Apple unveils redesigned, thinner iPhone 4 with two cameras - Page 12

Hmm... You could view the iPhone as a compromise. You cut your 5000 sings down to about 1000, or about 100 CDs rather than the dozen you used to take with you, and now you have everything portable on a single device with maybe not being able to immediately satisfy every single whim. When the space to carry an extra device isn't an issue or your feeling seriously eclectic, you just grab the big iPod.

I keep two devices sync'd now, my iPhone and the wife's iPad. I've never had any issues doing this. Each device has it's own profile in iTunes to pick and choose what you want to sync. For instance, I sync some videos to the iPad but no videos to my iPhone. The biggest headache in your case will be creating the playlists for the iPhone that will have your trimmed down music selection.

Agreed. I think people may be forgetting about all the 3G users that are going to upgrade. Those of us that got one in Summer 2008 are now within our upgrade eligibility. We have phones that have the original camera with no video, focus or zoom. We have no compass. We have shorter life batteries. And man, that interface is starting to feel slllowww. Count me in!

I think that Apple's sticking with ATT is two-fold. The first aspect of this is the exclusivity contract with ATT. I'm pretty sure that Apple has an option to break this exclusivity as I don't really see Jobs tying himself long term to a single service provider like this. I also don't think that Apple would have any problems at all with recouping the buyout cost, probably in the first week of launching the iPhone on Verizon, probably even just the pre-order sales alone would take care of this.

I really think the part that Apple is stuck on is the user experience. My understanding is that the Verizon CDMA network can't handle simultaneous voice and data communication. This is a significant limitation that doesn't exist on the ATT network and this is just the kind of limitation that would probably make Jobs stay away from Verizon.

Just my thoughts.

I really like your ideas here. My one real question though, is can you already do all of this via the existing camera connection kit for the iPad? I assume this will work on the iPhone also. I guess the big question is can you write your video/photos from the iPhone onto the SD card in the camera connection kit? Assuming you can do this it seems that you should then be able to plug this into the iPad and edit/display to your heart's desire. Obviously this doesn't take care of the charging/boosting part but it would be pretty nice if you could do everything else you described.

Huh??? Explain please... I thought one of the big features of iOS 4 was multitasking? Or are you in some way referring to multitasking related to the camera/flash in some way?

Of course its a "lot more complex than that." It also has to do with the Graphics IDE that the programmer is using -- so if they are using some color matrix transform or a 3D sprite -- those libraries are also passing color data.

32 Bit color or a 64 bit graphics library is important because it allows you to use different CODECs and Graphics with color tables at the same time without having to convert them to whatever the display is requiring. A lot of dithering has to do with the LED or OLED displays as well -- since the distance from one color to another can affect perceived color.

Apple's new display has pixels closer together without layers on top separating it from other colors and the display or another layer of coating. That gives you more luminance and also means a wider field of view, because once you are NOT directly in front of a display -- those differences in layers start blocking the light from pixels.

But even some of the 32 Bit laptop Displays Apple has given us in the past are dithering sampled colors. I'm anxious to view this new iPhone display -- it is likely the best available at ANY screen size and on any platform.

In a year's time? Keep in mind that books/text/etc. was a big part of the iPad sales pitch. And Jobs spent a good chunk of time during this keynote explaining why the Retina Display was better for text. It would seem pretty obvious to me that they would make a good combination. And as the prices come down in a year, Apple should be able to afford to put them into iPads.


Didn't the teardown show they had made room for a front-facing cam? I really can't see any reason why they would not do this next year.


I hate having extra accessories to lug around. A kit just to enable video conferencing? Nuts to that! I'll wait it out till next year.


Or I can just turn my phone into a wifi modem and drive my iPad off that.

