according to a new york times review, the wifi is pretty much useless since it can only communicate with a computer less than 100 feet away which has special software installed. (ie: it can't send pics straight to the net)
according to a new york times review, the wifi is pretty much useless since it can only communicate with a computer less than 100 feet away which has special software installed. (ie: it can't send pics straight to the net)
how does that make it useless. what were you expecting to achieve with WiFI?
Can someone explain to me why a camera should use WiFi instead of bluetooth? I mean, what if my home wireless network is set up to use high encryption (e.g. AES) for internet traffic, which a digital camera is not likely to support? Doesn't that mean I need to change my network setting just to transfer pics to my computer?
I have not played with these gadgets so if someone can explain that to me...
Can someone explain to me why a camera should use WiFi instead of bluetooth? I mean, what if my home wireless network is set up to use high encryption (e.g. AES) for internet traffic, which a digital camera is not likely to support? Doesn't that mean I need to change my network setting just to transfer pics to my computer?
I have not played with these gadgets so if someone can explain that to me...
Speed.
But I really don´t really see the idea at all. Not before it takes real advantage from being on the net.
Serve a small http interface a la some routers. Share your camera with the rest of the world. Let you/those you let/anybody take pictures from a browser. Imagine the surveillance world we could live in with that
I hope Wireless USB (WUSB) will start to take off, I'd love having no connections to my PowerBook for cameras or external hard drives. If (when) WUSB comes, they should do a convertor hub; plug 4 (or whatever) USB cables in and they are broadcast using WUSB, that way all our old hard drives and cables can be wireless.
Comments
Originally posted by His Dudeness
I think Kodak had them beat.
Me too.
Originally posted by mynamehere
according to a new york times review, the wifi is pretty much useless since it can only communicate with a computer less than 100 feet away which has special software installed. (ie: it can't send pics straight to the net)
how does that make it useless. what were you expecting to achieve with WiFI?
That is what it will take to get me to buy a wifi camera.
even if you have to be in the room with the computer, transfering the photos wirelessly is pretty sweet
I have not played with these gadgets so if someone can explain that to me...
Originally posted by JCE10
Can someone explain to me why a camera should use WiFi instead of bluetooth? I mean, what if my home wireless network is set up to use high encryption (e.g. AES) for internet traffic, which a digital camera is not likely to support? Doesn't that mean I need to change my network setting just to transfer pics to my computer?
I have not played with these gadgets so if someone can explain that to me...
Speed.
But I really don´t really see the idea at all. Not before it takes real advantage from being on the net.
Serve a small http interface a la some routers. Share your camera with the rest of the world. Let you/those you let/anybody take pictures from a browser. Imagine the surveillance world we could live in with that