A Tapeless Digital Camcorder For Your Pocket 182
spullara writes "I've been waiting a long time for a small, tapeless, easy to use digital camcorder. Tapes wear out, they require playback in realtime, and make producing ad hoc movies time consuming. Without these types of recorders you can forget about iVideoPodcasting. I found the Fisher FVD-C1 at an Apple Store last week and it was amazing, but it turns out there is a better one being imported from Japan, the Xacti DMX-C4 thats nearly identical, but better. You can read my review of it here (I have no association with any of these businesses). Wouldn't it be great if one of these devices had WiMAX to upload directly to the internet?"
before /.ers wake up (Score:5, Informative)
As you might have read, my wife and I are having our first baby. So, of course, we needed a video camera.
One of the biggest complaints I have with mini-DV cameras is that you copy the data off them at the same speed you put the data on them. This is a nightmare. Additionally, tapes are terribly inconvenient to search, store, carry, etc. I was down at the Apple Store in Palo Alto on Tuesday of last week and saw a new camcorder there, the Fisher FVD-C1. It was amazingly small but easy to hold, used solid state storage, and had pretty good specs. At the store it was $800, so I wandered over to one of the Macs they have setup there connected to the internet and searched to see what the real going rate was. As it turns out, it cost about the same from Amazon. Later I did some more research and found a little company in California that imports Japanese only products into the US that had another version of the camera direct from Sanyo (Fisher OEMs their product). In addition to being the same size it also had 4MP instead of 3MP, a 1.8in LCD instead of 1.5in, and some improved software. Even better, it didn't come bundled with only a 512M card, instead it was $600 and you could buy a high-speed 1G SD card from them for an extra $120 (you can get them a little cheaper elsewhere, but i wanted it all to come at the same time).
Everything about the camera screamed buy me, so I did. I chose their cheapest shipping option (they are definitely making a bit of profit on their prices) and ordered it and a 1G card on Tuesday night. It arrived on Thursday morning, way sooner than I expected. All the manuals are in Japanese, fortunately I don't read those. Amusingly, it also talked in Japanese until I figured out you could change it to English mode by navigating the helpful pictograms.
Hooking it up to my Mac was trivial, it comes with a USB dock / recharging station that you just connect to your computer. It has a button on it to switch it between being connected and charging. I'm not sure if it is recharging when it is connected or not. Because it is also a still camera, when you plug it in and connect it, iPhoto launches and allows you to import any photos. Immediately I realized that I would need an efficient way to handle all the clips that I would be generating and I am a little bummed that there is nothing like iClips that comes with the Mac. I have some ideas about how that would work, maybe I should put something together. Instead of making a full fledged application, I instead did some applescript to get it setup with a Folder Action. So now when I plug it in, it immediately finds all the movies, renames them from their generic names to timestamp names, copies them to my Movies directory, and then if there are no pictures it ejects the camera and quits iPhoto all in one smooth motion. In the end I want to build something that lets me drop any of the movies onto a drop site and immediately reencode them for the web and post them to my website for consumption by the ever vigilant grandparents of our daughter to be. Speaking of photos, it does a pretty good job at those as well. Not as good as my Elph, but good enough.
There is only one thing that tripped me up that I would like to mention about the camera. While transferring movies from it I found that it was much slower than USB 2.0 should be. As it turns out, although it is spec'd for USB 2.0, it is for "full" speed, not "high" speed. So you should see transfer rates just about 500K/s. It would be much better if it were faster than that as that can mean 2000 seconds for a full 1G SD. Its still way more convenient than tape. I blame the USB committee for allowing devices to be touted as USB 2.0 when, in fact, they are the same speed as USB 1.1.
The movie/picture demo on their Yahoo store is pretty accurate and reflects the quality of the MPEG4/AAC recording that I have gotten while using the camera.
Re:before /.ers wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:before /.ers wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
This part makes me wonder why he complains about tape transfer speeds:
There is only one thing that tripped me up that I would like to mention about the camera. While transferring movies from it I found that it was much slower than USB 2.0 should be. As it turns out, although it is spec'd for USB 2.0, it is for "full" speed, not "high" speed. So you should see transfer rates just about 500K/s. It would be much better if it were faster than that as that can mean 2000 seconds for a full 1G SD. Its still way more convenient than tape. I blame the USB committee for allowing devices to be touted as USB 2.0 when, in fact, they are the same speed as USB 1.1.
