GPS

Ron Hunter writes:

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

I'm still "stuck" in the 1950s, photography-wise, but I get better
pictures than anyone with a digital camera.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

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

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:03:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jeremy Nixon writes:

The normal consumer doesn't buy GPS units because they're too complicated
and have things like serial ports.

The normal consumer doesn't buy GPS units because he has no use for
them.
snip

And the average consumer doesn't *care* about the technical potential to
interoperate with anything given enough work.

A lot of GPS buyers are not average consumers.

I would say that most SPS buyers are not normal, or typical consumers.
They tend to be technically oriented and those are the ones to which
the market is directed.

I'd add that the data stream from a GPS is so small it doesn't even
work a serial port near it's limits. I have one that uses a USB
interface (Optional accessory) and the previous one was serial
(standard). Both have moving map displays and do *both* aviation and
street navigation.

OTOH neither was aimed at the "modern" hiker, or traveler and
certainly not the average consumer.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:03:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jeremy Nixon writes:

The normal consumer doesn't buy GPS units because they're too complicated
and have things like serial ports.

The normal consumer doesn't buy GPS units because he has no use for
them.
snip

And the average consumer doesn't *care* about the technical potential to
interoperate with anything given enough work.

A lot of GPS buyers are not average consumers.

I would say that most SPS buyers are not normal, or typical consumers.
They tend to be technically oriented and those are the ones to which
the market is directed.

I'd add that the data stream from a GPS is so small it doesn't even
work a serial port near it's limits. I have one that uses a USB
interface (Optional accessory) and the previous one was serial
(standard). Both have moving map displays and do *both* aviation and
street navigation.

OTOH neither was aimed at the "modern" hiker, or traveler and
certainly not the average consumer.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:03:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jeremy Nixon writes:

The normal consumer doesn't buy GPS units because they're too complicated
and have things like serial ports.

The normal consumer doesn't buy GPS units because he has no use for
them.
snip

And the average consumer doesn't *care* about the technical potential to
interoperate with anything given enough work.

A lot of GPS buyers are not average consumers.

I would say that most SPS buyers are not normal, or typical consumers.
They tend to be technically oriented and those are the ones to which
the market is directed.

I'd add that the data stream from a GPS is so small it doesn't even
work a serial port near it's limits. I have one that uses a USB
interface (Optional accessory) and the previous one was serial
(standard). Both have moving map displays and do *both* aviation and
street navigation.

OTOH neither was aimed at the "modern" hiker, or traveler and
certainly not the average consumer.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.

Ron Hunter wrote:

?? Cameras already DO communicate over USB. Mine transfers pictures on
command, accepts email address database information, displays status
info on the LCD display, deletes pictures on command from the computer,
and sets its clock from the computer. I don't see how getting GPS
location information into the camera would be much more of a feat.

A camera isn't going to talk to a GPS receiver via USB. USB requires that
one or the other end of the link be a host interface; basically, it needs
to have a computer at one end. (Firewire has no such limitation.) They're
not going to build that interface into a camera just for GPS communication.

But, why would you want a cable hanging out of your camera while shooting
anyway? Bluetooth is the way to go for this kind of communication. I'd
rather not have GPS data in my picture files than have the camera tethered
with a cable while I'm shooting, even a convenient USB or Firewire cable.

--
Jeremy |

Ron Hunter wrote:

?? Cameras already DO communicate over USB. Mine transfers pictures on
command, accepts email address database information, displays status
info on the LCD display, deletes pictures on command from the computer,
and sets its clock from the computer. I don't see how getting GPS
location information into the camera would be much more of a feat.

A camera isn't going to talk to a GPS receiver via USB. USB requires that
one or the other end of the link be a host interface; basically, it needs
to have a computer at one end. (Firewire has no such limitation.) They're
not going to build that interface into a camera just for GPS communication.

But, why would you want a cable hanging out of your camera while shooting
anyway? Bluetooth is the way to go for this kind of communication. I'd
rather not have GPS data in my picture files than have the camera tethered
with a cable while I'm shooting, even a convenient USB or Firewire cable.