Here in Canada, there's no phone that'll make me go back to what Canadians refer to as the "Big 3" (the three national carriers that carry the iPhone). Compared to the newer, smaller carriers entering the market, the plans are night and day. For $80 bucks on Wind Mobile you get unlimited nationwide talk and text with no time of day restrictions, caller ID, voicemail and unlimited data that you can tether with no extra charges. And that's their most expensive plan. The equivalent on the Big 3 would cost over a hundred dollars (they charge $30 for 1 GB and $80 for 6 GB) or even several hundred dollars.

The downside is that the new entrants use the AWS band (same as T-Mo USA) so no iPhone. However, because Wind allows unlimited data (they just throttle you after 5GB if the tower you are using is congested), I can use my Nexus One as a wifi hotspot (once Android 2.2 is released) and tether my wifi iPad to it. So the non-iPhone is the vital part of the equation here. It actually helps me use an iPad without incurring a new monthly bill.





I would dispute that. That's as it stands today where a Retina Display would have been horrendously expensive (or largely horrendous to Apple's profit margins). But that does not mean that'll be the case next year. If they keep the price the same and change the display and add the cam, how is it not more bang for the buck? We obviously know there will be some changes next year. The debate is about what those changes would be.

After seeing the iPhone keynote, I am convinced that the iPad screen will be changing next year. If only because it'll let Jobs get up on stage and trumpet how the iPad is now as good with text as e-ink and real print. He'll get to talk about how it's revolutionary and that students can now permanently junk their textbooks without worrying about eye strain. And the front camera is just a no-brainer to me. I honestly think that the only reason they left it out this year is so that they could add it next year.

You can do some of this with the CCK and the iPad (see below),

The CCK 30-pin adapter plugs into the iPhone 3GS, but it in "not supported"

The iPad app recognizes the file system on the connected SD card (it imports and deletes). You cannot write files to the SD card... and there are no public APIs that I could find! So, for now, this is off limits. I will put in a feature request, but I don't expect it to be accepted.

I suspect that the only way we'll get a BSC is for Apple or a major camera/storage company to build it.



With the iPad and an iPhone 3GS, the following works:


iPad---CCK USB---iPhone Cable---iPhone 3GS

1) Start the Photos app on the iPad
2) Start the Camera app on the iPhone

The iPad Photos opens an additional "Camera" tab and shows thumbnails of all existing images and videos in the iPhones Camera Roll

As you take additional pictures or videos they are added to the bottom of the display... This is quite nice, actually!

You can select any (or all) thumbnails and import them from the iPhone into the iPad.

After import, the iPad app gives you the option to delete the images from the iPhone.

Works almost like importing the iPhone camera rile into iPhoto on the Mac, only better.

I do not have another camera or videoCam that uses a standard USB connector, but I assume that most would work the same.


iPad---CCK SD---Camera SD Card

Same as above except using a SD card.

My videoCam, Panny HDC-SD1, takes stills and they import/delete just fine. However, the video is AVCHD (compressed) and is not recognized by the iPad. Support for AVCHD came late to the Mac (FCS and iMovie)-- so I am not surprised that it isn't supported on the initial iPad release. That said, it may never be supported as an 8 Gig AVCHD SD card decompresses to 40-60 Gig.

The ideal BSC box would have ports for all popular cameras and be able to decompress all sorts of video.

.

Number one seems a bit confused and I'm not exactly sure what point your attempting to make here. Number 2 seems a bit more specific but at the same time pretty general. Your description in #2 pretty much describes the expected update to any new model phone. Number 3 is just plain laughable.

As to your camera-like features... Are you serious? You are talking about serious camera features in a device that is first and foremost a phone. This isn't a camera that can make phone calls, it's a phone that can take pictures and seems to do a pretty dang good job of that. Personally, if I was to hire a photographer to take photos of an event or something and he whipped out an iPhone and said, "OK. I'm ready." My response would be to show him the door. The features you describe would probably have an audience of hundreds or possibly a few thousand and that just doesn't make any sense for this kind of device.