Okay, so copying a DV tape @ 720p over firewire is slower than this? Not. This sort of defeats his key point in the beginning of the "review".
For $800 you can get an excellent DV camera with near-professional quality and will last for many years. I would suggest avoiding gadgets who's only reason for being on the market is the fact it uses SD ram instead of DV tape. Maybe in 2-5 years there will be real DV cameras with 100GB of storage on them, but now isn't the time.
Personally, I suspect the author only had experience with VHS tape and had never used DV tape as a medium. Otherwise, he wouldn't be saying USB 1.1 speeds are better than "dealing with a tape".
Re:before /.ers wake up (Score:2)
Re:before /.ers wake up (Score:2)
The newer, "high-speed" SD cards are "up to 10Mbps" [kingston.com], roughly 2.25 megabyte/sec, much faster than USB 1.1's average 500 kbyte/sec. I have a "high-speed" SD card and I really do get 2+ mB/sec transfer rates.
Costs not factored in? (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed.
The review also talks of the being inconvient to store - good grief - if he's going to transfer them to the computer, why worry?
Secondly, if you're off on holiday and want to shoot a lot of video (and didn't want to lug a PC with you) then you'd still need a few flash cards - For the price of one 512Mb flash ram you could buy a bucket load of tapes. (shrug)
Re:before /.ers wake up (Score:2)
A couple of other advatages to tapes: You don't have to clog up your harddrive with data & Apple has this neat little program, I think it's called iClips(no, wait--iMovie), that lets you
Re:before /.ers wake up (Score:2)
Re:before /.ers wake up (Score:2)
Uh? That is exactly the slow/confusing speed being complained about. 0.5M/s is definitely _NOT_ USB 2.0, which has full speed of 480Mbps == 60MB/s, 120 times faster than the speed you're getting... of course you pretty much need 7200rpm 3½ " hdd to get that kind of speeds anyway, no matter the bus, but even with flash, it should be much faster than half a meg per second.
Re:before /.ers wake up (Score:2)
USB Naming/Packaging issues (Score:5, Informative)
The USB folk's naming and packaging recommendations [usb.org] actually discourage the use of "USB 2.0" since it is confusing as heck ... but I agree with the parent that they kinda created this monster by saying that there is a "Lo-speed" and "Full-speed" USB 2.0 that are the same speed as USB1.x ... so most consumers (myself included) see USB 2.0 and unless we look carefully for "Hi-Speed", then things aren't any faster than 1.x ... which is an issue for still photography and a BIG issue for video.
BTW, have we ever seen a first post that has been so informative - mod the parent to +10 - nice work roman mir
Re:USB Naming/Packaging issues (Score:4, Insightful)
But the point I am trying to make is that a slow USB2 device still allows you to use other USB2 devices (at max speed) on the same hub. Where a USB1.1 device will switch all devices connected to itself to the USB 1.1 mode, hence slowing down the entire chain.
That is a heck of a difference.
So the label "USB2.0" should be read as "will not slow down your usb chain". The speed at which the USB2 norm is implemented in the said device is another question altogether. That is part of the device, and should be accepted like that.
Re:USB Naming/Packaging issues (Score:2)
pieroxy: I agree with you technically (and yes, this does make a difference - kinda similar to the 802.11g wireless gear that isn't too happy and an 802.11b client shows up), but I still believe that in the mind of most consumers, USB2.0 is equal to "Hi-Speed" and this is
Re:USB Naming/Packaging issues (Score:2)
What's the Point Again? (Score:2)
I thought the thesis here was "get this camera because tape is too slow"? My Sony T1 stores 20 minutes of MPEG video on a 512MB card, so assuming you get 40 minutes on a 1GB card you're in for 33 minutes transfer time. For that 7 minutes you save you're in for $120 cards vs. $10 tapes, a more expensive unit to begi
Damn... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Damn... (Score:2)
1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what i'll keep waiting for.
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:3, Interesting)
JVC Everio with 4GB Microdrive. To be released any day now...
http://www.i4u.com/article2116.html [i4u.com]
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Price, weight, durability, longevity, and upgradability?
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
Price, weight, durability, longevity, and upgradability?"
