Slashdot Mirror


How the iPod Nano's Video Abilities Stack Up

andylim writes "Recombu.com has pitted the iPod Nano's video capabilities against an iPhone 3GS, a Nokia 5530 XpressMusic and Flip Mino HD. This simple test shows how the camera deals with motion, colour and audio. The iPod Nano's camera seems to offer a basic yet decent video experience and some might say delivers a higher picture quality than the iPhone 3GS's camera. What's interesting is how well it deals with close-ups."

216 comments

  1. make a real camera please by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple. Strap some proper optics to the iPhone platform and you've got a killer product: photos automatically GPS tagged and seamlessly uploaded in the background to your iphoto library, with support via apps for any kind of online hosting, plus specialty stuff like time lapse or other artistic/scientific needs. Full HD video of course, perhaps even with wifi streaming to an apple TV for instant nostalgia. Price it to compete with entry level DSLR and they would capture a huge chunk of market share overnight. Maybe not the volume of the cell phone market, but great margins.

    1. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not so sure, considering that probably most people who are willing to spend the money on a DSLR camera, WANT a DSLR.
      It likely wouldn't sell well enough to be viable as a product.

    2. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake

    3. Re:make a real camera please by markringen · · Score: 0

      it's just good enough technology. but apple has some spiffy software, which could cause them to create an excellent digital camera.

    4. Re:make a real camera please by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. I would love to see some form of portable electronic NOT include a camera. I can't take a camera into work. That limits me to crappy cell phones. Now i'll have to worry about what mp3 player I can get too. Why does everything need a damn camera.

    5. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Strap some proper optics to the iPhone platform and you've got a killer product:

      Ugh, no. "Proper" optics" would mean a much larger, motorized lens like on a dedicated digital camera. It would be fragile, expensive, and bulky on a device which is already expensive and bulky.

      If you care about quality, buy a real camera, and be gentle with it. If you want a tiny, durable camera on a device rugged enough to be carried all the time, don't complain when it sucks.

    6. Re:make a real camera please by WillyDavidK · · Score: 0, Redundant

      He said an entry level DSLR, which is in the 600-800 dollar price range. At that price point you aren't necessarily dealing with semi-pro or even hobbyists, youre just dealing with someone who wants a high quality camera. They may actually NOT want a DSLR due to the complex controls and whatnot.

      --
      For lack of a better signature...
    7. Re:make a real camera please by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      I would say the iPhone already competes in price with an entry level DSLR - without the good picture taking ability.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    8. Re:make a real camera please by WillyDavidK · · Score: 4, Informative

      The camera is almost always contained in its own module, meaning it can be removed for people in your situation. The only problem is the nano is not very easy to get into. The iPhone, however is a synch to open, so you could still use one and just pop the camera out.

      --
      For lack of a better signature...
    9. Re:make a real camera please by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The DSLR I use sometimes for work has a full auto mode, it isn't that scary.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:make a real camera please by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats when they go to the high end camera thats not a DSLR such as the new Cannon G11. Suggested Retail price: $499.99 or the Powershot SX20IS at $399.99 Not as complex as a DSLR, but better than the cheap point and shoot they had before. If you're going to price it like a DSLR, you better be delivering a DSLR, there's a reason they're that expensive.

    11. Re:make a real camera please by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not true. It's been tried. Still not allowed. The rationale is if I can take it out, I can just as easily put one back in. It's been beaten like a dead horse where I work (Defense Contractor). They trust us with a security clearance but not enough to think we won't put a camera back in after it's been removed.

    12. Re:make a real camera please by Darkness404 · · Score: 0

      But you have an unique situation. Myself cameras on everything make my life in general easier. I'm not a photographer but taking pictures with a cell phone to put on Facebook, record odd happenings for use on a blog, etc.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    13. Re:make a real camera please by rivercityrandom · · Score: 1

      That might also void the warranty too, for those who worry about such things. But that is a legitimate point: why does a MP3 player need a video camera? I can somewhat see the use for a camera on a cellphone, as a means of visual communication (I'm still waiting for Dick Tracy-esque video chat on my phone) but my iPod nano is stuffed in my pocket pretty much all the time, and I only use it when I am exercising or on the bus. I don't take it places I want to record video of. For the price of an iPod, you can get a digital camera that takes much better pictures and video (and these days, probably plays MP3s too.)

    14. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure that you remember that they are GPS-tagged when you decide to sneak naked photos of a relative and upload to them to the internet 'anonymously'.

    15. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps a facility to automatically stream directly from the camera to someone's website? This would allow the device to work as a decent (albeit admittely expensive) wireless camera, and because the footage is stored offsite, a would be intruder wouldn't be able to find the VCR or DVR core to trash.

    16. Re:make a real camera please by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well that's your unique situation. My life doesn't involve posting pictures on Facebook or keeping a blog, therefore a camera on everything is of no added value to me.

    17. Re:make a real camera please by mlts · · Score: 1

      I know Apple has on their website a security document stating that all their computers have the ability to have the camera, wireless network, or Bluetooth antenna pulled for environments where devices like that are forbidden. Pretty much it states to take the device into an Apple facility and they do the rest.

      Not sure if this is available for the Nano though.

    18. Re:make a real camera please by blackraven14250 · · Score: 0

      As that's applicable? He's talking about throwing massive amounts of iPhone-type features at a real camera, not something made with 1992's technology. The Quicktake couldn't upload wirelessly to an iPhoto album, GPS tag them, and had no advanced camera features. This is a digital camera designed before Windows 95 hit the market that you brought up!

    19. Re:make a real camera please by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Missed the point again. This time I'll change my words. If the camera can be removed it means the camera can be reinserted, and thus not allowed on site. Unless they change the casing to have no cutout for a camera, I can't have it on site, no matter if I remove the camera, Apple removes the camera, or the director of security at the site removes the camera. If it has a slot to plug in a camera, and a cutout for the lens, it's a no go.

    20. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont understand this myself. Where I work Im not supposed to have a camera either (its not really enforced, pretty much everyone has a cell camera), but I just dont get it. I could slurp more data off our intranet than could possibly do damage w/photos. Stupid rule.

    21. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Planty of professional work gets done on entry level DSLRs, which are also what a lot of hobbyists and students use, people with too much money tend to go for more.

    22. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't say?

    23. Re:make a real camera please by riegel · · Score: 1

      So basically anything with USB or FireWire can't get in as well? It is trivial to add a camera to an "existing" USB port.

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    24. Re:make a real camera please by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes and no. Depends on what you mean. Mini USB ports allowed, cable or anything that plugs into a USB/Firewire port on a computer, No. So I can bring in a cell phone that charges through the Mini USB jack, but no accessories that plug into it and no cables to connect it to a computer. Anything with a standard male USB/Firewire is a no, CD's are a no. Basically nothing that can attach to the computers or network. And before someone mentions it, there is no wireless. Yes we do get checked everyday, by guards carrying assault rifles and handguns. You get caught with a camera/USB storage/cd/any other mode of connecting to the computers/network, the result is likely immediate firing, and most likely legal action resulting in serious jail time.

    25. Re:make a real camera please by Me!+Me!+42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stop with the recreational drug use!
      You can't get even "entry level" DSLR quality from a phone sized package. Big glass and a large sensor are the barrier to entry and a quarter inch phone body will never have it!
      Mid level point and shoot? Almost, but not quite.

      --
      -- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
    26. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good god man, do you like work in area 51 or something?

