GPS

Ron Hunter writes:

What good is a high quality image if the subject is lousy, the focus
off, the composition terrible, and the camera was set at the wrong aperture?

Not much good, but a superbly composed picture that is blurry or
improperly exposed or shot through a cheap lens isn't worth much more.

The notion that one can somehow compensate for any lack of image quality
with talent or luck is mistaken. While it's true that image quality is
not always an essential part of a good photography, it is also true that
it never detracts from an image, and it usually enhances it.

If image quality didn't matter at all, everyone could just shoot with
disposables or ultracheap digitals. (Some people do exactly that, if
they don't care about image quality.)

There is much more to photography than the maximum quality of the
specific technology used.

Image quality is nevertheless of the essence of photography.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Prometheus wrote:

In article , Ron Hunter
writes

I am sure that a camera could be made to accept waypoint data from a
GPS will little trouble, and that a GPS could be made to send that
data with as little trouble,


Why should you want to send waypoint information to a camera? Waypoints
are points you are to visit on a route i.e. change of direction, rest
points, check-in stations. They might be entered by visiting them on a
previous journey, most locations on a route where you might take a
photograph are not waypoints although you could turn them in to
waypoints. What you require the camera to do is accept standard NEMA
phrases from the GPS Rx and use the location and time/date information
from it. You could even set the clock in the camera using it, but since
GPS time is UTC you might want to set your time zone in the camera. The
GPS Rx does not need to be made to send current location information,
that is why it is why it has a serial port (unless you change it from
the default to transfer non-NEMA information).

A 4800 Bd serial port is quite fast enough for this information, unless
you imagine that your location is changing so fast that it needs
updating at 480MBd; I doubt that a domestic GPS Rx could track the
satellites at the velocity this implies.

How many cameras are out there? Now how many GPS receivers are out
there. Now is it more feasible to put USB on all the GPS receivers, or
to put serial ports on all the cameras. You figure it out.


Fortunately for camera manufactures GPS Rx manufactures have already
agreed on a standard for presenting location information to other
devices, it is a three wire serial port on a nine pin Dee with defined
stop, start, parity, bit length and rate. The base rate is 4800, newer
device have the option to select higher rates but will default to the
standard. I can see that one change is required since a nine pin Dee is
too large for most cameras. A better option would be Bluetooth, this
would also allow remote control, both of the camera by the user and a
flash by the camera.

Bluetooth would certainly be better, serial is out of the question since
it appears on very few cameras and would require yet another connector.


I am not certain about building it in since this cost would translate to
a premium price for the enhanced feature and not every photograph would
want or need it; manufacturing two otherwise identical models would make
the one with even more expensive because it would have a smaller market.


I never suggested that such a feature would be on all cameras, only that
more expensive ones will probably have something like that, or a
built-in GPSR. Not all photographers would want such a feature, but I
expect it would be rather popular as an option even on P&S cameras.

Prometheus wrote:

In article , Ron Hunter
writes

I am sure that a camera could be made to accept waypoint data from a
GPS will little trouble, and that a GPS could be made to send that
data with as little trouble,


Why should you want to send waypoint information to a camera? Waypoints
are points you are to visit on a route i.e. change of direction, rest
points, check-in stations. They might be entered by visiting them on a
previous journey, most locations on a route where you might take a
photograph are not waypoints although you could turn them in to
waypoints. What you require the camera to do is accept standard NEMA
phrases from the GPS Rx and use the location and time/date information
from it. You could even set the clock in the camera using it, but since
GPS time is UTC you might want to set your time zone in the camera. The
GPS Rx does not need to be made to send current location information,
that is why it is why it has a serial port (unless you change it from
the default to transfer non-NEMA information).

A 4800 Bd serial port is quite fast enough for this information, unless
you imagine that your location is changing so fast that it needs
updating at 480MBd; I doubt that a domestic GPS Rx could track the
satellites at the velocity this implies.

How many cameras are out there? Now how many GPS receivers are out
there. Now is it more feasible to put USB on all the GPS receivers, or
to put serial ports on all the cameras. You figure it out.


Fortunately for camera manufactures GPS Rx manufactures have already
agreed on a standard for presenting location information to other
devices, it is a three wire serial port on a nine pin Dee with defined
stop, start, parity, bit length and rate. The base rate is 4800, newer
device have the option to select higher rates but will default to the
standard. I can see that one change is required since a nine pin Dee is
too large for most cameras. A better option would be Bluetooth, this
would also allow remote control, both of the camera by the user and a
flash by the camera.

Bluetooth would certainly be better, serial is out of the question since
it appears on very few cameras and would require yet another connector.


