If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#791
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#792
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#793
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#794
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#795
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#796
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#797
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#798
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#799
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#800
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|