Prev: Is there a compact camera that will take a series of shotsquickly?
Next: How to use remote to control video with Canon SX1 IS?
From: -hh on 12 Dec 2009 15:44
On Dec 8, 10:58 pm, John A. <j...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> >...
> >Namely, "What other alternatives existed to even possibly consider?"
>
> Sony Mavica, starting in '81. See my earlier reply to Martin.

Thanks for that...too bad the one making the complaint was unable to
come up with an answer.

Digitizing NTSC is an interesting approach, and was probably
indicative of industry directions being investigated. Insofar as the
rest of the camera, I'm reminded of a much later CD-burner based
Mavica that I had used at one point...it wasn't particularly stellar,
despite eight years of progress versus the Quicktake 100.


-hh
From: Bob Larter on 15 Dec 2009 02:10
On 13/12/2009 3:13 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Recently starred second in "Bad Apples - Their 10 worst inventions" in
> Computer Weekly see: -
>
> http://www.computerweekly.com/galleries/238046-2/Apple-QuickTake-No-zoom-focus-or-memory.htm
>
> Typically if it were Apple the lenses would be incompatible with everyone
> else, the filter size would be 49.5mm with an anti-clockwise thread, the
> aspect ratio would be 17:10, the flash connection would not be hot shoe, the
> media connection would be GPIB,

<grin> If it used GPIB, the cable would be heavier than the camera. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: Is there a compact camera that will take a series of shotsquickly?
Next: How to use remote to control video with Canon SX1 IS?