GPS

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.

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:


Cameras already use USB *BUT NOT AS A HOST*. Cameras already
communicate over USB either by pretending to be a disk (for which
common drivers are available, but which allow you bugger all
functionality) or with SPECIAL DRIVERS ON THE COMPUTER that recognise
the particular protocols and device IDs of the camera.
None of this permits a camera to act as a host, and talk to a USB
client device such as a GPS. For that you need far more complex USB
electronics in the camera, and additionally, driver support so it can
talk each of the silly little vendor specific USB sub-protocols.


It seems to me that you are stuck somewhere in the 1970's.

It seems to me that you're a gibbering idiot who thinks by chanting
the words 'USB' and 'standard' you can make your data transmission
wishes come true.
Every time I've pointed this out, you've handwaved the matter of
drivers and the *fact* that merely talking USB isn't enough for data
communication. Get a clue.
B

Writing drivers isn't an expensive factor. You make too much of
it. And while you are at it, check out 'Pictbridge'.
Ever written a USB driver? Do you have any idea what you're talking
about? how about having to have some driver-running API in the camera?
What benefit is there to camera manufactures to having the users
install software that does strange and terrible things to the camera?
Do you think canon should let 3rd parties write software for their
cameras? What about nikon? Or do you think that all the major camera
manufacturers should support every type of USB GPS out there?
Pictbridge is an *excellent* example. Someone sat down and came up
with a standard *above and beyond USB* that permits cameras to talk to
printers. There is a potentially quite large market for photo printers
and there aren't many already out there, so putting the standard
together was relatively painless. This 'standard' is what is
completely missing for GPS units.
Further, and I really do hate to belabour this point, the pictbridge
magic printers ACT AS A USB HOST JUST LIKE A COMPUTER WOULD and
consequently don't hit the problem that a USB GPS would, which is that
you have TWO USB devices and NO HOST.

You erect imaginary objections.

Translation: You're incapable of understanding my explanation of the
problem becuase you think any two things with USB can talk to each
other.

ROM is cheap, and software goes in ROM in cameras, and GPS
units. Agreement between camera makers and GPS makers shouldn't be all
that difficult (it happens in the electronics industry all the time).
Not every manufacturer is like Sony.

In which case you're going to see, at best, a very small number of GPS
manufactuerers building something that may one day in the future be
able to talk to cameras.

Bear in mind that no GPS ROM update is likely to enable existing
devices to start acting as a USB host. So any of your advice about
buying a GPS with a USB port /now/ in fact stupid and wrong. Like
almost everything else you say, really.

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, IF the principals wanted to do it.

Yes, it does, over serial, which works for everything, really.
Frankly, it would be a trivial matter to get the camera to talk serial
out of its USB port (most camera-type USB client electronics have the
ability to talk a fairly brain-damaged serial, but that's all you
need) and then have someone sell a $5 cable.

This would require /zero/ effort by the many GPS makers and not all
that much on the camera people's parts. Of course Poor Widdle Ron
doesn't like serial, does he. He'd much rather pretend that USB is
magic.

B

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:


Cameras already use USB *BUT NOT AS A HOST*. Cameras already
communicate over USB either by pretending to be a disk (for which
common drivers are available, but which allow you bugger all
functionality) or with SPECIAL DRIVERS ON THE COMPUTER that recognise
the particular protocols and device IDs of the camera.
None of this permits a camera to act as a host, and talk to a USB
client device such as a GPS. For that you need far more complex USB
electronics in the camera, and additionally, driver support so it can
talk each of the silly little vendor specific USB sub-protocols.


It seems to me that you are stuck somewhere in the 1970's.

