Apple 'iCam' now more possible?
According to MacNN Kodak just released a 4MP digital camera for under $400.
Bearing in mind this thing has USB etc already, it shows Apple could do a 4MP firewire model for under $500, and maybe less if iPod was used as its storage.
I'm not sure it would be a good move, but I'd buy one if it existed.
Bearing in mind this thing has USB etc already, it shows Apple could do a 4MP firewire model for under $500, and maybe less if iPod was used as its storage.
I'm not sure it would be a good move, but I'd buy one if it existed.
Comments
So what Apple would have to make was a 4MP chip, lenses et al., at least 5 GB drive and firewire port.
So that would be the Kodak plus firewire plus 5 GB hd
That is (my realistic estimate) $400+$25+$300+Apple tax = at least $800.
Andrew
<strong>I don´t think Apple would let one peripheral be dependent on another.
So what Apple would have to make was a 4MP chip, lenses et al., at least 5 GB drive and firewire port.
So that would be the Kodak plus firewire plus 5 GB hd
That is (my realistic estimate) $400+$25+$300+Apple tax = at least $800.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too much isn't it?
I'd guess they could use the IBM 1Gb CF HD (!) instead, as in all honesty nobody needs 7500 pictures in the camera.
4MP + 1Gb + Firewire for $500 maybe?
However, I currently own a Canon Elph S100 and S300, both of which use CompactFlash cards. These cards aren't that expensive, and on the Elphs, a 64MB card can hold nearly 100 pictures at the highest possible resolution (1600x1200). I can get a 256MB CF card quite inexpensively, and I could put hundreds of pictures on that. So the question you end up asking is, how many pictures do I need to store on my digital camera?
To further evaluate this, let's look at the film camera is a metaphor for a digital 'iCamera'. This is based on my personal experience as a documentary photographer of too many years ;-). I'll usually go out with about 4 - 6 rolls of film, shoot them, and go back to the darkroom to process my film and print contact sheets. With a digital camera, it would seem the same sort of process would apply. You would take your pictures, come back to your desktop or iBook, download them to iPhoto, and proceed from there to organize and print. Based on this, why would a consumer digital camera need the ability to hold over a thousand pictures?
It isn't fair to compare the functionality of a digital camera to that of the iPod. With the iPod, we're trying to take our music with us. With our photos, we're trying to take it back home with us. I'm just confused why we would want an expensive 5GB hard drive, as opposed to inexpensive CF cards that are removable, small, and can already hold hundreds of consumer quality pictures...
I personally feel that such efforts on Apple's behalf would be a waste of engineering resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Like improving FSB bus speeds on the PowerMac and iMac. Or how about better cooling on the Titanium?
Heck, Apple could work more closely with already existing companies, like Kobak, to improve camera support on Mac OS X. Instead of bringing everything in house Apple should concentrate on developing strong partnerships with already existing market spaces were it makes sense, like digital photography and digital video.
But, the idea of a Camera with firewire, a 1GB+ built in drive and good battery life would kick the pants off alot of other competitors... not to mention if they use that Foveon X3 chip.. they would be able to market it as the "worlds most accurate color digital camera"
<a href="http://www.foveon.net/"; target="_blank">http://www.foveon.net/</a>;
My 2cents, and i'd buy 2 of them if they were priced below $800
The 1.3 megapixel Foveon X3 isn't due for production for another half year at least, and that would be roughly comparable to many 2 megapixel cameras. It would not be suitable for making large prints though. It would be great for web output though.
The 3.5 megapixel Foveon X3 is not going to be in anything under $2000 for a long time.
Basically, the Foveon X3's advantages over traditional Bayer pattern image sensors are that it has a complete color space for each pixel and therefore it doesn't have to interpolate and guess what color that part of the image should be. The resulting pixels will have no moire effects, fuller colors, and sharper details. With some of the better interpolation schemes, you could probably blow up images taken with Foveon X3 based cameras ~40-50%
I can also choose reprints of the Web site and they're mailed to me the next day. I've made a few 9x12 and 81/2 x 11 (around $4 each) and they look great!!
The point is that the negs are scanned at 1400x1000 and a 9x12 print looks really good. And it's cheaper than getting a inkjet, ink and paper + my time. I can even upload images to my site and have them print them.
I'm not a huge fan of FutureShop (I used to work there in college) but this is one freaken great service ( they still make over 50% margin off this service... how much do you pay for film developing?
<a href="http://www.macworld.com/2000/12/features/explore.html"; target="_blank">http://www.macworld.com/2000/12/features/explore.html</a>;
Scroll to the bottom and look at the picture for the MP3/CD Player and read the caption below the picture 'too bad it's only on the screen' - this was iPod in progress! Maybe the secrets are in the software and with the addition of iPhoto - the next device must be a digital camera - after all Apple did make them around 5 years ago...
I would prefer a DV camcorder with a good CCD for digital stills. Here's where you could use the 5+ GB HD. Of course, I would never have enough money to buy one. ::sigh::
~bauman
<strong>I was looking round Macworld.com and found this old article about OSX Beta.
<a href="http://www.macworld.com/2000/12/features/explore.html"; target="_blank">http://www.macworld.com/2000/12/features/explore.html</a>;
Scroll to the bottom and look at the picture for the MP3/CD Player and read the caption below the picture 'too bad it's only on the screen' - this was iPod in progress! Maybe the secrets are in the software and with the addition of iPhoto - the next device must be a digital camera - after all Apple did make them around 5 years ago...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually Apple has forth right said the iPod took 9 months to develop and hit market. That puts the inception of the iPod in January of 2001. Where as the Mac OS X beta was released in September of 2000, putting a solid three months between the start of iPod development and the Mac OS X beta release. The look of the MP3 Player's GUI is coincidental.