    27. Re:make a real camera please by donweel · · Score: 1

      I have no us for a camera on my iPod, but I don't mind the idea of an iPod on my camera. I have used my iPod classic as a camera drive, I was disappointed when the new generation iPods lost that ability. I could see a camera with iPod interface. Clip it on for wifi, Geo-Tagging, Photo display, extra storage. With the software and the IPod App store possibilities are endless.

      --
      Many a long talk since then I have had with the man in the moon; he had my confidence on the voyage. Joshua Slocum
    28. Re:make a real camera please by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      That'd be pretty neat. It's kind of embarrassing to Apple as things stand with their cameras only being 3 megapixel, with a crappy lens, when there are 5 megapixel WinMo phones out there in a similar price range that also have a markedly better glass lens. 3MP with a crappy lens doesn't do all that much for me.

      Likewise, the screens on the iPhones. Compared to WinMo offerings, they're quite a bit lower res to what's available with a WinMo phone.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    29. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the OWLE

    30. Re:make a real camera please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake

      Heh: "The QuickTake cameras had a resolution of 640 x 480 pixels maximum (0.3 Mpx)."

      15 years later, iPod Nano adds a camera with a resolution of 640 x480! I know, not fair, but still, don't expect your flyin' cars any time soon.

    31. Re:make a real camera please by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative

      The main problem with DSLRs isn't scaryness, it's size and weight.

    32. Re:make a real camera please by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      The G11 isn't really quite as good as the price would lead you to believe. Go take a look at Four Thirds cameras that are just now coming on the market. A new, low end Nikon DSLR costs $450 at Target WITH lens (I saw one there yesterday) and blows the G11 out of the water.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    33. Re:make a real camera please by wisty · · Score: 0, Troll

      And every year, the MS OS boots slower.

    34. Re:make a real camera please by hazydave · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, you're suggesting Apple get into the business, and produce a few dozen lenses to go with their DSLR? If not, there's zero point in building a DSLR... not that Apple would be taken seriously.

      That's also not a market that Apple would be or should be interested. Keep in mind that over 80% of the DSLR market is owned by Canon (41%) and Nikon (40%).. they're the guys who make those dozens of lenses and accessories that make the DSLR worth the price in the first place. The rest is being sliced up between Pentax, Olympus (6%), Fujifilm, Sony (6%.. they're one of the big four in high-end video cameras... the bought up what was Minolta-Konica's SLR works), just recently Panasonic (they're one of the other major powers in high-end video cameras, along with Canon and JVC), and a few others in specialty markets (Leica, Ricoh, Hasselblad). Serious users aren't likely to buy a DSLR from an electronics company without years of proof in the business.. that's why some of video camera companies compete, but few of the other film or CE companies who make digital P&S models (Casio, Epson, HP, Kodak, etc).

      The global market for DSLRs in 2010 is expected to be a bit under 12 million units (that's an estimated 9% growth in DSLR shipments)... so that's 4.92 million Canons, 4.8 million Nikons, and 2.28 million left for everyone else to fight over. Do you really think that's an iPod-like market? Apple sells nearly twice that number of iPods... every MONTH.

      No, Apple's doing the right thing here... "embrace and extend". They made a decent MP3 player, but really made the sale by delivering the iTunes store. Lots of people make better MP3 players, so Apple pushed in photos, then video. Lots of people came out with better PMPs, so Apple added PDA function, and a phone. Now they toss in a "free" webcam (some prespective here.. this is a crappy, crappy camera for any serious use, but it's fine for the kids buying crappy Flip cameras and delivering video only for Facebook and Youtube) and push the iPod/iPhone as a gaming platform, taking on the Sony PSP and the Nintendo DS. That's the smart thing... that's a $1.00 camera added to the basic stuff the iPod already has. Not a couple of billion to develop a line of lenses no one will ever buy.

      Certainly, such "free" cameras will get better over the year, but the iPod is competing directly with the "Flip" and other web-cam + flash units, and to an extent with cell phone cameras. They aren't even close to being as good as a modern point-and-shoot model from Canon, Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, or many others. And they never will be.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    35. Re:make a real camera please by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      He can't answer. Someone with an assault rifle turned up to ask him why he was posting on /.

    36. Re:make a real camera please by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Are you allowed to bring in dedicated phone chargers that just happen to use the mini/micro USB port, or are they forbidden too? How about phones that charge using a dedicated charging port? Or are you simply not allowed to charge your phones at work?

    37. Re:make a real camera please by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 1

      If its a DSLR, it better blow a non-DSLR out of the water. I know there's better DSLR's, I was giving examples and SUGGESTED price points for high-end, non-DSLRs.

    38. Re:make a real camera please by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      Slapping "some proper optics" onto an iPhone would look very odd. I'm not sure how a 20 cm long lens with a base of 5 cm diameter and a weight of 700 grams would look on an iPhone, not to mention a 1.5 kg 70-200 2.8 lens.

      All joking aside, the lens is only one thing. Then you get to the size of the chip, AF speeds and obviously all image processing software needed for a good camera. There are solid reasons why DSLR's cost what they cost, and I don't think the iPhone or Apple will ever move in on that market. Snazzy point & shoot stuff I can definitely see Apple come up with though.

      Having said that, I wouldn't mind a GPS tagger inside my DSLR. :-D

    39. Re:make a real camera please by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more, but not for security's sake. A damn camera in a phone/ipod is:

      1) Useless due to the lack of quality.
      2) Useless due to the lack of speed.
      (1 and 2 illustrate why I don't touch anything but SLR's)
      3) A nuisance. Now I'm stuck with all of the trite and uninspired snapshots everyone and their uncle from 8 to 80 take and post on bloody FB all the time.
      4) Just another component that might get dirty/broken.
      5) More code to usurp the CPU/RAM or clutter the OS of the device in question.
      6) Another source of bugs in the FW of said device.

    40. Re:make a real camera please by FSWKU · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure, considering that probably most people who are willing to spend the money on a DSLR camera, WANT a DSLR. It likely wouldn't sell well enough to be viable as a product.

      If it were any other company, you would be correct. However, this is Apple. They would not only make it a viable product, but the Reality Distortion Field would ensure that everyone who sees it believes it to be the second coming of Christ in camera form. They would line up outside Apple stores days in advance for a CHANCE to purchase this mythical item. Then they would return home only to find out that the methods EVERY OTHER DEVICE uses for downloading the pictures to your PC is not the way here. No, they will be forced to use iTunes. And it will check the camera to make sure you are only taking "Apple Approved" images...

      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    41. Re:make a real camera please by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      So basically anything with USB or FireWire can't get in as well?

      You're mistakenly trying to apply logic to "security theatre".

      With modern technology, anybody who seriously wants to smuggle a camera or data storage device in for neferious purposes will find a way. Possibly an icky one. If the risk of covert recording/photography is that serious, they need to ban all personal effects, strip search everybody on entry and get them to change into their regulation disposable paper jumpsuits.

      Of course, that would be expensive and inconvenient - much better to make a big song and dance about canning the occasional poor sod who forgets to take their camera camera phone out of their briefcase.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    42. Re:make a real camera please by martinX · · Score: 1

      Given that I could see a bit of a CMOS wobble in both the Nano and iPhone footage (first clips), I don't think Apple is quite ready to take on Canon, Nikon et al. The sound was great in the nano, though. Love to have one.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    43. Re:make a real camera please by mrrudge · · Score: 1

      Heh, you sure sound bitter, did your only girlfriend leave you for someone with an iPhone ?