Now image stabilization would definitely be a nice feature and one that would make sense for the iPhone 4 camera. This would also be a truly advanced feature that could set the iPhone camera apart from the competition.

I'd be interested in some kind of iTouch-iPad connector (hardwired) -- so that its faster than wireless.

Real Video editing with the iPad/iPhone 4 would actually be awesome with some HD cameras -- many of which have either a hard drive or flash RAM -- the better units use FireWire.

The OTHER issue is going to be what CODEC the video camera uses -- some can be set to use Apple Compatible formats like "Apple Intermediate Codec" -- anyone serious about this, aught to wait and see what the compatibility lists turn up. That future Camera purchase probably needs to be with your iOS device in mind.

-- which I'm sure was on Apple's mind when they made some of these codecs available to product manufacturers. But too many of them like Sony, are using their own formats that make mixing cameras and codecs a pain.

I just had this conversation with someone -- who mentioned their hands are too shaky to use the iPhone as a video camera.

It all depends on what kind of Gyros Apple installed; if they are laser-light based, then it won't work -- but if they are mechanical gyros (that spin a disk very fast), then the Gyro's could be tweaked to spin faster when capturing video -- that's going to really help you hold your hand steady from incidental movement.

Software-based image stabilization loses pixels on the edges. The other option is moving the mirror on the image sensor to compensate for your hand motion -- which gets "OK" results.

>> It would be a good after-market add-on to have a SD card storage and mechanical gyro however to make video capture work well -- but seriously, the iPhone 4 is merely a novelty for video capture -- you'd still be better off using a dedicated camera for anything beyond just capturing something on the fly.

I have a couple of old Sony's that use micro cassettes-- I just tried the CCK USB and it didn't work.

My newer Panny uses SD, but the video AVCHD compression is not recognized, at this time, by the iPad.

The 30-pin connector is/was cabable of both USB and FireWire-- I have an iPod video that uses FW.

.

Naw. Just catch up. Other phones already have image stabilization.

For instance?

It's never just that simple. They could be doing image stabilization through software. Which isn't really a good way to do it. Or image stabilization through mechanics built into the camera. More mechanics adds to size and weight. Apple would likely wait until mechanical stabilization does not force them to compromise anything they currently have.

Just a heads up.
As we see the new IPHONE 4 ready to lauch, its nice to see all the new and improved features. And with all many of the upcoming features such as Facechat, NETFLIX, IMOVIE etc. it's obvious that we're going to need more data usage on this phone.
While almost everyone has barely blinked at AT&T's new data plans because most of it's 15 million customers are CURRENTLY locked in. I use the word CURRENTLY as most don't realize that at ant TIME AT&T could cancel that feature ( most likely 2 years from now) and the worst case senario is that you wouldn't pay the ETF. This is the first step in a large increase to the cost of cellphone service.
It's really shamefull that AT&T has taken this bold move when their service leaves much to be desired, The economy is in a recession , and a new IPHONE is just on the verge of release. SHOULDN'T AT&T FIRST IMPROVE THE SERVICE AND THEN ASK FOR HIGHER RATES????

What phones? A quick Google search shows several companies trying to sell IS modules for integration into phones, but no examples of actual phones with any kind of IS built in.

Too clumsy as a workflow concept...

What I'd want is a personal hotspot with a 500GB+ disk running something (linux, whatever) that can handle EYE-FI host software and act as a mount point for the iPhone and iPad. It should have a single USB port to either tether to a phone or use a USB 3G/4G modem.

This gives me:

• 802.11N access to 500GB of storage for the iPhone and iPad. I can either store pics taken by the iphone there or pull from there for editing on the iPhone or iPad.
• Unlimited storage for shooting over 802.11N for the EYE-FI card in the camera. The Eye-Fi Pro 8GB transmits RAW, JPEG and AVCHD directly to disk.

Having power is great but recharging too slow to be that useful. A USB port for docking/charging is more than enough but frankly, with a drive/wireless/3G it needs all the battery it has already.

