CES now a dead-end for cameras? Canon was right??!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitrios on 11 Jan 2010 09:11 ? "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> ?????? ??? ?????? news:0s$LtSDiBuSLFAzd(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <124kk556e9b5fqgnmhnr3ttolilq7vidss(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe > <bob(a)1776.COM> writes >>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:35:38 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> >>wrote: >>: Chris H wrote: >>: >>: > >>: > The problem is these days getting a mobile phone without a camera.... >>I >>: > still have a Nokia 6210 when I have to use a phone with no camera. >>: >>: Under what circumstances do you have to use a phone sans camera ? >> >>The U.S. Federal Government has numerous installations into which you're >>not >>allowed to bring a camera. If your cell phone has a camera in it, you have >>to >>leave it at the guard's desk. I had it happen to me once or twice while I >>was >>a Government contractor. > > Not just government departments. Many Defence companies, a lot of the > automotive companies (the R&D parts) a lot of the test houses, there are > many places where you can not take a camera. > >>Now I work for a city government that has none of that paranoia, > > It's not paranoia just security. It is not required everywhere. In fact > the majority of places don't mind at all > >>and I bring >>my camera to work whenever I feel like it. And I carry two camera-equipped >>cell phones, one of them provided by my employer. > > I always carry a camera too... except when visiting some customers. > When I was a college student in Kozani, west Macedonia, Greece, we visited several power stations, etc. I always asked *before* if photographing is allowed, which usually was. Exept a hydro station, which was underground, done with NATO money, etc. Then I left my Nikon FM-2 in the coach. After the visit, I took one and only photo of my fellow students, in front of some trees. The reason photos were not allowed, was that that p.s. had diesel generators, that had enough power to open the valves (each the size of the car) so the alternators could be sped up and synchronized to the 150 kV grid, in case of the blackout. Then they could slowaly restart the larger, brown-coal units (300 MW, 400 kV). It was 3 * 125 MW units, stator voltage 15 kV. -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
From: John McWilliams on 11 Jan 2010 10:52 Chris H wrote: > In message <124kk556e9b5fqgnmhnr3ttolilq7vidss(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe > <bob(a)1776.COM> writes >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:35:38 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> : Chris H wrote: >> : >> : > >> : > The problem is these days getting a mobile phone without a camera.... I >> : > still have a Nokia 6210 when I have to use a phone with no camera. >> : >> : Under what circumstances do you have to use a phone sans camera ? >> >> The U.S. Federal Government has numerous installations into which you're not >> allowed to bring a camera. If your cell phone has a camera in it, you have to >> leave it at the guard's desk. I had it happen to me once or twice while I was >> a Government contractor. > > Not just government departments. Many Defence companies, a lot of the > automotive companies (the R&D parts) a lot of the test houses, there are > many places where you can not take a camera. > >> Now I work for a city government that has none of that paranoia, > > It's not paranoia just security. It is not required everywhere. In fact > the majority of places don't mind at all > >> and I bring >> my camera to work whenever I feel like it. And I carry two camera-equipped >> cell phones, one of them provided by my employer. > > I always carry a camera too... except when visiting some customers. Of course it makes sense now.... I just haven't visited any place recently - since I've had such a phone- that disallows cell phone cameras.... Thanks. -- john mcwilliams
From: Rich on 11 Jan 2010 17:39 Willy Wonka <nospam(a)noaddress.org> wrote in news:76elk59vs63nu3qtbj1io24fn4ekaf6iat(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:19:27 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> > wrote: > >> >>However with time (next 10 years?) I think most P&S users will use a >>camera phone, just like David Bailey, and not a P&S camera. As the P&S >>requires a high turn over I think the low end and many mid range P&S >>will go as they are surpassed by the camera-phone. > > Will never happen. You can't put a 28mm-560mm wide-aperture ultra-zoom > lens on one while also providing a high-quality image. > No, but we could make sensors the size of sand grains and have the equivalent of 10-20000mm lenses in a pocket sized camera. Is that what you want?
From: Paul Ciszek on 11 Jan 2010 19:06 In article <cq2dnUw7cpYNNdbWnZ2dnUVZ_jNi4p2d(a)giganews.com>, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >No, but we could make sensors the size of sand grains and have the >equivalent of 10-20000mm lenses in a pocket sized camera. Is that what you >want? 1) Diffraction 2) Light gathering--If your typical exposure is not at least several photons per pixel, Poisson noise will kill the picture. Now, if we can "paint" surfaces with nano-sensors that somehow preserve phase information, the outside of your phone could be an ultra-high resolution camera with no lenses at all. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Willy Wonka on 11 Jan 2010 22:54
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:39:12 -0600, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Willy Wonka <nospam(a)noaddress.org> wrote in >news:76elk59vs63nu3qtbj1io24fn4ekaf6iat(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:19:27 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>However with time (next 10 years?) I think most P&S users will use a >>>camera phone, just like David Bailey, and not a P&S camera. As the P&S >>>requires a high turn over I think the low end and many mid range P&S >>>will go as they are surpassed by the camera-phone. >> >> Will never happen. You can't put a 28mm-560mm wide-aperture ultra-zoom >> lens on one while also providing a high-quality image. >> > >No, but we could make sensors the size of sand grains and have the >equivalent of 10-20000mm lenses in a pocket sized camera. Is that what you >want? > Nope. I've no need for that. I'm already buying exactly what I want and need. Do you always have to resort to such deranged imaginings to try to make or prove a point that doesn't exist? All of you trolls seem to use that very same tactic. Time to find a new one. |