    44. Re:make a real camera please by Frools · · Score: 1

      Having said that, I wouldn't mind a GPS tagger inside my DSLR. :-D

      There are add-on thingies for that on some DSLR cameras

    45. Re:make a real camera please by maxume · · Score: 1

      I would guess that the USB camera can't go in.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    46. Re:make a real camera please by Karlt1 · · Score: 1
    47. Re:make a real camera please by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Nokia. Strap some proper optics to the Nokia Phone platform and you've got a killer product: photos automatically GPS tagged and seamlessly uploaded in the background to your photo library, with support via apps for any kind of online hosting, plus specialty stuff like time lapse or other artistic/scientific needs. Full HD video of course, perhaps even with wifi streaming to a TV for instant nostalgia. Price it to compete with entry level DSLR and they would capture a huge chunk of market share overnight. Maybe not the volume of the cell phone market, but great margins.

      See? What's special about Apple here? If we're allowed to make up products, then it would be great if Amiga were to release a new quad-core Intel machine with the latest NVIDIA graphics, with 8GB RAM, and priced the same as a netbook. It'll capture a huge chunk of the market share overnight.

      Aren't we such geniuses - why on earth aren't companies hiring us for our great ideas like these?

    48. Re:make a real camera please by nicksalt · · Score: 1

      I'd confidently say most people find it convenient to have a camera facility without having to carry an extra device, sorry for your situation though dude.

    49. Re:make a real camera please by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      You're allowed to bring personal electronics in to your work? Man, about the only electrical items we're allwed in are crockpots, coffee makers, and fans. Super strict where I work.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    50. Re:make a real camera please by highfidelitychris · · Score: 1

      What about a Flip HD camera is crappy? Have you ever used on or seen the quality you get for a device that fits easily in your pocket? I'm guessing you haven't.

    51. Re:make a real camera please by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Good god man, do you like work in area 51 or something?

      Even military places that allow civillians in can have this rule in place. I've had to leave my phone at the gate before.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    52. Re:make a real camera please by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      I'm Thinking the whole Nikon D line with an SDK and app store.

      think about it!

    53. Re:make a real camera please by marmoset · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'd considered buying a little Flip or low-end Kodak "Youtube-quality" camera for hobby purposes, but the little camera in the Nano is in the same ballpark as those, is much smaller, and gives me one less small gadget to keep track of in the airport or wherever.

    54. Re:make a real camera please by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 1

      I have to correct myself. Policy just changed today. Only personal electronics now allowed are AM/FM Radios and 1980's style four function calculators. Coffee pots, microwaves, and fans are provided by the company.

    55. Re:make a real camera please by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Yeah, working at gov't related sites is always interesting. I came to my present locked down job from a small liberal arts college where the boss was only concerned if he was getting complaints from the profs and secretaries. Such an easy job but man, no pay and no prospects. And a 60/40 female/male student ratio and a private beach. Those were the days.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    56. Re:make a real camera please by g0at · · Score: 1

      The iPhone, however is a synch [sic] to open

      By sheer coincidence, I just read this article today (via Gruber)

      (hint: you mean "cinch")

      b

    57. Re:make a real camera please by bjb · · Score: 1
      QuickTake? Gaahh... I borrowed one from work 14 years ago or so and took a bunch of photos with it. Glad to have them, but looking back now, the quality is HORRIBLE. The colors were right and all, but the pictures are so pixelated as to be almost a joke. Then again, I took most of the pictures as 320x240 because I couldn't stand taking only 8 pictures before reconnecting to the computer. (you could take 32 in the 320 mode).

      Still, it was a neat device for the time.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    58. Re:make a real camera please by moneymischief · · Score: 1

      Its interesting to know. financing a new business

  2. _Handy_ is very, very important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shot some impromptu amateur porn with one today, and all the important bits look fine. I'm 100% serious, the mood came upon us and it was handy. It's not 1080p, but as the old saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. :)

    1. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      Pictures or it didn't happen.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    2. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Tanman · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's really irritating when you refer to yourself as 'us' -- you are not Gollum, damnit!

    3. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Genda · · Score: 5, Funny

      He was able to capture his hand in complete fidelity...

    4. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll probably upload it a few places this evening. I'm completely serious. I don't know if /. will be cool with me posting links to porn sites, though, so I may just place it a few places and post some sort of keyword folks can search for to this thread.

    5. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Shot some impromptu amateur porn with one today, and all the important bits look fine. I'm 100% serious, the mood came upon us and it was handy. It's not 1080p, but as the old saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. :)

      If by "us" you mean "Mary Palm and her five sisters" -- as seems implied by "handy" -- it doesn't count as porn.

    6. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by WillyDavidK · · Score: 1

      Didn't you hear? The nano can't shoot pictures, only video!

      --
      For lack of a better signature...
    7. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by LearnToSpell · · Score: 5, Funny

      1,400,000 registered /. geeks are living vicariously through you. Don't fuck this up.

    8. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or his mistress in complete infidelity?

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    9. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      1,400,000 registered /. geeks are living vicariously through you. Don't fuck this up.

      Sounds like he already did.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    10. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by HisMother · · Score: 1

      It's Rosie Palm.

      --
      Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
    11. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're waiting, and ready, for you to justify your words.

    12. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by martinX · · Score: 1

      I know BD, SM, even CBT. But what's this "1080 Pee" you speak of?

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    13. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

      Surprised /. is still up, considering how many times this page must've been refreshed already...

    14. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palm pre..?

    15. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by gbarules2999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "My precious" just got a whole new meaning.

    16. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Go to Empornium, search for "e505"

      You're all welcome.

    17. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Hairy palm.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    18. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      Kudos for putting your... wait....

    19. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this the phone that automatically attaches photos to e-mails even when they are not wanted?

    20. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Is she OK with this?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    21. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. Pride in a job well done, and all that.

    22. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I'm going to look or anything...but wouldn't it be sensible to post that to a few other sites. Pride in a job well done and all that...

    23. Re:_Handy_ is very, very important. by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Good. Many women would disapprove, and far too many men wouldn't respect their disapproval.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  3. what is this "maybe" tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone please explain the point of tagging an article "maybe"

  4. The problem isn't optics its processsing power by Ormy · · Score: 2, Informative

    When it comes to taking video the limiting factor on video quality/resolution in a handheld device is almost always the processing power needed to encode said video in realtime, not the optics, which is why most phones with 5+MP cameras can save pictures at the full resolution of the CCD but videos are often limited to 640x480 at 25fps because that is all the processor can handle. For example my netbook with 1.3MP webcam takes far better quality videos than my sony ericsson phone with 5MP camera simply because it has the power to encode the video at a higher resolution in realtime. Of course if you have the storage space available to store the video uncompressed then its less of a problem but again we're talking a handheld device where storage space is by no means plentiful. And simply stuffing in a faster processor won't help because the power requirements mean a larger battery which means a larger device, and the whole point in these things is compact size.