I'm thinking about the size of two slim 2.5" drive enclosures stacked on each other. Half drive and half battery/connectors. Replaceable battery so I can carry a spare along with a spare for my main camera.

No other cables/ports needed or desired.

Couple of comments:

1) It can take up to a minute to establish a WiFi connection between the iPad and an iPhone 3GS.

2) There are several camera apps to use a WiFi connected iPad and iPhone. It takes about 19 sec to transfer a photo from the iPhone 3GS to the iPad.

3) Likely, video transfer would take a lot longer-- the current apps work with stills only.

4) During the transfer, both devices are unusable for other purposes

5) The above times should be better with the iPhone 4 (802.11n) but still would not approach a wired connection

6) I think that battery technology exists to provide a quick charge to top off device patters


UPDATE:

I took a 1 minute video with a 4MPx Cannon PowerShot. It took 25 sec to transfer this to the iPad via USB.


While I like the idea of WiFi, and HDD we start to get into cost/size/power tradeoffs.


Here's a pretty good article on workflow:

http://www.macworld.com/article/1519..._workflow.html

.

Re: Image stabilization...


Almost certainly, these are neither laser-based nor spinning disks, but MEMS gyros. These use a vibrating structure like a tuning fork, but at a microscopic scale, built on a chip. This is the same type generally used for other consumer applications, including DSLRs with optical image stabilization.

It will be interesting to see if Apple's video recorder (or a 3rd party app) will be able to make use of it for stabilization. I think this would be especially helpful for FaceTime!

However, another type of software image stabilization can be done by post-processing of the video, and this is already built into iMovie '09. This works surprisingly well with footage taken my ancient Digital8 camcorder!

I would not expect this to be built into the iPhone or included in the iPhone version of iMovie. It is so processor intensive, it would take forever and run the battery flat in no time. But you would always be able to take your videos and clean them up on the desktop.

I don't expect the iPhone to compete with a dedicated $800 HD video camera, but it will be comparable to the $200 Flip-type cameras. I've had my eyes on those for a while, but not any longer!

In an adhoc network that's probably true. My iphone connects to my various wifi networks quickly. I don't believe this to be an issue especially if the hotspot is already active and you've paired with it before.


It takes longer to walk over to manually connect to the USB as opposed to have the devices send pics/streams as you shoot them.

Unless you're constantly shooting the iPhone should empty itself without ever needing to dock. This is the whole concept of "endless memory" with the Eye-Fi Pro with it's 8GB storage that drains itself to your notebook. Takes 5 seconds for a 7MP photo to transfer.

http://www.amazon.com/Eye-Fi-Class-W.../dp/B002UT42UI

Heck, the thing will copy JPG directly to picassa or flickr if you want...although at 3G upload speeds don't expect a whole lot. I shudder to think how long RAW would take to transfer but uploading RAW is not supported at the moment anyway.

The act of hooking up vs over the air is an interruption of what I want to be doing. With this setup, my wife using the iPad can almost immediately see what I've been shooting with her iPad on the sidelines. And assuming there's a real wifi access point around even from the web.


Why? The camera app could be designed to stream to MobileMe, iPad, TimeCapsule, whatever if there is WiFi connectivity. Likewise, the iPad could be streaming in photos and movies as you look at other ones. As Apple apps there's no limit to the kind of backgrounding that can occur.

If you're wishing for an object that doesn't exist today anyway, you might as well wish a little higher and none of these are difficult things to do.


Except that you need to stop and make a wired connection whereas in a wireless environment you likely can just keep shooting. If you actually fill up a 32GB iphone you're probably using the wrong device anyway.


In this kind of usage its not likely a "top off" as much as a "OMG I went from full to 20% in half an hour"...


Eye-Fi Pro X2 is a 8GB Class 6 SD card with 802.11N wireless connectivity for $150. If I don't need RAW or AVCHD it's $50 cheaper. I don't see much cost/size/power tradeoff there.

