Polaroid went bankrupt because instant photos became useless. If you want instant photoprocessing now, you go to a printer. PDAs and DVD players were hot last Christmas, but this year I think digital still cameras will be hot. I dont know if I want Apple to try for this arena though. They basically need to rebrand someone else's cameras. That might not be possible.
Eugene, I agree with you. Maybe it's just that I would like to see a camcorder like that from X brand.... but then again, I never thought Apple would produce an mp3 player and the certainly improved upon the current offerings. DV Camcorders have yet room to grow technology wise... maybe a Sony iHandycam would do with an Apple / Quicktime logo inside.
Actually Polaroid went into bankruptcy because of a large debt they failed to pay down many years ago. The iZone sold more cameras than any other in history but the company just went in the wrong direction, selling fad-like products to teenager, rather then using their techology to enter the digital age. They were too late in that respect. But the company still owns a new non silver photographic printing process that when it comes out will blow the socks off anything now available. Ink-jet prints will not last and they'll start fading in a year or less. Professional photographers need Polaroid prints to check lighting, exposure, etc. Polaroid was the first really high tech company of the 20th century. They did things in photography that the "experts" said were impossible. Anyway, an Apple digital camera using the latest technology will be coming out, you can bet on it. There's room for improvement, particularly in the ease of use area and Apple is best at doing that (the iPod being a prime example.)
I don't think Apple should get in the camcorder business. And I hope this rumor is not true. In my opinion, they should just focus mainly on making the best computer hardware and OS possible.
A HD based digital camcorder adds little to the camera's value and useability, but subtracts a lot:
Battery Life: A 2.5 inch, 30 GB, 4200 rpm drive is going to drain a battery quickly because it will be spinning constantly while recording. Couple that with a 2.5 inch LCD display, and life will less than an hour with a typical camcorder battery. Apple could use a large cache like the iPod, but how large in a DV camcorder? A gig for 5 minutes?
Storage: 30 gigs is not a lot if you think about it, really. One gets a little over two hours of film time then I have to dump to an iBook--assuming that I have enough room on it? Must I take my PowerBook with a FireWire array to Europe for a month's holiday?
Even if it were 100 gigs, it would be just large enough to be a pain in the ass for the simple reason of archiving. I keep EVERYTHING. What I haven't used in one iMovie I might use in another. I've rarely overwritten a miniDV tape because it is cheap, effective, catalogable storage. I can buy a four pack miniDV tapes at Costco for $25 equalling 52 gigs of storage. I have amassed over 1.3 terabytes of DV clips which constantly grows. I'd need 275 or so DVD-Rs to back-up all this stuff. Until affordable arrays at pennines to the petabyte happen--a dv tape is the best solution. (Off topic: This my argument to those who want a Tivo device in the next iMac or whatever: Do you really want to eat up your HD space with a season of Enterprise?
Good arguments there scottiB. You have nailed it right in the head. I stand corrected. Current HD technologies are no replacement for cheap linear sequential tapes for both video acquisition and archiving.
Maybe the real transition will be from MiniDV tapes to some sort of DVD-Ram camcorders in the distant future. That way one would get direct access on cam and its media would eventually become inexpensive enough for video aquisition and archiving.
A Superdrive in every Mac is a step in the right direction anyway. Someday (Year 2008) this technology should come down in price as to replace tape technologies once and for all.
scottiB, this is where the iPod comes in. In my vision, though have an iPod as a separate pod/piece of the digital camcorder, it has its own battery. It's a bit clumsier, but eh...It's be a nice novelt feature...and it wouldn't be necessary...just a luxury.
Battery life really isn't that big of an issue since you can buy huge ones for camcorders these days. Digital camcorders have had moving parts for ages. If you're going to be recording to HDD, you won't be using the tape. One set of parts will stop moving...battery life won't decrease significantly.
Storage. We're not talking about DV stream here...or even MPEG-1. I would be thinking low/med bandwidth MPEG-4.
