GPS

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.

B
You erect imaginary objections.

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.

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.

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.

B
You erect imaginary objections.

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.

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy Nixon writes:

If you really think it's about the camera, then I doubt that very much.

The image capture technology puts an upper limit on image quality.

But it puts no such limit on picture quality.

--
Jeremy |

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy Nixon writes:

If you really think it's about the camera, then I doubt that very much.

The image capture technology puts an upper limit on image quality.

But it puts no such limit on picture quality.

--
Jeremy |

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy Nixon writes:

If you really think it's about the camera, then I doubt that very much.

The image capture technology puts an upper limit on image quality.

But it puts no such limit on picture quality.

--
Jeremy |

Prometheus wrote:

In article , Ron Hunter
writes

Well, I would rather have the GPS feature built into the camera, but
wouldn't mind a cable for 'location' shots. It is rather hard to
exactly place my vacation shots after returning.


I think for the moment a separate GPS Rx and press the mark button when
you have taken a photograph, I know there is a resk of forgetting with
this. One other problem with GPS is that it takes time obtain a fix from
cold.

Yes, it does, in the case of my older unit, as much as 5 minutes, IF it
can find the required number of sats. However, I have been reading
about the new units that CLAIM to do this in 10 seconds, or less, from a
cold start. MUCH better. I fully expect that GPS will be a feature
offered in the $1500-$2000 cameras in the near future. It makes sense
for a certain type of photographer (nature, sports, landscape), while a
studio photographer would have no use for it.

Prometheus wrote:

In article , Ron Hunter
writes

Well, I would rather have the GPS feature built into the camera, but
wouldn't mind a cable for 'location' shots. It is rather hard to
exactly place my vacation shots after returning.


I think for the moment a separate GPS Rx and press the mark button when
you have taken a photograph, I know there is a resk of forgetting with
this. One other problem with GPS is that it takes time obtain a fix from
cold.

Yes, it does, in the case of my older unit, as much as 5 minutes, IF it
can find the required number of sats. However, I have been reading
about the new units that CLAIM to do this in 10 seconds, or less, from a
cold start. MUCH better. I fully expect that GPS will be a feature
offered in the $1500-$2000 cameras in the near future. It makes sense
for a certain type of photographer (nature, sports, landscape), while a
studio photographer would have no use for it.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


Yes, that is the mantra of the Luddite, isn't it?


It's the mantra of someone who has been there and done that, and doesn't
want to make the same mistake again.

I guess that is why you aren't using the lastest version of your
newsreader.... Probably still on Win95 too.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


Yes, that is the mantra of the Luddite, isn't it?


It's the mantra of someone who has been there and done that, and doesn't
want to make the same mistake again.

I guess that is why you aren't using the lastest version of your
newsreader.... Probably still on Win95 too.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


Yes, that is the mantra of the Luddite, isn't it?


It's the mantra of someone who has been there and done that, and doesn't
want to make the same mistake again.

I guess that is why you aren't using the lastest version of your
newsreader.... Probably still on Win95 too.