I use the camera in my mobile phone once, and then I got tired of it when it turned out I couldn't figure out how to transfer the pictures to my computer. So I have not been interested since.
But similarly to the arena of ring tones and sports, I'm in a minority with my lack of interest. It seems the future of snap-shot photography belongs to the phone camera and online sharing sites.
I am curious by the way, about young people's acceptance of tiny pictures and tinny music. They seem perfectly fine with viewing pictures on a 2-inch screen, and to listen to music via an external micro-speaker in their MP3-enabled phone! I just don't get how that kind of experience can give them any kind of pleasure.
19 comments:
I don't understand this either. My phone has a camera on it, but I never use it. I want control and quality for the pictures I take, so I'll stick with a real camera. I only have music on my phone as tidbits that act as ringtones. It sounds fine, but nothing I would use for playing music.
Eolake said: "I am curious by the way, about young people's acceptance of tiny pictures and tinny music. They seem perfectly fine ... to listen to music via an external micro-speaker in their MP3-enabled phone!"
I think it's simply because that gadget is what you have on you at all times. If it can play music, great. The alternative, not listening to music, is considered worse.
But then, not everyone is content with that.
Eolake said: "It seems the future of snap-shot photography belongs to the phone camera."
The snap-shot camera of the future will be mounted on the frames of your (sun)glasses. A lense on both side, for stereo.
But I agree, the interim solution is the convergence of the camera with the phone/music playing device.
With glasses like that, maybe you can finally shoot pictures of nice boobies without getting arrested. :)
I'm so old... I can remember when the gals all wore their falsies on the
outside!
Eolake: "With glasses like that, maybe you can finally shoot pictures of nice boobies without getting arrested. :)"
Not only that, but as the goggles will function as displays too, you could transmit a live stereo feed of what you see to someone else's goggles! Sound too!
This technology is closer than many realise.
Let's see how it goes. Fifteen years ago, it seemed like commercial Virtual Reality games were right around the corner.
Wearable displays exist already. So does miniature cameras.
Couldn't our parents imagine how the Beatles gave us pleasure?
I remember the saying: "Turn off these longhaired savages!"
History tells you the rest.
I like my convergence device. I can take pictures of things I want to look up later, even sending pictures of "This or that dear" from the store helps. And don't need a separate MP3 player, though headphones are way better than the built in speakers.
Our dentist had wearable display TV glasses so you could be distracted during a lengthy procedure.
I believe my cell phones photo's are as good as my 110 camera with cheap 400ASA film.
Hmm just followed the mobile display link.
1 - how do they accommodate those of us who need corrective lenses?
2 - will they be illegal for driving? If the image is perceived as right there, then you will have to be focusing close, then your eyes need to adjust back far for driving. I have enough trouble changing focus from dash to road at night when tired. Imagine having a HUD an inch from my eye too (assuming I could read such a thing.
The only way I can see it working is if the lens of the glasses works like a mirror, and the image is projected to seem like it is from 50ft away.
I also have perception troubles when there is something close to my head. I wonder how feeding unbalanced images to the eyes will feel to the average user.
"I believe my cell phones photo's are as good as my 110 camera with cheap 400ASA film."
I don't doubt it. 110 pushed the limit. (Kodak Disk went over it.)
"I believe my cell phones photo's are as good as my 110 camera with cheap 400ASA film."
I remember when I was impressed with the orginal kodak instant camera. My cell phone has a camera but it takes poor quality photos. Never use it. I prefer my 3.1 kodak easy share digital camera.
It's so easy to delete bad photos.
My Cameras 1968-2007 is my response to comments about cellphone camera resolution, 110, 126, 35mm and Kodak EasyShare.
Alex, I recognize that Instamatic. My mum had one too, still does in fact, although it's probably not been used in a while. :)
I still use a film camera myself because I like to take slides. I do have a digital camera and use it most of the time.
I like to scan slide or negative because they yield up to 20MP. Though I am not sure how that relates to the grain of the film. I also know that the dust and scratch filter seems to take a bit of the edge off.
The slide do have better color to them than prints.
Having a slide show once in while is good fun.
Alex, Chester looks nicer than Bolton.
Having a slide show once in while is good fun.
It is, as long as you don't do 8 carousels of your trip to the Yucatan.*
I like the big screen. It might not be possible to do slides anymore because the carousels aren't made anymore (or at least Kodak no longer makes them), and who knows how long you'll be able to get the films?
*(see Simpsons season one)
See, we had a rack not a carousel, and only one, so we had to stop and then reload. That makes sure you just put in the best from your last few rolls.
I like the PC for slide show too. The ones on my blog are just what Picasa gives you. I do really like PhotoStory, I should share one of my animated slide shows.
There are hourly trains to Chester from Manchester Victoria and Piccadilly, which is only a short bus ride from Bolton. Maybe you want to take a look some time. It's a very touristy place though.
I like the mushrooms too.
Post a Comment