I am not certain about building it in since this cost would translate to
a premium price for the enhanced feature and not every photograph would
want or need it; manufacturing two otherwise identical models would make
the one with even more expensive because it would have a smaller market.


I never suggested that such a feature would be on all cameras, only that
more expensive ones will probably have something like that, or a
built-in GPSR. Not all photographers would want such a feature, but I
expect it would be rather popular as an option even on P&S cameras.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


I guess that is why you aren't using the lastest version of your
newsreader ...


Correct.


Probably still on Win95 too.


Windows XP, since that was provided with the machine (I had to install
it to allow connection of a USB peripheral, since NT would not support
it and there was no supporting software for UNIX).

AGHAST! What? Unix didn't have support for it? Could it be? Unix
isn't perfect? Call CNN, Call FOX, Call MSN!!!!

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


I guess that is why you aren't using the lastest version of your
newsreader ...


Correct.


Probably still on Win95 too.


Windows XP, since that was provided with the machine (I had to install
it to allow connection of a USB peripheral, since NT would not support
it and there was no supporting software for UNIX).

AGHAST! What? Unix didn't have support for it? Could it be? Unix
isn't perfect? Call CNN, Call FOX, Call MSN!!!!

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


What good is a high quality image if the subject is lousy, the focus
off, the composition terrible, and the camera was set at the wrong aperture?


Not much good, but a superbly composed picture that is blurry or
improperly exposed or shot through a cheap lens isn't worth much more.

The notion that one can somehow compensate for any lack of image quality
with talent or luck is mistaken. While it's true that image quality is
not always an essential part of a good photography, it is also true that
it never detracts from an image, and it usually enhances it.

If image quality didn't matter at all, everyone could just shoot with
disposables or ultracheap digitals. (Some people do exactly that, if
they don't care about image quality.)


There is much more to photography than the maximum quality of the
specific technology used.


Image quality is nevertheless of the essence of photography.

Yet there is a point beyond which improvements in image quality are not
visible in the finished product. It is like the audophile who insists
on flat speaker/amplifier response from 30 to 22,000hz, even though he
KNOWS he can't hear past 12,000, or lower than 60. Not much sense in
entertaining the dogs next door...

I believe it was Adam Osbourne (the father of the portable computer) who
said 'Good enough is good enough.' That could be applied to photography
as well.

Note that the value of a photograph is often more about what it captured
than the quality of the capture, because the alternative is nothing at all.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


What good is a high quality image if the subject is lousy, the focus
off, the composition terrible, and the camera was set at the wrong aperture?


Not much good, but a superbly composed picture that is blurry or
improperly exposed or shot through a cheap lens isn't worth much more.

The notion that one can somehow compensate for any lack of image quality
with talent or luck is mistaken. While it's true that image quality is
not always an essential part of a good photography, it is also true that
it never detracts from an image, and it usually enhances it.

If image quality didn't matter at all, everyone could just shoot with
disposables or ultracheap digitals. (Some people do exactly that, if
they don't care about image quality.)


There is much more to photography than the maximum quality of the
specific technology used.


Image quality is nevertheless of the essence of photography.

Yet there is a point beyond which improvements in image quality are not
visible in the finished product. It is like the audophile who insists
on flat speaker/amplifier response from 30 to 22,000hz, even though he
KNOWS he can't hear past 12,000, or lower than 60. Not much sense in
entertaining the dogs next door...

I believe it was Adam Osbourne (the father of the portable computer) who
said 'Good enough is good enough.' That could be applied to photography
as well.

Note that the value of a photograph is often more about what it captured
than the quality of the capture, because the alternative is nothing at all.

Ron Hunter writes:

AGHAST! What? Unix didn't have support for it? Could it be? Unix
isn't perfect? Call CNN, Call FOX, Call MSN!!!!

I don't understand this reaction.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

AGHAST! What? Unix didn't have support for it? Could it be? Unix
isn't perfect? Call CNN, Call FOX, Call MSN!!!!

I don't understand this reaction.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

Yet there is a point beyond which improvements in image quality are not
visible in the finished product.

You're arguing the wrong point. I didn't say that image quality is
everything, I said that it's important and essential to some extent in
every photo. Why is this distinction so difficult to grasp?

I believe it was Adam Osbourne (the father of the portable computer) who
said 'Good enough is good enough.' That could be applied to photography
as well.

It can be applied to anything, but good enough and bad are not synonyms.

Note that the value of a photograph is often more about what it captured
than the quality of the capture, because the alternative is nothing at all.

Yes, but if it is poorly captured, it often has less value than if it is
well captured. After all, an image quality of zero is the same as no
image at all.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.