1) It can take up to a minute to establish a WiFi connection between the iPad and an iPhone 3GS.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
4) During the transfer, both devices are unusable for other purposes
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.
Quote:
5) The above times should be better with the iPhone 4 (802.11n) but still would not approach a wired connection
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.
Quote:
6) I think that battery technology exists to provide a quick charge to top off device patteries
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"...
Quote:
While I like the idea of WiFi, and HDD we start to get into cost/size/power tradeoffs.
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.
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!
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...
I'd like those features too... but, ttthink about it for a minute:
1) A large Retinal Display would be very expensive and require lots of RAM just to hold display pixels
2) An iPad with a front-facing cam would be OK if you had a vertical stand or KB dock, but little use otherwise (a rear-facing cam would be clumsy to use on the tablet form factor)
3) The $29 CCK (Camera Connection Kit) allows you to directly connect the iPhone and the iPad (when needed) to give sight to the iPad and storage and processing power to the iPhone.
4) You can tradeoff $ and convenience for time and interconnect the 2 devices via WiFi
Apple is very exacting about what features and capacities it puts into a device-- and even more exacting about what it leaves out. A large Retinal Display and a camera just wouldn't deliver enough utility (bang for the buck) on the iPad.
.
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.
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?
.
Spectrogram for the iPhone does FFT with window size of 2048.
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.
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.
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).
Quote:
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.
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!
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.
Well, Raw is suppoterd, now, with the CCK!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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.
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.
SHOULDN'T AT&T FIRST IMPROVE THE SERVICE AND THEN ASK FOR HIGHER RATES????
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 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.
I haven't seen a flat panel display yet that's completely useable with polarized sunglasses. They all go black at certain angles.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
Quote:
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).
So essentially, it's not mobile. I tend to walk around the sidelines to get shots.
Quote:
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,
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.
Quote:
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!
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 isn?t terribly fast if you?re 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."
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.
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.
Quote:
Well, Raw is suppoterd, now, with the CCK!
RAW and AVCHD is supported to the laptop...just not to Flickr or Facebook. That seems okay.
Quote:
Well... not quite ready for Boom, yet!
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.
Quote:
Have you tried the app yet?
Can't. Don't have a Eye-Fi yet.
Quote:
It is rated poorly, and has some very bad reviews. e.g.: ...this app is really slow... ...to the point of not really working.
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).
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
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...
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.
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?
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?
Quote:
You'd be lucky to get half that! (But it would, likely, keep your bratwurst warm).
I'd be happy with 3 hours of continuous heavy use.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
And please address the issue where both devices are unusable (for other purposes) during the long transfer, while both their batteries are being sucked!
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.
Quote:
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..
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.
Quote:
The closest thing I can think of is tethering a laptop with the iPhone over WiFi- it really sucks...
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.
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.
That's a big IF-- sustained use aggregating several devices over several hours.
Quote:
So essentially, it's not mobile. I tend to walk around the sidelines to get shots.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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 isn’t terribly fast if you’re 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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!
Comments
Couple of comments:
1) It can take up to a minute to establish a WiFi connection between the iPad and an iPhone 3GS.
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.
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.
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.
4) During the transfer, both devices are unusable for other purposes
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.
5) The above times should be better with the iPhone 4 (802.11n) but still would not approach a wired connection
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.
6) I think that battery technology exists to provide a quick charge to top off device patteries
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"...
While I like the idea of WiFi, and HDD we start to get into cost/size/power tradeoffs.
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.
http://www.eye.fi/products/iphone
Boom.
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!
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'd like those features too... but, ttthink about it for a minute:
1) A large Retinal Display would be very expensive and require lots of RAM just to hold display pixels
2) An iPad with a front-facing cam would be OK if you had a vertical stand or KB dock, but little use otherwise (a rear-facing cam would be clumsy to use on the tablet form factor)
3) The $29 CCK (Camera Connection Kit) allows you to directly connect the iPhone and the iPad (when needed) to give sight to the iPad and storage and processing power to the iPhone.
4) You can tradeoff $ and convenience for time and interconnect the 2 devices via WiFi
Apple is very exacting about what features and capacities it puts into a device-- and even more exacting about what it leaves out. A large Retinal Display and a camera just wouldn't deliver enough utility (bang for the buck) on the iPad.
.
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.
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?
.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
Well, Raw is suppoterd, now, with the CCK!
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... 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!
.
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.
Those are good to know!
.
Naw. Just catch up. Other phones already have image stabilization.
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.
SHOULDN'T AT&T FIRST IMPROVE THE SERVICE AND THEN ASK FOR HIGHER RATES????
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.
Too clumsy as a workflow concept...
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 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.
I haven't seen a flat panel display yet that's completely useable with polarized sunglasses. They all go black at certain angles.
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?
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.
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...
.
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.
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.
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).
So essentially, it's not mobile. I tend to walk around the sidelines to get shots.
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,
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.
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!
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 isn?t terribly fast if you?re 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.
Well, Raw is suppoterd, now, with the CCK!
RAW and AVCHD is supported to the laptop...just not to Flickr or Facebook. That seems okay.
Well... not quite ready for Boom, yet!
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.
Have you tried the app yet?
Can't. Don't have a Eye-Fi 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.
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).
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?
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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?
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?
You'd be lucky to get half that! (But it would, likely, keep your bratwurst warm).
I'd be happy with 3 hours of continuous heavy use.
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.
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.
And please address the issue where both devices are unusable (for other purposes) during the long transfer, while both their batteries are being sucked!
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.
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..
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.
The closest thing I can think of is tethering a laptop with the iPhone over WiFi- it really sucks...
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.
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.
That's a big IF-- sustained use aggregating several devices over several hours.
So essentially, it's not mobile. I tend to walk around the sidelines to get shots.
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.
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.
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.
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 isn’t terribly fast if you’re 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.
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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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!
.
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
Also why no 64gb option? The iPod Touch has had that for ages now. 32gb seems awfully small these days.
A4 chip supports UP TO 32gb. I was disappointed, too - but not much to do about it.
A4 chip supports UP TO 32gb. I was disappointed, too - but not much to do about it.
Am I missing something? A4 in iPad supports 64GB.