Expensive? Those micro-sized 20gig drives aren't that expensive anymore, sure more expensive than just shoving a DV tape recorder in a camcorder but when size matters the hard drive will make up for it with longer videos: if 512meg fits 21 minutes of 640x480x30fps 3Mbps quality video [yahoo.com] then 20 gigs will fit 840 minutes (14 hours) of video.
Weight? What weight? 20gig Mp3 p
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
Or Better Still (Score:2)
Granted the power consumption would be awsome, but there is room for a "Little" more weight here considering that the cam is toughted at the size of a cell phone.
Now when can I expect to be able to write my own code for this thing [neurosaudio.com]?
Re:Or Better Still (Score:2)
A) they are universal
B) They are already applied to a WIDE variety of storage devices. So you can add any kind of memory your want, including SD,CF and Sony Memmory stick, depending on what you already have on hand, and what your power/storage requirements are.
C) The thing's I value most in any electronics I by are modularity and customizablity. Ex. Batteries should always be of a standard form factor, regardless of advanges of custom batterys. It's my only qu
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:4, Interesting)
why can't they just put in a decent 20Gb harddrive (like the iPod)
What I'm waiting for is someone (maybe Apple, maybe not) to put out a widget for connecting an iSight [apple.com] to an iPod [apple.com]. For basic home movies of the kids, something that that should sell quite well if you could package it all together at $599 or so. At the higher end, why not a camcorder that simply used an iPod mini as a "cartridge". It's only 4GB currently, but their form factor makes them a really attractive option. If the regular iPod was good enough to handle LoTR, aren't a few iPod mini (is mini the plural of mini? :-) good enough to handle my budget productions?
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
*BA DUM DUM*
Thanks folks I'll be here all night.
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
*BA DUM DUM*
Thanks folks I'll be here all night.
PS Note: I had less than one cup of coffee in me when I posted the last time.
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
Jobs doesn't want to fracture market lines right now, though. And there is a huge tape/camcorder industry that, although it knows the future will be hard drive cartriges rather than tape, won't appreciate Apple jumping the gun before they can phase out their old factory lines and recoup their investment.
Also, there is the good ol' we're-b
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
Or just put a camera into the iPod. Or combine it all into a phone/camera/audio/video recorder/PC with 802.11 XXX, Ethernet, and Firewire capabilities and be done with it.
I see where you're going, but I'm not talking about convergence. I'm talking about a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Having an iPod + iSight camcorder is a nice modular solution, not a "jam it all together" solution. Both pieces have a distinct use outside being a camcorder, and that's exactly why it's a better so
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
P.S. I did know there were common mistakes using this latin pluralization, particularly the "octopi" case, which still seems to have made its way into dictionary acceptance. But I didn't know the reasons before. Now I do, though I don't remember them.
Re:1Gb of storage on SD? (Score:2)
storage size (Score:1)
No Thanks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or I'm somewhere and the drive is full, and I want to keep recording. With a tape-based Camcorder I'd just run to (Costco/Walmart/7-11/Target) and pickup some more MiniDV tapes or whatever.
With this I have to upload the video onto another device...
And I have to worry about making sure to backup the device I download the camcorder's drive to. With tapes, while they are NOT indestructible, and they DO wear out eventually, and (with analog tapes) you can loose quality when you copy them, you don't have to worry about loosing all your recordings because the latest virus wipes your hard drives and you didn't have backups.
_MOST_ people are NOT going to be cluefull enough to make sure to backup their video from their hard drive to DVD or some other medium.
Re:No Thanks... (Score:2)
Clueful, no. But they'll want a copy on a DVD anyhow. Most people don't happen to enjoy watching videos on their computers, and the interface for finding and selecting DVDs is easier for most people than using a computer.
So it works out.
Re:No Thanks... (Score:1)
unless of course that video is of an ex-gf in a rather "exposed" pose. hey, it http://home.studieaccess.nl/wesse167/girlfriend_g
Re:No Thanks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Thanks... (Score:2)
Re:No Thanks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Use the right tool for the job? Seriously, there are some things that Mini-DV is a pain in the ass for. Others, it's great for.
