GPS

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

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

Prometheus wrote:
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.

Or, you could just write your own driver for Unix. Isn't that supposed
to be one of the great strengths of the OS?

Prometheus wrote:
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.

Or, you could just write your own driver for Unix. Isn't that supposed
to be one of the great strengths of the OS?

Prometheus wrote:
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.

Or, you could just write your own driver for Unix. Isn't that supposed
to be one of the great strengths of the OS?

Ron Hunter writes:

Or, you could just write your own driver for Unix. Isn't that supposed
to be one of the great strengths of the OS?

That may be practical for people with unlimited time on their hands,
that might be an option, but not for most people. FWIW, you can write
drivers for Windows, too, if you have the time and inclination.

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

Ron Hunter writes:

Or, you could just write your own driver for Unix. Isn't that supposed
to be one of the great strengths of the OS?

That may be practical for people with unlimited time on their hands,
that might be an option, but not for most people. FWIW, you can write
drivers for Windows, too, if you have the time and inclination.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Hunter writes:


Or, you could just write your own driver for Unix. Isn't that supposed
to be one of the great strengths of the OS?


That may be practical for people with unlimited time on their hands,
that might be an option, but not for most people. FWIW, you can write
drivers for Windows, too, if you have the time and inclination.

Which is one very good reason why most of us still use Windows.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Hunter writes:


Or, you could just write your own driver for Unix. Isn't that supposed
to be one of the great strengths of the OS?


That may be practical for people with unlimited time on their hands,
that might be an option, but not for most people. FWIW, you can write
drivers for Windows, too, if you have the time and inclination.

Which is one very good reason why most of us still use Windows.

In article , Ron Hunter
writes
Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Hunter writes:

Or, you could just write your own driver for Unix. Isn't that
supposed to be one of the great strengths of the OS?
That may be practical for people with unlimited time on their
hands,
that might be an option, but not for most people. FWIW, you can write
drivers for Windows, too, if you have the time and inclination.

Which is one very good reason why most of us still use Windows.

You write your own drivers then?
--
Ian G8ILZ