<strong>
Actually Apple has forth right said the iPod took 9 months to develop and hit market. That puts the inception of the iPod in January of 2001. Where as the Mac OS X beta was released in September of 2000, putting a solid three months between the start of iPod development and the Mac OS X beta release. The look of the MP3 Player's GUI is coincidental.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do you say that? The music player controller was surely complete before the iPod was started in development, so it wasn't a hint to it's existence. I do believe that the layout of the iPod was inspired by the clean, intuitive nature of the music player controller. It worked so well, a real product came out of it. It could only be called coincidence if the designers of the iPod never saw the music player controller (highly unlikely) otherwise, we see the source of the inspiration.
<strong>
Why do you say that? The music player controller was surely complete before the iPod was started in development, so it wasn't a hint to it's existence. I do believe that the layout of the iPod was inspired by the clean, intuitive nature of the music player controller. It worked so well, a real product came out of it. It could only be called coincidence if the designers of the iPod never saw the music player controller (highly unlikely) otherwise, we see the source of the inspiration.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Point taken, but I was trying to convey that Music Player was not a "hint" about the iPod, and looking through Apple's software for graphics that may hint at future hardware is a waste of time.
Also since the iPods small size is touted as mone of its main features, I would expect a very small, Elp sized camera from Apple. I think we will see something in Tokyo.
<strong>I just don't understand why people want Apple to develop all these iDevices now. The iPod fit in nicely because there is a big market for MP3 players since music players are pretty much universal. Also Apple could make the best MP3 player available. I just don't see how Apple is going to make the best digital camera or camcorder. What is Apple going to bring to the table that will make PC users want to buy an iCam and a Mac?
I personally feel that such efforts on Apple's behalf would be a waste of engineering resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Like improving FSB bus speeds on the PowerMac and iMac. Or how about better cooling on the Titanium?
Heck, Apple could work more closely with already existing companies, like Kobak, to improve camera support on Mac OS X. Instead of bringing everything in house Apple should concentrate on developing strong partnerships with already existing market spaces were it makes sense, like digital photography and digital video.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't thimk Apple had to put in a lot of hardware work on the iPod and just used existing stuff. The Oxford article
<a href="http://www.oxsemi.com/press/nov01/index.html"; target="_blank">Oxford Semiconductor</a> originally was out in about July 2001. The HD also came from someone else.
I don't see why Apple would make a camera. They only need the iPhoto software on the iPod and a firewire enabled camera. They would get a lot more business if they could get it to work with any digital camera but the only software interface would be the mac. (Also think movies movies and iDVD2 with 10 gb drive.Probably see it out soon (MWTokyo?). My 2.1MP Olympus D-490 is good enough for me (except no FW or usb).
Business reality indicates that no one would put all of these things into a device at one time. Add parts and pieces over time = more $$. Apple knows what they need to do and prudent business practice will be adhered to.
As I posted in another thread;
1. 4 mega pixel multilayered CCD
2. Firewire
3. MPEG movie mode
4. some kind of unique linking features with the iapps, other hub devices and pro creative apps (FCP, DVD studio).
5. audio only (MP3, MPEG 4 or something else) recording mode
Basically it could be used as the all purpose audio/video/still picture input device for the hub. More than just a camera.
The idea isn't to compete with the big boys in the digital camera arena feature by feature. It's about offering something unique.
In the digital hub and iApps so far we have output listen to music with an iPod, make a movie with iMovie, make a photo album with iPhoto, e-mail all your creations or post them on the web.
What aboutinput? With the above camera you could shoot photos for iPhoto, shoot movies for iMovie and iDVD, record the sounds from your new baby to go in the background of the iphoto slide show you are making or record sounds for your Mac, and on and on. The only thing missing is document scanning, which I think Apple can skip this time.
See the Japan site here:
<a href="http://www.club.sense.panasonic.co.jp/club/design/dsnap/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.club.sense.panasonic.co.jp/club/design/dsnap/index.html</a>;
Sure, it's not 4MP, but it's got MPEG-4, MP3, and 640x480 still capture, all on SD cards. (64MB card stores 30 min of video) Plus it takes voice notes.
IT'S SMALLER THAN A BUSINESS CARD!!!
CNET CES video of the N.A. version here:
<a href="http://video.cnet.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=cnet_news&template=template.html&que ry=ces&submit=Go%21&page=6#" target="_blank">http://video.cnet.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=cnet_news&template=template.html&que ry=ces&submit=Go%21&page=6#</a>
<strong>I just don't understand why people want Apple to develop all these iDevices now. The iPod fit in nicely because there is a big market for MP3 players since music players are pretty much universal. Also Apple could make the best MP3 player available. I just don't see how Apple is going to make the best digital camera or camcorder. What is Apple going to bring to the table that will make PC users want to buy an iCam and a Mac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
People said the same thing about the ipod even after its release, not until its obvious success did people change their tune.
[quote]<strong>I personally feel that such efforts on Apple's behalf would be a waste of engineering resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Like improving FSB bus speeds on the PowerMac and iMac. Or how about better cooling on the Titanium?</strong><hr></blockquote>
agreed.
<strong> [quote]Heck, Apple could work more closely with already existing companies, like Kobak, to improve camera support on Mac OS X. Instead of bringing everything in house Apple should concentrate on developing strong partnerships with already existing market spaces were it makes sense, like digital photography and digital video.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We've already seen the first steps of this partnership, Kodak prints iPhoto's books... where it leads now...
[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]
[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</p>