I'll give you a quick example: I have video taken from my cell phone (of all places) of my dog teasing my cat. The video quality is crummy and all, but it was at my side, and ready to go. I have that funny moment now. If I had run to my video camera, I would have had to check if the tape was ready to go, power the silly thing up, and hope the animals co-operate. Okay, this isn't apples and apples, but there's something to be said for tapeless devices.
They're not perfect. Niether is Mini-DV. That's why both are on the market. Lighten up.
Re:No Thanks... (Score:3, Interesting)
invent (or hack) an iPod-like-device to act as a portable hard disk for all these flash-RAM-hungry devices.
I've thought of it many times for my still camera. Unless I buy lots of (expensive) flash cards, or lug a laptop with me, I can only shoot as many photos as I have room for...as we all know and have dealt with for many years already.
What I need is a pocket-sized, battery-powered intermediate storage device. When my camera (or voice recorder or tapeless video cam) gets full, I cou
Re:No Thanks... (Score:5, Informative)
see steves-digicams [steves-digicams.com]
Scroll down to "Image Storage Devices" for reviews of a bunch of them.
See also the Belkin iPod Media Reader [apple.com] for a device that'll let you transfer all the major flash media formats to your iPod.
Re:No Thanks... (Score:2)
http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/H340.aspx [iriveramerica.com]
Re:No Thanks... (Score:2)
As the parent stated, it's much easier to run to a 24/7 dept. store or convenience store and buy a pack of tapes than it is to try and find a place with a good deal on solid state flash RAM.
A co-worker just borrowed my camcorder to take to Hawaii for his wedding and he shot 37 minutes of video with my camer
Many thanks! (Score:1, Redundant)
WiMax? (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, because my local electric car recharging station now has a WiMax hotspot...
Re:WiMax? (Score:2)
For internet access, WiFi outstrips DSL, Cable, and even Corporate T1s. I'm more concerned about getting honest Broadband (100 Megabits/sec or more) to the home. Cordless internet is fast enough for now.
--Mike--
Mirrors (Score:3, Informative)
Coral Cache link [nyud.net]
Mirror Dot link [mirrordot.com]
Mini-DVD Digicorders are tapeless too (Score:3, Interesting)
Points in article. (Score:2, Interesting)
And hard drives work perfectly, forever? At least you can easily swap tapes, they are fairly cheap, and most importantly, they handle shocks pretty well.
Tape-based digital camcorders can do better than realtime playback.
I don't believe it's merely the camcorder that makes producing movies time-consuming!
GOD NO! I
Re:Points in article. (Score:2)
wimax? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be better if it had 802.11a/b/g so you could actually use it in the near future?
Samples (Score:5, Interesting)
I also have a question:
It got 5.8 times optical zoom and 10 times digital zoom. In video mode the camera only uses 0.3 MP of the available 4 MP (probably a bit more for the image stabilizer?). Anyways, when using digital zoom in video mode, will it simply use the remainder of the MP to do the digital zoom and thus provide a "loss free" digital zoom? Or is it similar to image shooting using digital zoom, where the resulting picture is blurred?
Re:Samples (Score:5, Informative)
4.35mb sample [64.60.113.123]
Thats assuming it still works by the time you see my reply (and it hasnt been slashdotted)
Re:Samples (Score:3, Interesting)
But what I'm looking for are examples showing the strengths and weaknesses of this camera. Show me the full range of optical and digital zoom and how the picture gets worse with the digital zoom. Show me a movie in low light or artificial light conditions.
This is the first "review" of this camera which I have encountered and I have
Re:Samples (Score:2)
The problem is not that the picture gets more blurry really..although it may look like that. When a picture of say 0.4 MP is enlarged to 2MP or similar..the processor has to intelligently 'guess' on what colour pixel should be between the pixels it already has information for. The information just isnt there.
Re:Samples (Score:2)
Re:Samples (Score:2)
The thing is..you take an image at a certain resolution and if you wanna make it bigger, you have to get the information from somewhere. Nothing can help that.
Re:Samples (Score:2)
Fisher Price (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fisher Price (Score:2)
BTW... You are a freak if you like the IT colour scheme!
Re:Fisher Price (Score:2, Interesting)
They actually used footage from some of these in some movies:
Slacker [imdb.com] (1991)
Naja [imdb.com] (1997)
Links:
The Pixelvision Home Page [rowan.edu]
Pixelvision (includes tecnical details) [michaeloreilly.com]
Re:Fisher Price (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what was so amazing about the Pixlvision - that it would even make it all the way to market and actually work.