    1. Re:The problem isn't optics its processsing power by dangitman · · Score: 4, Informative

      When it comes to taking video the limiting factor on video quality/resolution in a handheld device is almost always the processing power needed to encode said video in realtime, not the optics,

      Nonsense. The encoding part is becoming trivial with modern processors. But a tiny sensor and pinhole-sized lens will always be problematic. There's a reason that pro video cameras have big lenses and sensors. How do you do selective focus with a pinhole lens that puts everything sort-of-in-focus? You can't. How do you get low light performance with a lens that doesn't admit much light? You boost the gain electronically, ruining the picture quality.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:The problem isn't optics its processsing power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem isn't processing power, it's sensor readout speed. Most CCD or CMOS chips don't have a huge bandwidth, so even high-end cameras like the EOS 5D II are forced to use only a small portion of its millions of pixels (this leads to nasty artefacts like aliasing and increased noise). Also, on CMOS sensors you want to avoid using all the bandwidth for transferring video, because otherwise you get a significant rolling shutter ("jell-o") effect. Even good cameras like EOS 5D II have a huge jell-o effect at 30 fps, so this is really a big problem. This means you have to choose between a high-pixel count sensor geared towards still pictures, or a lower-pixel count sensor gear towards video. Given the "more megapixels is better" mentality, manufacturers will tend to go for the first route.

      Some new sensors are designed for very high bandwidth, but they're still expensive and reserved for professional video shooting.

    3. Re:The problem isn't optics its processsing power by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

      I like how this is modded informative when it's completely wrong, while the correction below isn't even modded.

  5. Has anyone stopped to wonder... by skyride · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its an MP3 player... Why the fuck does it have a camera on it?

    1. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its so it can be sold in Britain. Haven't you heard the new regulations yet? Absolutely everything in Britain must have a camera on it.

    2. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upskirt videos.

    3. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why does a phone have a camera??

    4. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not? Having a camera with you at all times is kind of nice, and building it into the MP3 player means you don't need to carry an extra gadget.

    5. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Well, why not?

    6. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Uhh, why not?

      These things have had photo and video viewers, calendars and contacts, etc for quite some time now. You may as well ask why phones have cameras. An iPod is a media-driven device, so it almost makes more sense to have it there than in a phone.

      On a practical level - your young children want music players, and they probably want cameras too. Why not have both, and not have to sign up for some onerous mobile phone plan.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by WillyDavidK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you have an mp3 player (or an iPod particularly), you probably also have a camera phone

      --
      For lack of a better signature...
    8. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by WillyDavidK · · Score: 1

      That was my exact first reaction. It doesn't make sense to me either..

      --
      For lack of a better signature...
    9. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. While they're at it, when is Apple going to release an iPhone with a built-in pocket pussy?

    10. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by khchung · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about, because people find it convenient?

      When you are already carrying a gadget around, with enough battery power, gobs of free memory available and enough processing power, is it that much a leap to put a camera on it?

      I assume you don't have kids, because if you do, you would know that parents (surprise!) like their kids and will take lots of pictures/videos of them if only they have a camera handy. Some parents take to always carry a small camera, and would appreciate if their iPod can take pictures so they don't have to carry another gadget.

      Personally, I found that after I got a phone with a camera, I took many more pictures. It is just like texting and sending email, you would never know how often people would do it until you give them the ability to do so easily.

      --
      Oliver.
    11. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by ProfM · · Score: 2, Funny

      Absolutely everything in Britain must have a camera on it.

      So my brand new Digital SLR camera must have a cheap-ass digital camera built in?

    12. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. However, your brand new set of Beer Goggles must have a camera attached. The same goes for that fishbowl you were just thinking about getting -- did you know just how dangerous goldfish really are? They're like the ninjas of the fish kingdom, hiding in plain sight to make us think they're harmless.

    13. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the world has decided putting videos of yourself puking on YouTube is the killer app for our modern technology.

    14. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I stopped to wonder why the fek the iPod touch doesn't have one.

    15. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Unless you are a little kid.

    16. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      It was an mp3 player. Now it's also a video player, radio, recording device, and video camera. Have you stopped to wonder what is wrong with adding functionality to this or any device? It's still as small as ever, the user interface hasn't been bogged down and bloated, and now it's got another use if you're jogging and feel the need to record a reminder or something. Better have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    17. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Its an MP3 player... Why the fuck does it have a camera on it?

      The ipod is just keeping up with cellphones. Pretty soon, it'll even let you make phone calls! Sure, the iPhone already does, but why not have the iPod do it as well?

    18. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by wisty · · Score: 1

      I have an iPod, and a cheap nasty Nokia phone. I want my MP3 to be fun to use, but I want my phone to actually work. Expensive phones tend to die after a day of use, which is just annoying.

    19. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by hao3 · · Score: 1

      the ipod camera doesn't take pictures, just video. yeah.. freakin' stupid.

      --
      "Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton
    20. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the world has decided putting videos of yourself puking on YouTube is the killer app for our modern technology.

      Oh, get off of your high horse. The whole world except you has decided that having fun is a great way of spending time. As for what's considered fun, well... *shrugs*

      I've had fun shooting impromptu videos of me and the girlfriend on holiday, going to the beach, playing with my nephew, etc. And then sharing it with friends, and the world as a side incident. Apple/YouTube enables this and I think it's great.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    21. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      True, but maybe Apple thinks it can compete with your camera phone in usability terms. If your phone camera is a pain to use but your iPod camera is easy to use, then you're going to reach for your iPod camera first.

    22. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that camera must also have a camera on it, which itself must have...

      Most people settled for arranging a few cameras in a loop so that they are all "on" each other.

    23. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by citizenr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Youtube generation. Too young to own a cellphone.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    24. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      Basically, they heard you like taking photos, so they put a camera in your camera so you can take photos while you take photos.

      Yeah, I know, kill me.

    25. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Little defensive, hey?

    26. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      Fine with me, my cheap phone does pictures (poorly) but not video.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    27. Re:Has anyone stopped to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How young do you think the Youtube generation is? 10 year olds have cell phones these days.

  6. How about some proper tests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actual comparable sequences would be nice. For example, the iPod Nano appears to be more strongly affected by rolling shutter than the other cams, but it's hard to tell because the motion is different between the devices. (Rolling shutter is when the pixels are not all read at the same time but one row at a time, without a fast shutter stopping light from changing the picture on pixels which haven't been read yet while other pixels are already fixed by the read-out. This causes a wobbling effect for up-down motions and skew in horizontally moving objects. More detailed explanation on Wikipedia.)

  7. firehose / whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it is before the story is on the main page...like maybe would should post this...

  8. With all that processing power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You'd think if the ipod had enough processing to encode video in realtime it'd be able to playback ogg and flac and theora. Oh well, no ipod for me.

    1. Re:With all that processing power by skyride · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      iTunes converts all music to AAC before actually putting it on the iPod. Its pure laziness on the part of apple not to add those codecs to iTunes.

    2. Re:With all that processing power by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      No it keeps mp3s, WAV, and Apple lossless in their native format.

    3. Re:With all that processing power by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Informative

      iTunes will play ogg and flac if you install a quicktime component for it. Just don't expect those files to work on the iPod. If there is enough consumer demand for ogg on the iPod (read: it will increase sales), they will add it.

      iTunes does no file conversion before copying audio files to the iPod if it is in a format the iPod can play - AAC and mp3.

    4. Re:With all that processing power by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Not MP3s.

    5. Re:With all that processing power by TSPhoenix · · Score: 0

      The iPod a dedicated chip(s) for the decoding of AAC/MP3/H264/etc which would lower power consumption dramatically and allow playback of media the iPod CPU couldn't handle at all. No doubt its going to use a similar dedicated chip to encode video. The iPod CPU simply wouldn't be fast enough to encode video, and even if it could it would slaughter battery life.