8GB gives me about an hour of 720p/60 AVCHD Lite. A 32GB SSD isn't really enough to do anything with and a 128GB SSD costs too much. There is a size and power trade off but much cheaper cost wise/GB so I'm willing to take that hit for a 500GB HDD.

You already spec'd a "powerful" battery. I'd expect it to at least be the size of a 2.5" travel HDD anyway. Doubling the height is not a deal killer.

You've already ponied up for a $199+ iphone, $499+ ipad, $30/month data plan (or two), and some kind of camera...that probably isn't a $99 point and shoot.

If the thing costs around $299 (plus another $149 for the Eye-Fi) it's not a deal breaker if it does its job well.

I can do everything right now with camera, EyeFi and MB today. It'd be nice to dump the MB in favor of an iPad and a little brick that acts as a mobile TimeCapsule hotspot that can connect to the Eye-Fi.

Oh, heh...I'm clueless. Eye-Fi has an iPhone app that does the same thing. And it's free for Eye-Fi users (actually, only available for Eye-Fi users). And supports Picasa and MobileMe.

http://www.eye.fi/products/iphone

Boom.

Well, there's a whole crapload of APIs added to iOS 4-- graphics, heavy math, FFT, DSP... These appear to be well beyond the capability of the device... Who knows?

Since the early days Apple often would use custom DSPs and ASICs to provide special capabilities... it is quite possible that the A4 CPU has some of these things built-in...

Mmm... wouldn't that be something?


.

I have to agree here. I imagine that the next gen iPad won't be getting a display quite as nice as the iPhone 4 display. That said, have you seen the iPad display, it's pretty dang sweet. Unfortunately, I have found the iPad virtually unusable in bright sunlight. The screen also has some kind of polarization on it so it is completely unusable if you are wearing polarized sunglasses. Here's to hoping for a better screen treatment on the next version to make it a little more outdoor friendly.

Spectrogram for the iPhone does FFT with window size of 2048.

http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump2.cgi?ID=23060

A Cortex A8 has the NEON signal processing extensions so that's probably some of what you're seeing. So by default it's in the A4 since it's a Cortex A8 based design.

My main use for cameras is 3 grandkids soccer games in the middle of a park or at parties, graduations. Most often there is no WiFi available so 3G transmission would be really slow.

But even then, I don't have to walk anywhere to plug in a cable. I sit at center field with a chair/table-- so I keep my kit together When I get the 4G iPhone I will likely leave it USB-Cable connected to the iPad, with both sitting on the table or in my bag. With apps running on both devices, the thumbnails show up as pictures or videos are completed. So, all I need do is hit the home button each device (no walking, plugging or waiting).


I don't know yet (until I get the iPhone 4). Now, I seldom use the iPhone as a camera or videoCam. I Have a Panny videoCam that can get 3 soccer games (1 day's outing} on 4 8G SD cards, I shoot, more or less, continuously,

As for your 5 seconds... I just don't believe that! It takes about 15 seconds to transmit a 4 Mpx Still over USB, and 25 seconds to transmit a 1-minute video over USB-- I timed it!


Well, Raw is suppoterd, now, with the CCK!




Well... not quite ready for Boom, yet!

Have you tried the app yet?

It is rated poorly, and has some very bad reviews. e.g.: ...this app is really slow... ...to the point of not really working.

I downloaded and installed the iPhone, but I can't use it.

I guess I need to buy an Eye-Fi card before I can even try the app? Why?

Which one-- Eye-Fi doesn't have a card that supports any camera that I own!

Does that mean I need to buy new cameras to replace my current investment of several thousands of dollars?


I'd prefer to buy a $5 iPhone app that worked, rather than a $50 SD card that doesn't!


...Sorry, I know a bad deal when I see one...


No Boom... rather Splat!


.

Those are good to know!

.