--
Jeremy |

In article , Jeremy Nixon
writes
Ron Hunter wrote:

?? Cameras already DO communicate over USB. Mine transfers pictures on
command, accepts email address database information, displays status
info on the LCD display, deletes pictures on command from the computer,
and sets its clock from the computer. I don't see how getting GPS
location information into the camera would be much more of a feat.

A camera isn't going to talk to a GPS receiver via USB. USB requires that
one or the other end of the link be a host interface; basically, it needs
to have a computer at one end. (Firewire has no such limitation.) They're
not going to build that interface into a camera just for GPS communication.

But, why would you want a cable hanging out of your camera while shooting
anyway? Bluetooth is the way to go for this kind of communication. I'd
rather not have GPS data in my picture files than have the camera tethered
with a cable while I'm shooting, even a convenient USB or Firewire cable.

I will agree that Bluetooth is appropriate for the application; as an
aside the serial cable for my PDA needing only three wires is thinner
that the USB cable for my digital camera which requires four wires.

--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , Jeremy Nixon
writes
Ron Hunter wrote:

?? Cameras already DO communicate over USB. Mine transfers pictures on
command, accepts email address database information, displays status
info on the LCD display, deletes pictures on command from the computer,
and sets its clock from the computer. I don't see how getting GPS
location information into the camera would be much more of a feat.

A camera isn't going to talk to a GPS receiver via USB. USB requires that
one or the other end of the link be a host interface; basically, it needs
to have a computer at one end. (Firewire has no such limitation.) They're
not going to build that interface into a camera just for GPS communication.

But, why would you want a cable hanging out of your camera while shooting
anyway? Bluetooth is the way to go for this kind of communication. I'd
rather not have GPS data in my picture files than have the camera tethered
with a cable while I'm shooting, even a convenient USB or Firewire cable.

I will agree that Bluetooth is appropriate for the application; as an
aside the serial cable for my PDA needing only three wires is thinner
that the USB cable for my digital camera which requires four wires.

--
Ian G8ILZ

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:
Ron Hunter writes:

If you guys want to deal with serial interfaces, great, do it. I'm
not, period. Been there, done that, not going there again.
Relative to GPS and photography, I suppose you guys will suggest that
cameras should install serial interfaces so they can communicate with
the GPS. Somehow I don't see that happening. Just to get this thread
somewhat closer to topic.
Well there's no way in buggery that cameras are going to get a USB
host interface and all the driver install crap that would let them
talk over this 'standard USB interface' to an arbitrary GPS.
You /do/ understand how much pain and suffering is involved in
talking
over USB, don't you? You aren't just gibbering on about having cut
your hand on a serial plug once, I hope.
B

?? Cameras already DO communicate over USB. Mine transfers pictures
on command, accepts email address database information, displays
status info on the LCD display, deletes pictures on command from the
computer, and sets its clock from the computer. I don't see how
getting GPS location information into the camera would be much more of
a feat.

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

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:
Ron Hunter writes:

If you guys want to deal with serial interfaces, great, do it. I'm
not, period. Been there, done that, not going there again.
Relative to GPS and photography, I suppose you guys will suggest that
cameras should install serial interfaces so they can communicate with
the GPS. Somehow I don't see that happening. Just to get this thread
somewhat closer to topic.
Well there's no way in buggery that cameras are going to get a USB
host interface and all the driver install crap that would let them
talk over this 'standard USB interface' to an arbitrary GPS.
You /do/ understand how much pain and suffering is involved in
talking
over USB, don't you? You aren't just gibbering on about having cut
your hand on a serial plug once, I hope.
B

?? Cameras already DO communicate over USB. Mine transfers pictures
on command, accepts email address database information, displays
status info on the LCD display, deletes pictures on command from the
computer, and sets its clock from the computer. I don't see how
getting GPS location information into the camera would be much more of
a feat.

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