    6. Re:With all that processing power by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      The problem is twofold, for one, OGG/FLAC/Theora are niche formats, yeah, FLAC has its benefits, OGG sounds better than MP3 on lower bitrates and they are all patent free and are a breeze to work with on Linux. However, Apple wants control, proprietary formats give it control. Theres no real technical reason why Apple can't have iTunes on Linux, but they don't. Apple wants control so badly that they removed an app off the App Store because you could run Commodore BASIC code, yeah, Commodore BASIC, not Python or any major language, but Commodore BASIC.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:With all that processing power by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0

      The iPods decode in hardware. It's not laziness. Supporting Ogg would require redesigning the device and coding iTunes to be able to keep track of which device can play what. It might have to keep two copies of songs around too if you've got one iPod that can play Ogg and another that can't.

      All for something that 99.999999% of the customers would never notice or care about.

    8. Re:With all that processing power by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      MP3 might be technically proprietary, but it doesn't really give you a hell of a lot of control of anything.

    9. Re:With all that processing power by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      iTunes does no file conversion before copying audio files to the iPod if it is in a format the iPod can play - AAC and mp3.

      Depends on the iPod. On the lower-capacity iPods like the Shuffle, iTunes has an option to convert your high-quality audio files to 128k MP3s before putting them on the iPod so more can fit in a smaller space.

      If the re-encoding bit is just a module, it would be pretty easy in the future for Apple to re-encode anything in your iTunes as anything else you might need going into your media player, depending on what the codec flavor of the day is.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    10. Re:With all that processing power by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      While I agree with what you say, it would be possible for iTunes to re-encode the files on the fly as they go into the media player. It already offers that as an option when syncing high bit rate MP3s to smaller capacity iPods.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    11. Re:With all that processing power by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I suppose it could. It's still a pain, for no discernible gain. And synching is slow enough as it is.

    12. Re:With all that processing power by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      However, Apple wants control, proprietary formats give it control.

      First of all, there are no patent requirements for distributing AAC content. It is more free than MP3 in this regard.

      Second, although the codecs are patent-encumbered, none of these patents are owned by Apple. Some of the patent owners are Apple's competitors in the mobile phone market. I don't see how a proprietary format not owned by Apple gives them any control at all.

    13. Re:With all that processing power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is twofold, for one, OGG/FLAC/Theora are niche formats, yeah, FLAC has its benefits, OGG sounds better than MP3 on lower bitrates and they are all patent free and are a breeze to work with on Linux. However, Apple wants control, proprietary formats give it control..

      Newsflash: MPEG-4 is not proprietary. (MPEG-4 audio is what the iTunes store sells.)

  9. My impressions by dbet · · Score: 5, Informative

    I picked up a nano a couple days ago to replace an older one. The camera is kind of nice but I'm not sure it will get much use. The picture is very nice looking, colors seem okay both indoors and out, and motion is handled well. The "biggest" plus however is the size. The nano is so small I feel like I'm holding a credit card. I'm still in the market for a good case because the current ones out are pretty poor. A case should make it a bit less delicate.

    There is a tendency to cover the lens with your finger because the ipod itself is so small, but you eventually get used to holding it a different way. The microphone and speaker are also somewhat poor but they told you it would be.

    Overall it's very nice for its price, and the live-pause radio is a nice touch. The screen is also nearly the size of the one on the classic (same width, about 80% as tall) in case you want to watch podcasts or something. I've put some TV shows on mine, they play and look good. I wouldn't buy this however if I were looking for a camcorder primarily.

    1. Re:My impressions by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      I wonder if making singular devices do more and more tasks otherwise performed by individual is actually going to come back and hurt companies like Apple. Many people don't see the point of a camera in a Nano or a Touch, as they may also own a digital camera, a cellphone with a camera, or even an iPhone.

      I fear I'll wind up with every device I own having a camera, wi-fi, 3G and video playback that works acceptably, Yet I'll have no specialised devices that will do any one of these things very well.

      I can understand the advantages of consolidating tasks into a single device, but this may mean people end up buying less gadgets because of the duplication of features, and the high cost of that one. The price of an iphone at full retail buys you a basic gps-equiped cellphone that has a camera, a netbook and a digital camera.

      We're paying a high price for every new feature shoe horned into small shiny things, the expense of lacking in gadgets that do one thing really well.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    2. Re:My impressions by Joelfabulous · · Score: 1

      Try OtterBox cases. They're pretty much indestructible for all basic needs, airtight so dust and water stay out, etc.

      They have a 4th gen version out right now. The "Armor" version, the most expensive one, is the one you want if you're looking for something heavily durable. I have a 2nd Gen nano case and it's utterly fantastic. I've swam with it and everything.

      www.otterbox.com

      --
      Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
    3. Re:My impressions by hattig · · Score: 1

      Ease of use is a big issue. It takes a while to activate the camera on my phone, and the video quality is appalling. The nano appears to have reasonable video quality, and Apple won't have made it a PITA to use.

      However the digital camera in my phone is 3.2MP, which means it's still the obvious choice for stills (if I don't have a proper camera on me), and Apple recognise that in not having that as an option in the 0.3MP nano. Shame that Apple could source a widescreen camera though (852x480).

      I do have to question the extra cost of the camera on the nano though. I'm sure it's a cheap component, but the end user cost might be $10, and I'm sure many people would prefer to have that in their pocket.

    4. Re:My impressions by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      yeah and your solution?

      many devices,
      A big SLR camera, a nimrod style 1/2 kilo brick mp3 that holds a 1TB, 12 band mobile, 4" portable media player.

      Face it, there are many manufacturers, and if one decides to 'mutate' like evolution and make something different, then if it sells well, why not.

      Look at humans, they contain every known genetic trick in the book too.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  10. you can get that today by speedtux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple.

    Samsung, Nokia, and several other manufacturers already offer 5-8 Mpixel cameras with smart phone capabilities. They have automatic geo-tagging and automatic upload. You can get these phones with Symbian, Android, Windows Mobile, and (soon) Linux/Maemo. You can program them in C, C++, Java, and, in some cases, Python and C#. Samsung even has HD video.

    I don't see anything that Apple brings to the table. Apple's iPhone already costs more than twice than what those other phones cost, it's less capable, has worse battery life, can only be programmed in Apple-approved languages, and has severe restrictions on the kind of software you can write for it. And Apple's overall market share is small compared to Symbian.

    Price it to compete with entry level DSLR

    An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees).

    1. Re:you can get that today by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see anything that Apple brings to the table. Apple's iPhone already costs more than twice than what those other phones cost, it's less capable, has worse battery life, can only be programmed in Apple-approved languages, and has severe restrictions on the kind of software you can write for it. And Apple's overall market share is small compared to Symbian.

      The real question about the market share of Symbian is, how many Symbian users *want* to be Symbian users? Out of the ~%47 or so, how many of them actually break into their phone's full features beyond camera, music and phone? Given the rates of users who are regular bluetooth users versus users who aren't, I'd be surprised if even 10% of Symbian users are of the variety, "Oh this thing? It's the crappy phone Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/Tmobile gave me for free."

      An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees).

      I sure hope you're not citing a number that's not USD. In USD, the cost for an unlocked iPhone is $599.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:you can get that today by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Funny

      "An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees)."

      Really? Can you move some at that price? I'll supply them to you for $1200. That's $200 you get to keep, for each one.

    3. Re:you can get that today by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      PS: I don't know what the OP meant by "real camera" but the Nokia et. al. high res camera phones aren't real cameras. They're camera phones with an insanely mismatched sensor.

      Last time someone raised that point on here I put up a picture from a real camera sized to compare with his 5 MP Nokia shot. There was no comparison. Unfortunately I think I took it down.

