iCamera theory...

pendrake

So, I was talking to my dad the other day about digital cameras, and how they're finally coming of age.



The problem with digital cameras, as I see it, are the same problems that existed with MP3 players.



For example - most cameras can only take a few pictures at high resolution (although some will add more memory with "smartflash" or various flash-like media). <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



Also, most of them have SLOW USB connections (it takes forever to load images, and often crash Windoze PCs).



So then I went on about the iPod, how it was a really cool solution, also acted as a firewire harddrive, etc.



Digital cameras are pretty simple. CCD capture, small (tiny) LCD for display of images, memory, an USB connector.



What if they took all the guts of the iPod (harddrive, firewire, easy interface) added the camera elements, and made an iPod Camera?



It could autosync with your iPhoto software for organizing, and it would have enough harddrive space so that you could take it on trips (a major drawback of existing digital cameras). People would even accept a slightly larger form factor (big enough for the HD and camera electronics).



If it was reasonably priced (~$3-500 USD for something in the 3-4 megapixel range) I think these would go like hotcakes.



I think there is even room for a consumer version Sweet (1-2 megapixel, 5 GB HD, $3-500) and professional version Sweeter (3-5 megapixels, 10 GB HD, $7-900).



This would coincide in January with the release of:

iPhoto - categorizes, burns, removes red eye, etc.

LCD iMac - doubles as screen saver photo album

Photoshop X - power of professional photo development on your desktop, get $100 discount when you buy a Sweeter iCamera.



Thoughts? Am I smoking something, or does anyone else think this would be a good idea?

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

steve's brother

Well Pendrake, I do believe you are getting warmer...

pscates

Wasn't the word out that the iPod was to be the first of several digital devices from Apple? Or did I hear that wrong. I don't know.



But yes, actually that would be kinda cool now that I think about it. Although, it's getting back to those days when Apple was doing cameras, scanners, printers, etc.



Is that good or bad? I don't know...I'm asking.



But you have to keep it a one syllable, quick catchy name after the "i". No "iCamera"...too long and too obvious.



Instead:

iClick

iLens

iSnap

iPic

iCam



Remember:

iMac

iBook

iTunes

iPod

iMovi...oops!

iTools



[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>

ender

With such a hub-like name as the iPod, I feel that it's FireWire connection will be the key to any new iDevices.



Just as you wouldn't get a peripheral without the computer (think: hub), the iPod will be the prerequisite to the other iDevices.



For instance:



You want to get the "iCamera" (hopefully they wouldn't call it that). It has a firewire out connection, but very little or no internal storage (I'd say none, but who knows). The way it's useful is to have an iPod in your pocket with the FireWire cable connected and you can shoot away.



Of course, now that I think about it, it seems very awkward to use such a setup, so they will have to remedy that. But you all get the idea... I don't think that many of these upcoming devices will stand on their own like the iPod.



Of course, I love my C-3000 Zoom... USB SmartMedia card readers are fast enough for me.



-Ender

moazam

Not to knock anyones ideas, but I dont buy this "new devices which will use the iPod for storage" thing. To connect a new small device, such as a camera to the iPod, requires a cable. People have been talking on AI about all these little add-ons for the iPod, but they need to realize that it will screw up the whole "Simplicity" aspect of the iPod and 'i-devices'. Cables are messy.



From a marketing standpoint, its not necessarily wise to make a device which will cost about $300-$500+, which depends on ANOTHER device that costs $399 (iPod), which in turns depends on yet ANOTHER device which costs $800-$1500 (computer).



Make the camera, make it connect via firewire to a Mac. I need to buy a digital camera soon, and have been looking at a Sony DSC-P30...but I'd much rather buy something that Apple may come out with (just because I think it will probably be better).



-Moazam

lgnome

...The way it's useful is to have an iPod in your pocket with the FireWire cable connected and you can shoot away...Of course, now that I think about it, it seems very awkward to use such a setup, so they will have to remedy that. But you all get the idea... I don't think that many of these upcoming devices will stand on their own like the iPod.



