 5 mp cameras nowadays, but lots of them still take crappy pictures. They're just BIG crappy pictures.
Ricoh had this in 2001, on one of their high end cameras - it had two full-blown PCMCIA slots.
I was peripherally involved with a proposed project to port it's embedded software from vxworks to linux. It never got off the ground, because Ricoh US wanted it to happen but Ricoh Japan didn't. Ricoh US only had the documentation in japanese, but they wanted our US division and not our japan division to do it.
The deal was all messed up. But a very nice camera. We were sad to box it up and send it back after about, what, a year or more of back and forth.
I hear they're thinking about putting cell phones in cameras now . . . .
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
There's nothing NWS/NSFW on that page. Clicking the innocent photo in the upper-right is your own damn fault since the URL is obviously a porn site; you do look at the URL before you click, right?
PepperHacks - Hacking the Pepper Pad
I wonder how the police would react if somebody mounted a Wi-Fi camera on a remote-control blimp, helicopter, or airplane, in order to give live aerial coverage of a protest. Would they end up shooting it down or something?
What neighborhood do you live in, and can I get an apartment? Because around here, it'd be a really, really BAD thing.
Please help metamoderate.
Haven't we had wireless webcams for a while now?
Who cares about WiFi on digital cameras?
I want GPS coordinates in an exif tag (or something).
I do not represent myself.
I've been using Wi-Fi for my toilet cams since 2001. Prior to wireless it was really a hassle to have to retrieve the tapes after they had been dumped on for a few days. Now it's walk in, drop in a cam, order a Filet-O-Fish, sit down, open my laptop and watch the show ;).
When a device like this comes along it will prompt hardware makers to integrate wifi into portable HD's.
"It also has 256MB of internal memory and stores up to 1500 images."
My 2MP camera makes JPEGs of over 400K, so that makes around 500 images on a 256Mb card (I have one).
So are they refering to 1500 Webcam-style VGA images?
#include <sig.h>
I've tried to explain this to a lot of people. It's hard to explain the whole aperature size thing, but usually I manage to simplify it to two points:
Digital zoom sucks, you want at least 3x optical, preferable at least 4-5x
Megapixel is useless with a teeny barrel or crappy lense in most cases. Smaller lense/barrel == less light. Light makes pictures. Therefore more megapixel with less light == larger but grainier picture.
Around here on the coast (Vancouver) several issues have been raised with the police abusing their power in regards to picture takers.
The first case I heard of was actually a student (journalism I believe) who was arrested for "obstructing justice" and had her camera confiscated - even though she was taking pictures from across the street and was in no way obstructing the officer.
The second case was similar but - da da dum - they nabbed a lawyer instead... hopefully that will end up biting them in the ass.
The point being though, is that even if the cameras came back chances are that any incriminating pictures did not. Now if the camera had transmitted the picture via wireless to a remote/hidden person/location it might have worked out a little better for the camerapersons.
When a device like this comes along it will prompt hardware makers to integrate wifi into portable HD's
Yeah...that will solve a LOT more problems than it will create, I know it.
Inject.
Yes, you're quite right; SI does shoot RAW. They also shoot basketball with six remote-released Hasselblads. Sports Illustrated isn't a newspaper, and has the time for that stuff.