    4. Re:you can get that today by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you checked, but the highest I've found it is 900$ for the 32GB, true it's still more than the Nokia 900, and it still competes with entry level DSLR, but your guesstimate is either "hey let's assume the GPB price will be the same in the US" or wild pulling out of ass.

    5. Re:you can get that today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a camera that acts like an iphone dock. You slide in your ipod touch or iphone into the spot where the normal camera LCD is. With simple software you can control the camera and easily upload photos or use storage on the touch instead of a memory card. Also, to solve the problem of aftermarket protection screens etc. have the plug articulate so you can flip it out and rotate it to whatever angle. Both for ease of viewing, and compatibility with pretty much any size/gen ipod/iphone

    6. Re:you can get that today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Break into the `full features' of Symbian?

      I tried hard to like S60 over the course of four years and two phones, but now have an iPhone 3GS. But even basic features like reading email messages that had been forwarded as attachment wouldn't work, and that was on a relatively high-end (for the time) business phone, the E61i.

      The N900 would have been a choice phone for me, but apparent Nokia Singapore isn't bringing it in... go figure.

    7. Re:you can get that today by speedtux · · Score: 1

      I sure hope you're not citing a number that's not USD. In USD, the cost for an unlocked iPhone is $599.

      AFAIK, there are officially no unlocked, no-contract iPhone 3GS being sold at all in the US. You can get them in Europe, and they cost about EU 950.

      I'd be surprised if even 10% of Symbian users are of the variety, "Oh this thing? It's the crappy phone Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/Tmobile gave me for free.

      I don't know of any US carrier that has "free" Symbian phones; the phones you're thinking of are Nokia's low-end dumb phones.

      The phones we're talking about here are phones like the E71, E90, N95, N86, etc. People who shell out hundreds of dollars to buy them know why they're doing it: great cameras, user installable apps, tethering, etc. The user interface on those phones is not as sexy as the iPhone, but in terms of capabilities and quality, they run rings around the iPhone.

    8. Re:you can get that today by speedtux · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you checked, but the highest I've found it is 900$ for the 32GB

      There are no unlocked iPhones officially sold in the US at all; what you're getting is either a gray market import or some kind of hacked phone or SIM workaround. Whether that's going to continue to work is anybody's guess.

      New, Apple-supported unlocked iPhones are available only in Europe (because it's the law), and they cost about EU 950 for the 3GS.

    9. Re:you can get that today by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're trying to suggest that you can get an unlocked iPhone for less (i.e., an original US iPhone that has never been locked, as opposed to an iPhone that was bought locked and then unlocked), please let us know where.

      The only original, Apple-supplied, unlocked iPhones I know of ship in Europe, and they are really expensive.

      (Of course, even at $600, a price bandied around here, they are still much more expensive than an entry-level DSLR.)

    10. Re:you can get that today by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Which is again, Euro prices tend to be roughly the same as US prices because taxes are counted before, not after as is don in Canada and the US, but point taken, although still.

    11. Re:you can get that today by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 0

      You realize that Nokia is just as bad as apple with vendor lock in? If you're looking for a phone vendor that's willing to bend over backwards for it's telco overlords, Nokia is it.

      Yes, you have user installable apps, but that's only if you're willing to hunt all over for apps or if your network provides it through their price jacked store.

      I don't know of any US carrier that has "free" Symbian phones; the phones you're thinking of are Nokia's low-end dumb phones.

      Right and wrong.

      Replace AT&T, Verizon, et al. with NTT DoCoMo, Vodafone, etc in other countries. In America, replace "free" with "cheapish." I'm still willing to wager that the large majority of Symbian users don't even know what Symbian is, or think it's some kind of extreme sex toy.

      Also, great cameras? I would compare a 5mp phone cam to a 5mp point and shoot any day and the PnS would win hands down.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    12. Re:you can get that today by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      Yes, you have user installable apps, but that's only if you're willing to hunt all over for apps or if your network provides it through their price jacked store.

      How is having multiple sources for your apps make it as bad as Apple for vendor lock-in?

      I don't need Nokia's approval, nor my carrier's approval for that matter, to download and install Opera Mini or GMail. If I want ringtones or new wallpaper graphics, I can just copy it to the phone. If I want games, there has always been several places I can buy them from at different places.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    13. Re:you can get that today by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm still willing to wager that the large majority of Symbian users don't even know what Symbian is, or think it's some kind of extreme sex toy.

      That's the Sybian.

    14. Re:you can get that today by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      I think the point you make is proven when we look at app sales and browser marketshare. Both cases where the iPhone kicks ass despite it's diminutive sales in global share.. The point being people buy the iPhone by choice, and get Symbian because it is cheaper- but never actually use the device.

    15. Re:you can get that today by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I just drop photos into iPhoto if I want wall papers, and i drop audio into garage band for editing then export as ringtone.

      What's so bad? Finding apps via google *sucks*. As an ex-WinMo user, finding apps is a PITA. App Store is a huge improvement. And I don't get raped in the ass by my telco for an app store.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    16. Re:you can get that today by indiechild · · Score: 1

      You obviously have different needs to the average user.

      As far as I'm concerned, Apple's iPhone is the only usable phone for me on the market. I'd been waiting for a decent phone for years. Now I finally have it: notes, address book, calendaring, email, SMS, all in one usable package. All previous mobile phones and PDAs I've had over the years have been average at best, and usability trainwrecks at worst. Samsung, Panasonic, Sony Ericsson, Dell Axim, Nokia, Palm: you were what I used and had to put up with, but no more.

      After the iPhone came out, we finally saw some decent usability in the smartphone market. I don't intend to buy a Pre or Android phone myself, but I'm glad that the competition is out there now.

      And I don't know where the hell you pay $1400 for an iPhone 3GS, even here in Australia they cost a lot less than that.

    17. Re:you can get that today by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get them in Europe, and they cost about EU 950.

      I think you'll find they're significantly less...

      -- Pete.

    18. Re:you can get that today by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The phones we're talking about here are phones like the E71, E90, N95, N86, etc. People who shell out hundreds of dollars to buy them know why they're doing it: great cameras, user installable apps, tethering, etc. The user interface on those phones is not as sexy as the iPhone, but in terms of capabilities and quality, they run rings around the iPhone.

      Can confirm this, the E71 runs rings around the iphone and is about half the price on our corporate plan, given the fact that Apple just broke exchange on the iphone and no-one is permitted to write a third party app to ensure that this cant affect the business I'd rather stick with the Nokia, even if it doesn't have the "cool" and "sexy" image, it does everything the business needs to for half the cost.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:you can get that today by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I just drop photos into iPhoto if I want wall papers, and i drop audio into garage band for editing then export as ringtone.

      It's amazing that most phones these days can do both of those things, without the need for third party apps.

      If I want to convert an mp3 to a ringtone, I'd rather just select it using my phone rather then have to use Mac only applications. Two of my last three phones have just used the mp3, the only reason my HTC Dream wont is because all ringtones must be .ogg (if its already .ogg then no worries) due to the licensing restrictions on MP3, but there's a tool that will convert them for me that runs on the phone (Ringdroid).

      Same with backgrounds, just select .jpg and use.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    20. Re:you can get that today by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      You do need Symbian approval, although they are more relaxed than Apple are. You can't load an application without signing it first. Free certificates are available, but they're tied to the device's IMEI number, you can't automatically generate them, and a message warning that you're running a developer version of your program is shown at install time.