__





Maybe your onto something here. Could this be the use of Gigawire? Wireless connection between iPod and a camera or other device?

cpac

[quote]Originally posted by Pendrake:

<strong>

The problem with digital cameras, as I see it, are the same problems that existed with MP3 players.



For example - most cameras can only take a few pictures at high resolution (although some will add more memory with "smartflash" or various flash-like media). <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



Also, most of them have SLOW USB connections (it takes forever to load images, and often crash Windoze PCs).

</strong><hr></blockquote>



I don't think would really be all that great of an improvement. I've got a Canon S110, and the thing is pretty close to ideal for my uses. Takes plenty of pictures (64 at highest resolution, more if I bought a bigger CF card) Yes, it'd be nice if it were FireWire, but USB is still relatively fast, and ImageCapture makes it incredibly easy to download everything (and rotate and create custom icons and all that). About the only thing missing is a red-eye fixer.



Also, I dont think "1000 photos in your pocket" (actually it'd be closer to 5000) is nearly as appealing as 1000 songs.



HOWEVER, according to various rumours (I'm sourcing AtAT here) Apple & Palm have been working "closely" on a number of projects. Thoughts on what those could be?

parvulesco

I really don't see Apple getting back into the digital camera business. Digital cameras are NOT simple; it requires enormous engineering resources to design one well, and I can't see Apple settling to re-brand a digicam made by some other manufacturer. Let Canon, Olympus, and Nikon do what they do so well, and work with them to make OS X the best operating system to use with a digital camera, but don't overextend the company and try to compete in too many areas.



I do agree, however, that Firewire is a far better interface for digital cameras than USB, particularly with the ever-increasing size of digital camera images. Those of us that have had the luxury of using a Nikon D1 can attest to that.

anders

As I understand it the picture chips in video camsare off-the-shelf parts and lenses aren´t that expensive either so what should hold Apple back from building something like this around the `Pod?:







The iPod have already a programmable OS, storage and FireWire and they could let it interface with iMovie just as smoothly as the iPod/iTunes.



The catchline: It has no tape! Everything get taped to the HD and if you want to actually USE your footage then you use the build in Superdrive in your new iMac(real)DV (summer 2002).



Off course I can see problems with not having tape and I do not actually think Apple would make an iDV but what do you think about the technical side of it?

anders

PS:



- How many minutes DV is 5 GB? 10 GB? (yes I know its twice!)



- Don´t you transfer the footage from the DV cam now before working with it in iMovie? I wouldn´t need to that with iDV

pendrake

Well,



I think one of the reasons they came out with the iPod was to push FireWire a bit. USB has taken off since they came out with it, but FireWire has only a couple useful apps currently (external HD, VideoCameras, and now iPod).



Since very few PCs have FireWire, it shows off the power of the Mac. A FireWire camera would be similar (and yes, with a 5 GB HD there is no reason it wouldn't be able to do quite a bit of Quicktime based DV recording).



In fact, now that I think about it, if you could keep the same form factor, the DV aspect of the device would make it awesome. Just think - a DV recorder you can fit in your pocket, automatically syncs up pictures with iPhoto, video with iMovie. I could see the teenagers loving it.



FireWire is the must here. I fully expect GigaWire to be simply FireWire @ 800 Mb (and faster), and besides video Apple needs to show off the value of this technology.



I think if they were to intro the technology with the idea, not so much of competing with established players, but in creating the market, getting good profits for ~1 year and getting out. I'd be really shocked to see an iPod in a year at sale on Apple's website that is nothing more than what they currently have.

slacker

I can't remember for sure, but I think my ancient QuickTake 200 is a rebranded Sony (or someone else). I like the idea of re-entering the camera business, but only if it's a quality camera!!! I think it would have to double as a DV camera and not just a photo taker, this would fit in with iMovie and iDVD.