It seems to me that you're a gibbering idiot who thinks by chanting
the words 'USB' and 'standard' you can make your data transmission
wishes come true.
Every time I've pointed this out, you've handwaved the matter of
drivers and the *fact* that merely talking USB isn't enough for data
communication. Get a clue.
B

Writing drivers isn't an expensive factor. You make too much of
it. And while you are at it, check out 'Pictbridge'.
Ever written a USB driver? Do you have any idea what you're talking
about? how about having to have some driver-running API in the camera?
What benefit is there to camera manufactures to having the users
install software that does strange and terrible things to the camera?
Do you think canon should let 3rd parties write software for their
cameras? What about nikon? Or do you think that all the major camera
manufacturers should support every type of USB GPS out there?
Pictbridge is an *excellent* example. Someone sat down and came up
with a standard *above and beyond USB* that permits cameras to talk to
printers. There is a potentially quite large market for photo printers
and there aren't many already out there, so putting the standard
together was relatively painless. This 'standard' is what is
completely missing for GPS units.
Further, and I really do hate to belabour this point, the pictbridge
magic printers ACT AS A USB HOST JUST LIKE A COMPUTER WOULD and
consequently don't hit the problem that a USB GPS would, which is that
you have TWO USB devices and NO HOST.

You erect imaginary objections.

Translation: You're incapable of understanding my explanation of the
problem becuase you think any two things with USB can talk to each
other.

ROM is cheap, and software goes in ROM in cameras, and GPS
units. Agreement between camera makers and GPS makers shouldn't be all
that difficult (it happens in the electronics industry all the time).
Not every manufacturer is like Sony.

In which case you're going to see, at best, a very small number of GPS
manufactuerers building something that may one day in the future be
able to talk to cameras.

Bear in mind that no GPS ROM update is likely to enable existing
devices to start acting as a USB host. So any of your advice about
buying a GPS with a USB port /now/ in fact stupid and wrong. Like
almost everything else you say, really.

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, IF the principals wanted to do it.

Yes, it does, over serial, which works for everything, really.
Frankly, it would be a trivial matter to get the camera to talk serial
out of its USB port (most camera-type USB client electronics have the
ability to talk a fairly brain-damaged serial, but that's all you
need) and then have someone sell a $5 cable.

This would require /zero/ effort by the many GPS makers and not all
that much on the camera people's parts. Of course Poor Widdle Ron
doesn't like serial, does he. He'd much rather pretend that USB is
magic.

B

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:


Cameras already use USB *BUT NOT AS A HOST*. Cameras already
communicate over USB either by pretending to be a disk (for which
common drivers are available, but which allow you bugger all
functionality) or with SPECIAL DRIVERS ON THE COMPUTER that recognise
the particular protocols and device IDs of the camera.
None of this permits a camera to act as a host, and talk to a USB
client device such as a GPS. For that you need far more complex USB
electronics in the camera, and additionally, driver support so it can
talk each of the silly little vendor specific USB sub-protocols.


It seems to me that you are stuck somewhere in the 1970's.

It seems to me that you're a gibbering idiot who thinks by chanting
the words 'USB' and 'standard' you can make your data transmission
wishes come true.
Every time I've pointed this out, you've handwaved the matter of
drivers and the *fact* that merely talking USB isn't enough for data
communication. Get a clue.
B

Writing drivers isn't an expensive factor. You make too much of
it. And while you are at it, check out 'Pictbridge'.
Ever written a USB driver? Do you have any idea what you're talking
about? how about having to have some driver-running API in the camera?
What benefit is there to camera manufactures to having the users
install software that does strange and terrible things to the camera?
Do you think canon should let 3rd parties write software for their
cameras? What about nikon? Or do you think that all the major camera
manufacturers should support every type of USB GPS out there?
Pictbridge is an *excellent* example. Someone sat down and came up
with a standard *above and beyond USB* that permits cameras to talk to
printers. There is a potentially quite large market for photo printers
and there aren't many already out there, so putting the standard
together was relatively painless. This 'standard' is what is
completely missing for GPS units.
Further, and I really do hate to belabour this point, the pictbridge
magic printers ACT AS A USB HOST JUST LIKE A COMPUTER WOULD and
consequently don't hit the problem that a USB GPS would, which is that
you have TWO USB devices and NO HOST.