---
MacsRGood4U, using Polaroids to check lighting and exposure settings? Digital cameras can't do this? So what if inkjet prints don't last? Polaroid instant photos were not only inflexible, they were pretty low quality vs 35 mm, and they weren't that cheap. Using an inkjet for digital photos isn't the only solution, it's just the quickest solution other than using the LCD to view the photos you've just taken. You can still have this photos developed onto film. What do you think they could have done to adapt?
[QB]So what if inkjet prints don't last? Polaroid instant photos were not only inflexible, they were pretty low quality vs 35 mm, and they weren't that cheap. Using an inkjet for digital photos isn't the only solution, it's just the quickest solution other than using the LCD to view the photos you've just taken. You can still have this photos developed onto film./QB]<hr></blockquote>
Another good point is that the pics will last FOREVER on a HD... no fading, no degrading, no water damage... (well, to a point...)
I've done some rather extensive research on camcorders lately as i anticipate having to replace my old, failing Hi8 with a digital camcorder. I really don't want to buy one now since I'm anticipating the following course of evolution...
1. Solid state recording.
1 GB flash is now availabe albeit pricey at $1200 (512 mb costs less than 200, however). Sony just released cams that encode in MPEG-2 instead of the fatter DV format. Although they still use tape it is not a big leap to use flash allowing for near 30 minutes on a 1 GB flash card which suites most purposes. When 1 GB flash gets below $100 this will really take off. And better compression formats might hasten things a bit. Also, solid state recording adds a lot of battery life.
2. Integration of camcorder and hi-quality camera functions.
Going to solid state exclusively and eliminating the need for tape simplifies design and reduces costs. The next major consumer demand is for a device that does it all. No 1 megapixel still crap, but a single camera/camcorder that fits in your pocket, competes with the best still digitals, and lasts all day.
3. HD-DV Cam
Yep, by 2006 everything is supposed to be HDTV and 16:9 will be expected (not the fake black bar widescreen that current cams employ).
As for Apple doing any of this, I doubt it. The iPod is a computer type product and Apple's engineers were familiar with what it would take to make a really compelling one. But Sony, Canon, etc... are the DV experts and Apple should stick to what they know. I think Apple must integrate TV & PVR into macs to be competitive, but I don't think they have to do a dig cam.
I REALLY hope this does not happen I would rather have a HQ digicam/camcorder and a separate Mp3 player/PDA/Phone all in one device... the camera should be separate... For a camera, the smaller the better... you cant capture the memory if you dont have your camera. all the other things are not essential to producing content. they just spit it back... IMO there should be one MEGA-device for getting input and one MEGA-device for getting output. both as small as possible...
I REALLY hope this does not happen I would rather have a HQ digicam/camcorder and a separate Mp3 player/PDA/Phone all in one device... the camera should be separate... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. But feature bloat is inevitable once the major demands (small size, better picture, solid state, good stills) have all been met.
After this the only real revolution I can imagine that would get my interest is if they minituarized them down to the size of a a pair of glasses and you could just walk around filming stuff all the time and edit it later. Of course, at this point we're really talking about wearable computing.
what if Apple were to use their Offline RT format to record movies? I'm not sure if they could even do this. but if they could then incorporate that into iMovie as well then it could really give Apple that extra edge big time in camcorders
Comments
- Mark
- Battery Life: A 2.5 inch, 30 GB, 4200 rpm drive is going to drain a battery quickly because it will be spinning constantly while recording. Couple that with a 2.5 inch LCD display, and life will less than an hour with a typical camcorder battery. Apple could use a large cache like the iPod, but how large in a DV camcorder? A gig for 5 minutes?
- Storage: 30 gigs is not a lot if you think about it, really. One gets a little over two hours of film time then I have to dump to an iBook--assuming that I have enough room on it? Must I take my PowerBook with a FireWire array to Europe for a month's holiday?
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: scottiB ]Even if it were 100 gigs, it would be just large enough to be a pain in the ass for the simple reason of archiving. I keep EVERYTHING. What I haven't used in one iMovie I might use in another. I've rarely overwritten a miniDV tape because it is cheap, effective, catalogable storage. I can buy a four pack miniDV tapes at Costco for $25 equalling 52 gigs of storage. I have amassed over 1.3 terabytes of DV clips which constantly grows. I'd need 275 or so DVD-Rs to back-up all this stuff. Until affordable arrays at pennines to the petabyte happen--a dv tape is the best solution. (Off topic: This my argument to those who want a Tivo device in the next iMac or whatever: Do you really want to eat up your HD space with a season of Enterprise?