What I loved about it is how it used a standard audio tape at high speed to produce 5 minutes of video.
Quite strange (but cool) when you think about it.
Re:Fisher Price (Score:2)
Nowadays - they're pricey because they are so rare but you can still find one new in the box every so often on Ebay.
I think someone even made a plugin for Premiere to PXX-ize video.
Re:Fisher Price (Score:2)
Of course there is a large following to the toy cameras [dianacameras.com] now, exploring minimalist photography. I remember when the Dianas littered the landscape, hated by all. How times have changed!
I would have done quite well if I had of put a box or two of those away.
Sounds like a neat camcorder, But... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that we should actually blame the company, who is putting labels on their product which overstate the technology. Compliance laboratories are worked pretty hard to my knowledge, and it becomes increasingly difficult to weed out products which poorly meet the specifications. I want to support a company which produces high grade equipment, not one who works just hard enough for the selling point.
Re:Sounds like a neat camcorder, But... (Score:2)
A couple of years ago, I purchased a Linksys USB 1.1 ethernet adapter, and it really bothered me that it was labeled as being 10/100. It's somewhat misleading since USB 1.1 tops out at 12Mb/s. I find it difficult to believe anything I read on the packaging of most computer products.
The Pro version -- Professional Disc -- XDCam (Score:4, Informative)
Sony already had support for XDCam from AVID [sony.com.hk] at the National Association of Broadcasters converntion in Las Vegas in April, one of the big names in Non-Linear (computer-based) video editing systems (NLEs).
Sony plans to make computer drives able to read and write XDCAM discs, allowing Non-Linear Editing without re-capturing.
Links:
XDCam FAQs (pdf) [sony.com]
MPEG-IMX White Paper [v2] (pdf) [sony.com]
for best quality.... (Score:2, Informative)
There is one samekind of cam, but cheaper (Score:4, Informative)
I had one of those, it was really nice, i'd like better light sensitivity, but you can't get everything.
It had quite good image quality, one socket for SD card, battery, in-build recharger etc. Night mode and other juicy features.
It costed around 380-420euros here when i got one, altho i didn't pay that much.
It was really great for the price, and with 512mb sd card you can shoot over 2hours of video. encodes also MPEG4/AAC.
Only thing is: those vids didn't play in BSPlayer, on WMP they played nicely altho, after installing the WMV codecs which came on the CD. Didn't try other players.
ivideopodcasting? (Score:5, Funny)
Not something I would buy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
While MPEG4 may be a nice format to store finished video in, it is not a good idea to use it as a storage format:
DV has a resolution of 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL). I'm not even sure if 640x480 is a standard DVD format (720x480/720x576 is); if not, this means recoding to different pixel size for DVD, which means quality loss independent of the encoding itself
Ok, this point might see some disagreement, but I consider it quite unfortunate that the trend goes away from FW to USB2.
Panasonic SV-AV100 (Score:2, Informative)
File size is still a problem though (even a bigger one than with MPEG4) but quality isn't as bad as MPEG4, and MPEG2 is much better than MPEG4 in term of editing and handling (you can actually USE what you record).
But these are still expensive products, I think Id'still go the DV way.
However, if I had the cash, I would have of these with me... the "on the go video" factor is really nice.
Re:Panasonic SV-AV100 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Panasonic SV-AV100 (Score:2)
This is what I bought (Score:2)
Just thought I wanted to show you an alternative. I have no stocks in Sony (wish I did though
Tape too slow? No! (Score:4, Funny)
Resolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes there are two HDTV-MiniDV cameras out now (JVC and Sony), but the JVC has a bad contrast range while the Sony has no real 24p recording (or even 25p would fill the bill).
When will somebody finally release a HDTV 1920x1080 camera with 24p below $3000? Or is there a way to fool these tapeless camcorder thingies in recording in a higher resolution?
Re:Resolution (Score:2)
That's because it's busy hurling a large, physical mirror around, what with it being an SLR and all that.
As for shutter speed, 1/30 second is considered a pretty slow exposure time - most digital cameras can go down to at least a thousandth of a second in decent lighting. For video, the amount of available light is unlikely to be a problem.
I think the main issu
Um... your wife? (Score:4, Informative)
Er... here in Europe we call that "my phone" [nokia.com].