Those other phones aren't as thin as the iPhone, either.

Here we go again with the endless feature parade.

Don't expect omega stabilization or an optical zoom any time soon - there simply isn't enough room.

They aren't raising their rates for the majority of users, they are lowering them. For the heavy users they are shifting to a more reasonable pricing model.

This has been long overdue. Fake unlimited was benefiting a small minority at the expense of the majority.

Not for me. Want to talk about clumsy - how does carrying around the extra batteries and chargers you would need for your solution by having power-sucking wifi instead of cables improve things?

I haven't seen a flat panel display yet that's completely useable with polarized sunglasses. They all go black at certain angles.

There are as many batteries as in the wired solution...wifi does suck some power but it's not all that much that you're making it out to be. The MiFi lasts 4 hours and is a bit thinner and smaller than the iPhone.

So we're talking about something about the same size as a iPhone 3G and about 4 times as thick to fit in a single 2.5" 500GB drive, battery and electronics to act as a fileshare and connect to Eye-Fi like devices. Call it 6 hours battery life as a design goal that is rechargeable via USB. Depending on your design aesthetic you can allow replaceable batteries or not.

Single brick, no cables except a single USB when charging or using an smartphone for tether.

For bonus points it also acts as a iTunes server for the iPad/iPhone and a MSRP of $200-$300.

If you can get around 7MB/sec transfer speed on 802.11N that's probably pretty good for a little device and good enough for most things.

Consider this:

Most smart phones and laptops, can barely sustain 6 hrs of continuous use (regardless of the manufacturer's claims).

Yet, you have a similar-size device with constantly running WiFi, a constantly spinning HDD. constantly running Cell radio... and somehow this, new device will have a magical battery with a goal of 6 hours?

You'd be lucky to get half that! (But it would, likely, keep your bratwurst warm).

Further, using slower WiFi would suck battery at both ends of the transfers.

Say you have a videoCam that fills 8 GB in 40 minutes of continuous shooting. How long does it take both devices to exchange that file over WiFi vs over any wired connection.

And please address the issue where both devices are unusable (for other purposes) during the long transfer, while both their batteries are being sucked!

The idea is interesting but I don't think technology is here, today for camera. WiFi, your WiFi aggregator, to do this in a practical way..

The closest thing I can think of is tethering a laptop with the iPhone over WiFi- it really sucks...

.

The device provides the local wifi hotspot. 3G is only required if you want to upload to the cloud.

Like I said above, if you can get around 7MB/sec transfer rate that would be pretty decent.


So essentially, it's not mobile. I tend to walk around the sidelines to get shots.


Your described use case has the iPhone 4 as a secondary camera. I tend not to shoot video for the whole game but take photos and occasional video clips. If I were stationary like you I'd simply pop the SD card into a Netbook or Macbook.


It's what was posted in a review. It seems a little fast so I googled some more for you.

"After transferring several photos on my wireless network, it became clear that the Eye-Fi card is great for transferring a few shots you just took to your computer. That is, it isnt terribly fast if youre trying to dump 2GB of photos onto your computer. In that case, you will likely want to take it out and use a card reader.

Taking the average size of a 10MP image from a Nikon D80 set to JPEG normal, which is about 2MB, and dividing that by the ~15 seconds it takes to transfer each image I can calculate that the approximate transfer rate is 135KB/s. As this was from wireless access point 2 floors below me, I can imagine a throughput speed of up to 250KB/s being attainable. If you have an Eye-Fi card, I would be interested in hearing how fast images transfer for you."

http://paulstamatiou.com/review-eye-...ss-2gb-sd-card

"Performance

The table below shows a quick comparison of transmission times for single images using three different cameras. Transmission began between three and five seconds after taking the image and as you can see on average achieved around 200 KB/sec (1.6 MBit/sec), we did manage to max out at 300 KB/sec by placing the camera on top of the access point.