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: scottiB ]</p>
Maybe the real transition will be from MiniDV tapes to some sort of DVD-Ram camcorders in the distant future. That way one would get direct access on cam and its media would eventually become inexpensive enough for video aquisition and archiving.
A Superdrive in every Mac is a step in the right direction anyway. Someday (Year 2008) this technology should come down in price as to replace tape technologies once and for all.
Thanks for your post.
Battery life really isn't that big of an issue since you can buy huge ones for camcorders these days. Digital camcorders have had moving parts for ages. If you're going to be recording to HDD, you won't be using the tape. One set of parts will stop moving...battery life won't decrease significantly.
Storage. We're not talking about DV stream here...or even MPEG-1. I would be thinking low/med bandwidth MPEG-4.
---
MacsRGood4U, using Polaroids to check lighting and exposure settings? Digital cameras can't do this? So what if inkjet prints don't last? Polaroid instant photos were not only inflexible, they were pretty low quality vs 35 mm, and they weren't that cheap. Using an inkjet for digital photos isn't the only solution, it's just the quickest solution other than using the LCD to view the photos you've just taken. You can still have this photos developed onto film. What do you think they could have done to adapt?
[QB]So what if inkjet prints don't last? Polaroid instant photos were not only inflexible, they were pretty low quality vs 35 mm, and they weren't that cheap. Using an inkjet for digital photos isn't the only solution, it's just the quickest solution other than using the LCD to view the photos you've just taken. You can still have this photos developed onto film./QB]<hr></blockquote>
Another good point is that the pics will last FOREVER on a HD... no fading, no degrading, no water damage... (well, to a point...)
1. Solid state recording.
1 GB flash is now availabe albeit pricey at $1200 (512 mb costs less than 200, however). Sony just released cams that encode in MPEG-2 instead of the fatter DV format. Although they still use tape it is not a big leap to use flash allowing for near 30 minutes on a 1 GB flash card which suites most purposes. When 1 GB flash gets below $100 this will really take off. And better compression formats might hasten things a bit. Also, solid state recording adds a lot of battery life.
2. Integration of camcorder and hi-quality camera functions.
Going to solid state exclusively and eliminating the need for tape simplifies design and reduces costs. The next major consumer demand is for a device that does it all. No 1 megapixel still crap, but a single camera/camcorder that fits in your pocket, competes with the best still digitals, and lasts all day.
3. HD-DV Cam
Yep, by 2006 everything is supposed to be HDTV and 16:9 will be expected (not the fake black bar widescreen that current cams employ).
4. The kitchen sink
Mp3 player, phone, GPS, PDA, squirrel snare, etc..
As for Apple doing any of this, I doubt it. The iPod is a computer type product and Apple's engineers were familiar with what it would take to make a really compelling one. But Sony, Canon, etc... are the DV experts and Apple should stick to what they know. I think Apple must integrate TV & PVR into macs to be competitive, but I don't think they have to do a dig cam.
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>4. The kitchen sink
Mp3 player, phone, GPS, PDA, squirrel snare, etc..
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I REALLY hope this does not happen I would rather have a HQ digicam/camcorder and a separate Mp3 player/PDA/Phone all in one device... the camera should be separate... For a camera, the smaller the better... you cant capture the memory if you dont have your camera. all the other things are not essential to producing content. they just spit it back... IMO there should be one MEGA-device for getting input and one MEGA-device for getting output. both as small as possible...
<strong>
I REALLY hope this does not happen I would rather have a HQ digicam/camcorder and a separate Mp3 player/PDA/Phone all in one device... the camera should be separate... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. But feature bloat is inevitable once the major demands (small size, better picture, solid state, good stills) have all been met.
After this the only real revolution I can imagine that would get my interest is if they minituarized them down to the size of a a pair of glasses and you could just walk around filming stuff all the time and edit it later. Of course, at this point we're really talking about wearable computing.