      Paid certificates are available, but they're expensive and you have to adhere to a set of testing guidelines.

      None of this is as restrictive as Apple's regime, but it's not nearly as open as developing for a PC.

    21. Re:you can get that today by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a good idea to incorporate one of those into an iPhone?

      Gives whole new meaning to "putting your phone on vibrate only".

    22. Re:you can get that today by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      That's the Sybian.

      Is there an app for that ?

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    23. Re:you can get that today by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The real question about the market share of Symbian is, how many Symbian users *want* to be Symbian users? Out of the ~%47 or so, how many of them actually break into their phone's full features beyond camera, music and phone? Given the rates of users who are regular bluetooth users versus users who aren't, I'd be surprised if even 10% of Symbian users are of the variety,

      Er - who cares? Sorry, aside from you having no evidence for your speculations (where on earth do you pull stats like 47% from?), why is this a relevant or useful statistic?

      Presumably 100% of Symbian users wanted their phone when they bought it (well, discounting some unwanted gifts I suppose). If you're going to make claims about product satisfaction after that, you'll need to bring some hard evidence.

      "Oh this thing? It's the crappy phone Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/Tmobile gave me for free."

      Ah I see - I love how you twist the fact that other phones are offered free on contract, whilst the Iphone costs money, to be an advantage to the latter.

      Nothing is given for free - people still have to pay for the contract, so people will still make a choice as to which network to use, and which phone on that network to pick.

    24. Re:you can get that today by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The stats I've seen show Blackberry leading on browser usage, though browser stats are notoriously unreliable anyway. Even my mum who has yet to work out how to use the phone's address book, happily does web browsing on her bog-standard non-smart phone. But I bet it doesn't show up on these stats, either because it's not one of the branded browsers, or because she most likely only visits a few sites offered by the network's web portal (in which case, the phone's stats are penalised because the network makes it easier for people).

      The other big problem with mobile browser stats is that they completely ignore netbooks - e.g., it could be that most people who want to do large amounts of mobile browsing simply opt for a netbook, with the Apple fans going for the Iphone (because there is no Apple netbook). Do those browser stats include netbooks? No they don't. So therefore, the Iphone only looks good compared to casual users who don't want a netbook.

      Personally I use my phone's web browser, but because I'm not on it all day long, I probably don't make much of a dent in the stats.

    25. Re:you can get that today by speedtux · · Score: 3, Informative

      Symbian signing is pain, but the criteria for it are technical; it's not a question of whether anybody "approves", it's a question of whether your app passes a bunch of compliance criteria.

    26. Re:you can get that today by speedtux · · Score: 1

      The point being people buy the iPhone by choice, and get Symbian because it is cheaper- but never actually use the device.

      Sorry, but that's a ridiculous interpretation. If that were the case, people would only buy the most basic Nokia phones. But phones like the N95 and E71 have been big successes despite their high prices.

      (You're seriously trapped in Apple's reality distortion field.)

    27. Re:you can get that today by speedtux · · Score: 1

      That depends very much on which kind of model you use. Some models have a tiny sensor and lens, others have good optics and sensors. Most of them beat the iPhone's camera hands down.

    28. Re:you can get that today by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      47 percent was pulled from the world smartphone market share list.

      Presumably 100% of Symbian users wanted their phone when they bought it (well, discounting some unwanted gifts I suppose). If you're going to make claims about product satisfaction after that, you'll need to bring some hard evidence.

      How many Symbian users *know* what the hell Symbian is? If you follow the thread you'll see that the point is pretty well made, Symbian smart phones make up a good majority of the sales, but what about app sales? Web presence? Who's using these phones as more than just phones that have keyboards for ease of texting? You'll be surprised what features people will pay for with out thinking about the underlying OS or overall platform.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    29. Re:you can get that today by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      my last phone before I converted to the cult of iPhone let me upload jpgs, mp3s and other stuff through bluetooth

      Too bad it was a RAZR.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    30. Re:you can get that today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't looked at the exchange rate recently, have you?

    31. Re:you can get that today by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure. The iPhone camera is ALSO a crappy cell phone camera.

      Let's put it this way - back when SLRs were at 6 MP (not much bigger than that 5 MP Nokia), people looked at lenses that weighed many times what the whole phone weighs, were many times bigger than the whole phone, and cost at least as much as the whole phone and STILL couldn't produce 5 MP worth of resolving power.

      Some cell phone cameras are better than others but they're all still cell phone cameras.

      If you doubt it, go ahead, take a picture, post it on Flickr, post a link and we'll compare.

    32. Re:you can get that today by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Yeah but do they use the browser or download apps? Evidence suggests few do. Unlike Android and iPhone users.

    33. Re:you can get that today by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Er - who cares? Sorry, aside from you having no evidence for your speculations (where on earth do you pull stats like 47% from?), why is this a relevant or useful statistic?

      It's important because usage varies and markets can segregate. As far as this discussion is concerned, we're only interested in Symbian's value as a Smartphone/Computer OS. If only a small minority are interested in it's more advanced capabilities then that severely affects it's "market leadership".
      It's like counting the amount of embedded devices running on Linux when we're talking Windows vs. Ubuntu.

      And as for 47%, he was referring to Symbians market share in a 2008 poll: http://www.canalys.com/pr/2008/r2008112.htm

      Ah I see - I love how you twist the fact that other phones are offered free on contract, whilst the Iphone costs money, to be an advantage to the latter.

      I get the impression he was referring to the fact that they didn't choose a software platform but were merely interested in the device's functionality as a telephone.

    34. Re:you can get that today by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      All phone camera's I've ever seen are tiny plastic lens, cmos sensors. Are there any exceptions to this? I am intrigued.

  11. Meatballs and Mackerel by Mean+Variance · · Score: 2, Funny

    I got hung up on wondering who the hell buys canned meatballs in gravy and canned mackerel in brine.

    1. Re:Meatballs and Mackerel by P1aGu3ed · · Score: 1, Funny

      Probably not the same people who buy cheese in a can, dried deer, pigs testicles and other unsavoury treats the Americans adore so much.

    2. Re:Meatballs and Mackerel by pbrooks100 · · Score: 1

      As apposed to what? Limberger cheese, Haggus or durian? Maybe a nice handful of deep-fried grasshoppers or a plate of raw beef? Its just a name, but spotted dick certainly doesn't sound very appetizing.

      Any country or culture is going to have something 'unsavoury' to consume. I suggest you try eating crow...

    3. Re:Meatballs and Mackerel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      site.ru

  12. wow by TRRosen · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm really surprised how poorly the HD did. Motion was poor and close ups were horrible. You do see quite a difference in calmer shots however the HD really looks much better then. Looking at the price I can't see any reason to buy the regular mino however the HD is still better if your not doing action or close ups. wont replace a $400 sony but for something you can keep in your pocket 24/7 and you wont cry if you destroy/lose it does actually rock.

    many people have said that the mino would be better because it has a bigger lens but if you look closly at one most of that big round lens is superficial with the real lens being the same size as the iPods.

  13. Good test by sootman · · Score: 1

    And interesting that the Nano seems better than the iPhone overall, especially in closeups. But the real question is, which is best for shooting upskirts on Japanese escalators? My, uh, friend wants to know.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  14. I'd like to strap one on by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like to strap one on to my motorcycle helmet and record my trips. I could then report the assholes texting, analyze the moves, etc. Nano wold work a lot better, sizewise, than a mino.