I think the best option would be an inexpensive camera (with memory cards) only with firewire and long battery life. You give it video out capability through the firewire port and advertise that you can hook it up to your ipod to film quicktime movies, your mac directly as a web cam, or you can buy our new portable firewire drive that hooks up directly to the camera (a snap together deal) to turn it into a DV camera.



Something along those lines, plus you could hook up the portable drive to your iPod for added storage (multi-purpose).



Cool (in my opinion) but probably won't happen.



[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Slacker ]</p>

bozo the clown

If Apple wouldn't build it. They'd get someone like Canon to build it and slap an Apple logo on it.



If they do it, it would a la iPod. Great with features that no other camera has, but be expensive as all hell.

xmoger

[quote] I think the best option would be an inexpensive camera (with memory cards) only with firewire and long battery life. You give it video out capability through the firewire port and advertise that you can hook it up to your ipod to film quicktime movies, your mac directly as a web cam, or you can buy our new portable firewire drive that hooks up directly to the camera (a snap together deal) to turn it into a DV camera.

<hr></blockquote>

Something like <a href="http://www.archos.com/us/products/product_550011.html"; target="_blank">this</a>?

mandricard

Why do you need a cable? What if the camera had some kind of flip-out firewire male connector that sat nicely on/in the iPod? (It could potentially have a female socket for connection to one's Mac as well. Perhaps a "cable" that was all of one inch long might do the trick-- a male-male connection.



The question becomes driving software, and how complicated that is to negotiate. I think firewire handles it nicely, but correct me if I am wrong.



I would hate to think that my iPod, despite its beauty and utility is an only end in itself.

:cool:



Mandricard

AppleOutsider

moazam

It not just the cable. Cables are messy, but so is the idea of having so many devices interacting together to do one simple function, such as a camera.



Again, it does not make sense for users to buy 2-3 devices to do a simple function.



-Moazam

murk

One problem with my Sony DSC-P1 is it is so slow writing to the Memory Stick that you cannot take rapid fire photos. You have to wait between each. This is a bummer, especially with kids. They're always do the cutest things the second after you shoot the photo! The hard drive might help with this.



P.S.- Don't forget that Apple actually pioneered the digital camera.

vinney57

Im sorry but there is NO WAY Apple will be releasing a camera. Digital cameras are not simple things anymore. They are mature sophisticated devices and there are hundreds of them out there at every price point. The Sony 707 is a stunning piece of kit that blows away the best efforts of Canon, Nikan, Minolta etc in the pro-sumer market. What could Apple possibly bring to the party that would compete with that?



You are thinking from the wrong angle; the aquasition (spelling, sorry) side of digital media is well taken care off; its the PRESENTATION side that still sucks and that's where iPod's future lies.



[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: vinney57 ]</p>

vinney57

By the way the rapid fire speed of a camera is a function of the amount of onboard RAM not the speed of writing to memory card (which is of course dog slow)

michael grey

I have to agree with vinny. The iPod -- which has a processor, a HD and a sort of OS -- is basically just a computer. Cameras are a very different animal than computers. It would really be a stretch for Apple to get into real, mid-to high-end digital photography. I don't see it happening.



More likely (or maybe just my wishful thinking) is for Apple to make a simple webcam. I've said this before but I think a firewire webcam bundled with some simple video-conferencing software (iCon?) would be a great selling point for iMacs. Kids love 'em.

smircle

Originally posted by Michael Grey:

[quote]I have to agree with vinny. The iPod -- which has a processor, a HD and a sort of OS -- is basically just a computer. Cameras are a very different animal than computers. <hr></blockquote>



Uhm that true for digital cams? They are computers build around a lense and a CCD after all...



[quote]More likely (or maybe just my wishful thinking) is for Apple to make a simple webcam. <hr></blockquote>

There are loads of cheap webcams out there and USB is sufficient for the quality they offer.



I'd love to see Apple use the iPod platform (that is the HD and the electronics and the Pixo OS) to create different gadgets. An iCam ($800), a movie viewer and maybe even a sub-computer which would be operated either by keyboard or pen.



But thats a very unlikely scenario I guess.