Seriously, though... you guys don't have digital flash-memory video cameras on your cellphones? WTF? Digital still cameras have been standard on cellphones for the last two years, video and flash memory last year. I don't want to start a "diss the yanks" thread, I realise there are plenty of things y'all do better, but... you chaps need to have some serious words with your cellular providers, you're not getting good handset upgrades.
My phone has digital video camera and an MMC card offering up to 1GB of storage. The phone came free with 100 minutes of calls on a monthly £25 (US$50) contract, albeit only with a 32mb MMC card, then I purchased a larger MMC seperately for thirty quid. My missus got one too, free with contract again, here's footage she shot of squirrels in the churchyard [livejournal.com].
I didn't even need to change contracts. I just rang them up and said I'd quit my contract after a year unless they upgraded my handset to a video model. It was delivered next day.
Re:Um... your wife? (Score:2)
Why on earth is the livejournal entry friends-only? Is it that private?
Direct upload (Score:3, Funny)
No, it would not. Why would you want to make anyone sit through your hours of uneditted footage?
If only owners of video cameras (and those uploading _all_ their digital photos to an online gallery) learned to edit what they capture before submitting it to their friends the world would be a lot less violent place...
Re:Direct upload (Score:3, Funny)
When tape video cameras first emerged at reasonable prices, wedding photographers were interested but worried that their profit margin would be eroded by the editing cost of getting 3 hours of footage down to the 10 mins that a third party would actually watch. But they soon discovered that Joe Public is so uncritical of seeing his own picture that he actually wanted the unedited 3 hours. Existing video cameras are basically weapons of mass boredom, and on bad days I think that a license should
Panasonic (Score:2)
This will be useless (Score:2)
Why not CompactFlash? hard disk? (Score:3, Insightful)
And where are the hard disk cameras? Or should I say, AFFORDABLE hard disk based cameras?
Naahh... wake me when they come with X3..... (Score:2)
if you have a decent eye, you'll see quit a subtle 'bad quality' in all of non-X3 CCD's ... due to it not beeing *of course* able to capture the some Red Green Blue wavelenghts per pixel/amount of 'photons', but instead utilizes a 'mosaic matrix' to compose the image [foveon.com] *which is uurrrkkk, urruk, 'bad quality'* - I mean, just look at this interactive tutoral (java) [foveon.com], see how many 'photons' a
s/slashdot Post Ads/slashdot story Ads/ (Score:2)
BTW, I wonder what 'they' take for such a 'slashdot story ad'
guess *I'll* have to 'google' it ( as in 'search for it' not 'google-google' for it, :))
What About Archiving?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What About Archiving?? (Score:2)
This should be enough for a one week vacation without having to transfer to other media, although it would be double plus good if such a camera also had a mini DVD burner on top, so you could do a rough edit (cut/paste) and burn it.
Re:I'm the Luddite (Score:2)
Fisher FVD-C1 Review from Current MacWorld (Score:2)
The Fisher FVD-C1 is one of a new generation of MPEG-4 video camcorders that eschew tape and record directly to storage media. Like a shapely silver iPod, the lightweight, compact Fisher comes with a docking station, fits contentedly in the palm of your hand, and begs you to play. Flip open the bright, 1.5-inch LCD screen, and a cheerful female voice chimes faintly, "Camera mode." Though not much bigger than a po
JVC's doing this too... (Score:2, Informative)
Sony DSC-T1 is a camcorder in your pocket... (Score:2)
What seemed so odd to me is that Sony wasn't advertising this feature at all. In fact the box says "digital still camera" right on it
"realtime" ?? (Score:2)
It's pretty difficult not to do most things in 'realtime'. The phrase you seek, my child, is 'linear access'...
tapeless/wireless (Score:2)
Some of the Amazon reviewers were not impressed (Score:2)
Dear Slashdot Readers (Score:2)
Re:FUCK YOU TIMOTHY (Score:2, Funny)
Nice one, dipshit [slashdot.org].
Re:POSTER IS A TROLL (Score:2)
Got has limited bandwidth, ant that is even lower than that of internet backbone pipes? If so, then surely this bandwidth is more than exhausted by all those prayers, effectively contributing to a worldwide DoS attack on God.
Actually that explains a lot