I think the people buying curent digicam's expect them to work JUST like the advertisments. Example,the girl in Paris(i think)takes �360 panoramic shots of the view from the tower,emails herself,gets home and prints out huge size prints pasting them on her wall and settling down for a view of Paris.All this in less then 60 seconds. When they cannot do that in 60 seconds they get confused:)
On a side note i was looking at a DVD player in Radio Shack the other day and the owner was discribing the difference in one machine,saying it would play a slide show of JPG pictures on a CD.He stopped talking looked at me funny and said"Most people ask me what a JPG is,you did not".I mentioned i know what a JPG is and what camera(s) i own.He talked to me diferently after that<g> Dave ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:34:43 -0500 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Behind the counter with digital An then us tech-heads can all go back to film where we will have some control <grin> Unforunately, Cotty, you are right. For consummer digi-cams to be successful mass market items they will have to become idiot-proof. Unfortunately, because, according to Graywolf's Law: �Idiot-proof �= �Expert-proof Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Here's how: > > The manufacturer makes a camera that is foolproof. You can't change > things like file sizes on it - not in the conventional sense. You might > have 2 or 3 ISO settings, 100, 400, 800, perhaps marked a sunny, cloudy, > and indoors (and the relevant white balance attached), and that's it! > Don't let them be able to fiddle with things. Keep it so simple that any > lab anywhere in the world will know just by looking at the markings on > the Digital Film module exactly what lies inside: a finite number of > images that are known to be able to reproduce accordingly onto paper to a > reasonable specification. > > Sure module will know which camera it is in, and accordingly how many > pics it can store - the snapper looks on the back of his camera and sees > that it only holds 24 pics, while in his wife's camera it holds 48. He's > got a better camera and knows the fewer the pics on the module, the > slightly better the quality he'll get. But he's not fussed, as the prints > from his wife's camera are perfectly good. She just can't get hers blown > up as well as he can on his. > > The point I am trying to make (in a very roundabout way ;-) is that it > all needs to be made foolproof and secure from the interference of the > users!!! Once that happens, the confusion will subside, things will > settle down and people will understand the concept of taking pics using a > digital camera and dropping them off to be processed and printed, just as > they used to. Those that want to get their hands dirty and do it > themselves will anyway. Just the basic family snapper - 90 percent (or > whatever) of the population that uses cameras. > > Surely this must be something to which the foto industry aspires? Or do > you think they are quite happy to leave things the way they are, in a > confusing mess? They may have good reason to.... ---- End Original Message ---- Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