You erect imaginary objections.

Translation: You're incapable of understanding my explanation of the
problem becuase you think any two things with USB can talk to each
other.

ROM is cheap, and software goes in ROM in cameras, and GPS
units. Agreement between camera makers and GPS makers shouldn't be all
that difficult (it happens in the electronics industry all the time).
Not every manufacturer is like Sony.

In which case you're going to see, at best, a very small number of GPS
manufactuerers building something that may one day in the future be
able to talk to cameras.

Bear in mind that no GPS ROM update is likely to enable existing
devices to start acting as a USB host. So any of your advice about
buying a GPS with a USB port /now/ in fact stupid and wrong. Like
almost everything else you say, really.

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, IF the principals wanted to do it.

Yes, it does, over serial, which works for everything, really.
Frankly, it would be a trivial matter to get the camera to talk serial
out of its USB port (most camera-type USB client electronics have the
ability to talk a fairly brain-damaged serial, but that's all you
need) and then have someone sell a $5 cable.

This would require /zero/ effort by the many GPS makers and not all
that much on the camera people's parts. Of course Poor Widdle Ron
doesn't like serial, does he. He'd much rather pretend that USB is
magic.

B

In article , Mxsmanic
writes

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).

You would not have all that trouble with an RS-232 port, in fact you
could even use DOS (DR & MS), CP/M (80 & 86); in fact I doubt there're
USB drivers for any of them. Manufactures should use standard ports
instead of compelling you to use a specific OS.

--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , Mxsmanic
writes

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).

You would not have all that trouble with an RS-232 port, in fact you
could even use DOS (DR & MS), CP/M (80 & 86); in fact I doubt there're
USB drivers for any of them. Manufactures should use standard ports
instead of compelling you to use a specific OS.

--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , Mxsmanic
writes

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).

You would not have all that trouble with an RS-232 port, in fact you
could even use DOS (DR & MS), CP/M (80 & 86); in fact I doubt there're
USB drivers for any of them. Manufactures should use standard ports
instead of compelling you to use a specific OS.

--
Ian G8ILZ

Prometheus writes:

You would not have all that trouble with an RS-232 port, in fact you
could even use DOS (DR & MS), CP/M (80 & 86); in fact I doubt there're
USB drivers for any of them. Manufactures should use standard ports
instead of compelling you to use a specific OS.

The manufacturer provided only a USB hardware interface, and I had no
USB interface on the NT machine. Additionally, NT doesn't natively
support uSB. Worse yet, the service software provided by the
manufacturer ran only on certain versions of Windows, including XP (but
not NT). So I had no choice but to buy a computer specifically to
interface with this piece of equipment. I certainly would not have done
so if there were any way to avoid it, as it was extremely expensive and
time-consuming and destabilizing.

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

Prometheus writes:

You would not have all that trouble with an RS-232 port, in fact you
could even use DOS (DR & MS), CP/M (80 & 86); in fact I doubt there're
USB drivers for any of them. Manufactures should use standard ports
instead of compelling you to use a specific OS.

The manufacturer provided only a USB hardware interface, and I had no
USB interface on the NT machine. Additionally, NT doesn't natively
support uSB. Worse yet, the service software provided by the
manufacturer ran only on certain versions of Windows, including XP (but
not NT). So I had no choice but to buy a computer specifically to
interface with this piece of equipment. I certainly would not have done
so if there were any way to avoid it, as it was extremely expensive and
time-consuming and destabilizing.

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

In article , Ron Hunter
writes
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.

How many of the cameras have USB host capability? The figure is between
none and one, can 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 do not agree that fitting a camera that is designed to work with a GPS
Rx with the established standard port for GPS communications is out of
the question. It would only apply to the larger high end cameras,
although a standard mini-DIN (like Apple) would be preferable to Dee,
still if camera manufactures introduce it GPS manufactures would produce
the cable.

--
Ian G8ILZ