Camera\tMegapixels\tAverage time\tKB/sec
Nikon Coolpix S700\t12 MP\t9 sec\t210 KB/sec
Fujifilm FinePix S8000fd\t8 MP\t15 sec\t210 KB/sec
Canon PowerShot A570IS\t8 MP\t16 sec\t190 KB/sec"

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/eye-fi/page2.asp

Given that this is a review in 2007 of the old cards with 802.11G and not the current cards with 802.11N I'd say that while 5 secs is a little high, 10 secs for a 8 MP pretty reasonable to expect 3 years later.


RAW and AVCHD is supported to the laptop...just not to Flickr or Facebook. That seems okay.


The device seems highly regarded. It'll work well for the way some folks shoot and not as well for others. But if you want quick preview on your laptop without pulling the SD card or connecting a cable it works pretty well.

As a concept I prefer a wireless movie stream from video camera to iPad vs connecting with cables.


Can't. Don't have a Eye-Fi yet.


It has almost as many 5 stars as 1 and many 1 stars were for features folks wanted and it didn't have (like being able to see Eye-Fi photos on the iPhone as opposed to just transferring photos from the iPhone).


It's a freebie for their customers. You don't buy an Eye-Fi card to get the app but because you want an Eye-Fi card.

However, it doesn't mean that you cant write a good app that wirelessly transfer photos or streams movies from the iPhone 4 to the iPad.


No. It simply means that the Eye-Fi isn't for you.

However, the concept of a wireless workflow as opposed to a wired workflow still has more merit moving forward in my opinion. If you can do almost everything you want today with CCK that's great.


Doesn't work for you doesn't translate doesn't work for anyone.

The point was that a wireless device is better than the same device with only a 30 pin dock connector because it allows untethered workflow and actually is more useful overall.

A device the size of 4 iphones that has 500GB storage, acts as an iTunes server, file server and wireless hotspot (with or without 3G connectivity) fills the desires of not just photographers but many other users and allows our mobile devices to actually stay mobile.

The ability to store photos from little devices like Eye-Fi is just one of many niche applications that serves a particular user community.

Why not? 6 hours has to be taken with the same grain of salt as Apple's claims for 10 hours for the iPad.

It has to be able to last about as long as your other devices. So if they are all spec'd to go 4-10 hours and run out after 2-5 hours and you can manage around 3-4 hours of real world use it works out.

How long does your camera last on one battery shooting continously?


I'd be happy with 3 hours of continuous heavy use.


Show me a use case where it really matters? If you really have 8GB of data to transfer and immediately use then yes, you should use a wire.

The use cases you postulate only involve a subset of the video and it doesn't matter at the moment because there's no native AVCHD playback on the iPad yet.

If we're talking about stills or clips the file sizes are much smaller than 8GB.


I don't have to address that because it is simply not true.

Is your iPhone unusable for data because you're on the phone? No. Can your iPhone transfer files while you do something else? Yes. You do this every time you get mail, messages, apps over the air while doing something else with your iPhone or iPad.


Except that folks are doing exactly this today with their Eye-fi SD cards over WiFi to laptops.

Not for 8GB worth of continuous AVCHD or RAW shooting but its the same basic technology as the Nikon WT4/WT4a transmitter used for pro shooting wirelessly to disk...for a lot less than the $800 the WT4 cost which is about what the Canon wireless system costs.

For $150 it's mostly for geared for casual and lower prosumer users. 10 seconds for a 10MB RAW file is adequate (6 mbps) if there are any breaks in your shooting.


I use WiFi daily. No, I'm not expecting to push 8GB over the air in an instant but even eSATA takes a little while. I'm not sure where the iPhone comes into play here. We're not talking 3G speeds but the average transfer rates for 802.11N.

You may think that sucks but it's faster than most folks' broadband and I can watch streamed 720p video from Vimeo over it.

That's a big IF-- sustained use aggregating several devices over several hours.