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    1. Re:I'd like to strap one on by sl149q · · Score: 1

      See Oregon Scientifics ATC2K: http://www2.oregonscientific.com/shop/browse.asp?cid=6&scid=14 for a helmet mount camera that records to SD card.

      Not available yet, hopefully by next April... a "rear view" video system for bikes... from Cerevellum... http://www.cerevellum.com/

      Both should provide a way to capture video suitable for youtube bad driver exposes... and perhaps even for law enforcement to get interested.

    2. Re:I'd like to strap one on by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Just get a helmet cam; they're built for that.

  15. A perfect device for video surveillance by timholman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After seeing what the new Nano is capable of, I can't help but think how easy it would be to turn it on and let it just record your life for 8 or 16 hours at a time. It's so small that you could easily carry it in such a way that the camera lens would be exposed, but the rest of the Nano would be hidden.

    I've had plenty of incidents in my life when something interesting happens and afterwards I say "If only I'd had a videocamera with me." So now with the Nano, why not just record my entire day, download anything of interest, then start all over again the next morning? That way I'm never caught off guard. Anything I see, my Nano sees, and I have a permanent record.

    The new Nano isn't just an MP3 player - it is a very inexpensive and compact video surveillance device. For a lot of people it will be worth buying just for that feature alone. The only questions are how long the battery will last in video record mode, and whether the screen can be shut off during recording.

    1. Re:A perfect device for video surveillance by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know where you live, but the most likely places a geek is to live in the US all have pretty draconian 'wiretapping' laws which would make that activity highly illegal.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    2. Re:A perfect device for video surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting to see the hacks come out where people separate the camera from the body of the iPod to hide for peeping-tom videos. It's a super tiny $150 camera that records 8 hours of VGA video.

    3. Re:A perfect device for video surveillance by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've spoken about that before. That is the future. Everybody will record everything and upload a live geo-located video stream to the internet. Then people on the internet will be able to "watch the world" through a Google Maps / Google Earth style interface. Riot happening somewhere? Tune in and watch it from the eyes of a thousand spectators. Want to see if an event is worth attending? Tune in to the live stream of everyone there.

    4. Re:A perfect device for video surveillance by speedtux · · Score: 1

      In the US, you can take photographs and video almost anywhere you are (there are some exceptions for dressing rooms and toilets), in public or in private. All people can do is ask you to leave private premises. In a public place, anything goes.

    5. Re:A perfect device for video surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all but 12 US states it's legal to tape your own conversations without the other person's consent or knowledge. I don't believe there are any laws about taking pictures in public in America, except for "Private Places" like locker rooms etc (see here).
      So in summary, it would seem to be legal in most parts of America to record his day like he says.

    6. Re:A perfect device for video surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. you are wrong. most places in the US are just fine with it as long as _you_ know the recording is happening.
      leaving it in a room you don't own with the intent to record is a different matter.

    7. Re:A perfect device for video surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read Bruce Sterling's The Artificial Kid. Everything written is abound to become a part of reality at some point.

    8. Re:A perfect device for video surveillance by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Which gets to my point, exactly: those 12 states contain some of, if not most of, the larger IT areas in the US. If you're in IT...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  16. Can it read email? by flink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this a corollary to the old adage about software bloat: "a piece of software will gain features until it is capable of reading email"?

    "A piece of consumer electronics will gain features until it can take digital photographs".

    1. Re:Can it read email? by hao3 · · Score: 1

      it can't take photos, just video.

      --
      "Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton
    2. Re:Can it read email? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      They haven't finished yet.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    3. Re:Can it read email? by selven · · Score: 3, Informative

      Turning a 0.5 second video clip into a picture is trivial. Play the video, full screen, take a screenshot, save to whatever you want.

  17. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Mac user and I attest his claim!

  18. Stupid videos by hattig · · Score: 1

    I'm all for video reviews, but for the love of all that is sane, please provide an article with it for those of us who are reading at work or where video sucks (i.e., flash 10 was apparently written in sinclair basic running upon a sinclair ZX80 emulator, it's so damn slow whereas previous versions were acceptable on non-dual-core 2GHz+ processors).

    This also applies to the BBC News website - don't bloody replace articles with videos, please have the videos as an additional feature alongside the article.

    So, what were the conclusions? I saw a nano vs flip video yesterday, and the nano's quality was appalling in comparison, the flip had far better colour reproduction and massively crisper imagery.

  19. To capture terrorist activities and disasters by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    next time there is any major news event, or massive disaster, 1000 geeks and chicks will pull it out and record it and be on youtube, even before CNN says breaking news.

    or to capture that crime happening, it doesnt hurt to have a camera in every device, just incase.

    oh and there nano porn / upskirts too.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  20. Homer simpson by Alanis+Morissette · · Score: 1

    Mmmmm, mackerels in brine

  21. Running in circles by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Can confirm this, the E71 runs rings around the iphone

    Yes, just like a little child running around the more mature parent.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. How is that "insightful"? More like "wrong" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I don't know where you live, but the most likely places a geek is to live in the US all have pretty draconian 'wiretapping' laws

    Simply videotaping where you are would hardly run afoul of wiretapping laws - you would not after all be actually "tapping" anything, nor going to any lengths to hear or see anything you did not happen to be looking at anyway.

    The only issue would be some employers dislike of cameras in the workplace.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  23. You can, just not as good... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    How do you do selective focus with a pinhole lens that puts everything sort-of-in-focus? You can't.

    To be fair, you can, though admittedly it's not nearly as much DOF as you'd get with a camera that has a much larger sensor and you have to be pretty close to get much of an effect (portraits tend to suffer as you describe).

    How do you get low light performance with a lens that doesn't admit much light? You boost the gain electronically, ruining the picture quality.

    No arguments there.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  24. Wrong, supports Apple Lossless by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    iTunes converts all music to AAC before actually putting it on the iPod

    Not if you've already transcoded to Apple Lossless.

    Since transcoding to one lossless format (FLAC) to another involves zero loss in quality, I'm not sure I see the fuss here.

    The new iPod nanos support Apple Lossless, I'm pretty sure all of them have for some time now.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. Re:How is that "insightful"? More like "wrong" by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    If a cop or a parent notices you filming they will find a law to lock you up.

  26. Sup dawg by CrazeeCracker · · Score: 1

    Sup dawg, we heard you like taking pictures, so we put a camera in your camera so you can take pictures while you take pictures.

    --
    Of course I didn't RTFA.
  27. But does it brown the food...? by bodland · · Score: 1

    The Amana Radar Range did in 1970.

  28. So let it be written, So let it be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.eye.fi/apple/

    Slap this into your DSLR load up iPhoto and you've got yourself an iCamera.

  29. Re:How is that "insightful"? More like "wrong" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If a cop or a parent notices you filming they will find a law to lock you up.

    Like they do with every guy riding by on a bike with a helmet cam? Get real.

    People openly film cops all the time. It's only when they ALSO get in the cops face about things, that cops start looking for reasons to take you off to cool down.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  30. Wow by Magreger_V · · Score: 1

    Holy mackerel the Nano looks great!

  31. The 'real' camera? by Howkent · · Score: 1

    If someone need a 'real' camera, he(she) should get a DC or DSLR. If someone need a nano, just get used to with a camera. The camera of nano is so small, tiny, invisible... Xilisoft iPod Rip free to try http://www.111download.com/product/xilisoft-ipod-rip.html Xilisoft iPod Rip provides an ideal solution for you to manage, rip, backup, restore your iPod/ iPhone on personal computer.