Since I can't plug it into a power outlet, it is mobile. I tend to stay in one place, but sometimes walk around for better shots. I leave the chair and tripod behind, have my camera bag over my shoulder (batteries, memory cards, lenses), my Cannon Powershot, in its case, on a wrist strap. And the Panny videoCam in my other hand. If I had your WiFi aggregator, it would likely go in the camera bag.



If the iPhone 4 is good enough, it will replace my Cannon, in the above scenario. I tend to shoot continuously, following the action, or an interesting formation. Later I cull the shots for highlights, etc.

I don't bring a netbook or a laptop... just wallet, keys, iPhone and camera bag (chair and tripod)

So, I have nothing to pop the SD card into.

I tend to be out for 6-12 hours resulting in 3 hours of video. So a good part of the time is free time.

I would like to use some of that free time to cull and select the video-- especially highlight a great play.

I have tried both FCS and iMovie on a laptop-- doesn't work for me.

If the iPad version of iMovie supports AVCHD, I am good to go. If not I will:

1) See if the iPhone 4 camera with 5x (intelligent) digital zoom is good enough.
2) Investigate other videoCams that have similar features to the Panny, but support iPad compatible codecs.

What I'd really like the ability do is capture a short clip (like a football play), suck it into the iPad, then immediately telestrate it (for the coaches/players at break time).

In soccer, like other sports, you can often see a play forming and anticipate where the action will be-- it only lasts a few seconds, but the clip is priceless.

The iPhone 4 USB-connected to the iPad, may be as close as I can get. With the connection in place, and apps running on both devices, the thumbnail appears on the iPad less than a second after the iPhone stops recording. It takes a few more seconds to suck in the video. If I have to, I will write an app that allows you to telestrate a movie clip. Lacking that, there other ways to accomplish [almost] the same thing.


I have a 4 MPx Cannon Powershot-- it takes 15 seconds for a 4 MP image over USB-- I timed it, so I tend to believe it.

Now you want to replace a wired USB connection with something half the speed, at best. And, you expect better performance... It just doesn't make sense.

.

I have 4 batteries for the Panny-- each rated at 83 minutes. These, and 4 8 GB SD cards get me through a long Saturday of 3 games. Kids soccer games vary in length from 60-70-90 minutes. depending on the age group. So, 4 x 83 == 332 minutes of battery to cover 220 minutes of play, some practice and team shots. The batteries tend not to last 83 minutes-- starting stopping, etc.

So, 3 hours of heavy use wouldn't do it for me.


The use case is for a given short clip (or clips) that you know are gems right when you shoot them-- i want to suck those in immediately and telestrate them.

The other use case is the dead time, out and about, between periods and games. I want to start the culling/editing process then, rather that spend many hours after a really long day.

A given game may yield 10 or 15, 2-3 minute highlight clips. It would be great if I could create and post a couple of these after each game to TeamPages or YT. Soccer is very big in our circle!

The AVCHD thing is an issue... if the iPad doesn't support it I will look to the iPhone 4 or another videoCam as a substitute... or just wait for technology... there's always next season!

.

hello

every one

some creeps hijacked my profile for 10 yrs

well i am back

for ten yrs i was all alone w/ no tech at all

and sitting here in times sq new york i see this new phone from apple

looking over my shoulder is dick tracey

we both can't comprehend this slab at all at all ? l

live streaming video phone calls .... >>??

and dick just spoke to me and said wake up the beatles are dead and my wrist watch can now do what i said it could all those movie yrs ago

still i must be sleeping or dead

apple value has passed msft ??

and my son can video me with what is what from a million miles away

dick won't stop shaking me thou
wake up wake up

im gonna go back to sleep now
im gonna crawl back to that island




the future just punched me on the face

ATT looks better every day

the word wow just called me and said this device is now what explains me

QOQ

WOW


9


GO APPLE

A4 chip supports UP TO 32gb. I was disappointed, too - but not much to do about it.