Polaroid: This Time It's Digital 176
MrSeb writes "Long before Facebook and Twitpic, photos were shared by simply handing someone a print. No camera made this easier than the once-ubiquitous Polaroid. Nothing represented instant gratification better in the film era than having a print develop before your eyes, ready to hand out in a minute. Unfortunately for Polaroid, the advent of digital photography sounded the death knell for its iconic instant print cameras. A brief reprieve in the form of inexpensive sticker-printing versions was ended by the cellphone camera revolution. Now, after a decade in remission, Polaroid has returned with a full-up digital camera that incorporates instant printing technology. The Polaroid Z340 is a 14MP digital with an integrated Zink-enabled (Zero Ink) printer. In a nostalgic touch, the new camera prints 3×4-inch images, the same size as the original Polaroid film cameras. Remarkably, all this fits in a one-pound, seven-ounce package, about the same weight as a mid-range DSLR."
What about a film polaroid (Score:4, Interesting)
That sounds good and I'm glad they're back. Though I wonder if coming back with an old fashioned analog polaroid might not sell as well. "The polaroid" was a name for a type of picture, a digital print isn't going to feel that unique.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that anybody's trying this. I remember Kodak trying something similar a decade or so back with a dual digital film camera. Arguably that makes more sense as film does have some advantages over purely digital.
This OTOH brings very little to the party that an eyeFi and wireless printer doesn't.
Re:What about a film polaroid (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What about a film polaroid (Score:4, Interesting)
Technologically speaking, 'ZINK' is substantially more advanced than your basic monochrome thermal printer, as seen in most label and receipt printers everywhere, and I give their tech guys full credit; but I cannot help but be extremely unimpressed by the likely value proposition of a printer where you have to buy the manufacturer's proprietary paper(and in the correct size for your mobile gimmick widget, unless you feel like doing some cutting). At present the stuff isn't cheap and either due to limited market or patents on the paper technology, no generic compatibles appear to exist...
Re:What about a film polaroid (Score:5, Informative)
At present the stuff isn't cheap and either due to limited market or patents on the paper technology, no generic compatibles appear to exist...
Nor are they likely to....
http://www.zink.com/how-zink-works [zink.com]
"ZINK was developed over several years and has generated an IP portfolio that includes over 100 patents and patents pending"
There's more on the page about patents and registered trademarks than the tech itself. Tell me again how IP law encourages creativity? This will be tied up for decades, which won't allow it to take off.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in 14 years when all the patents expire everyone else will be able to make generic versions and it'll take off. Or did you expect them to do a bunch of research for free?
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't have been created in the first place if the company wasn't able to make money off of it. You see, when a company wants to create something new, they often spend millions of dollars on R&D. Who's going to do that if someone else clones the product within a few months, before they've even recouped their costs? The length and scope of patents is arguable; th
Re: (Score:2)
As already pointed out the existing world wide patent regime is only putting roadblocks into innovation by making sure that the only ones who innovate are the ones that can run multi decade lawsuit wars about ill granted patents on quasi generic topics about mildly similar processes.
So yes, it is kind of encouraging innovation. It encourages "investment safe innovation". For those that have hundreds of millions of dollars. The layers are particularly happy though.
Re: (Score:3)
There is also a large group of slashdotters who don't know the difference between a patent and a copyright (the OP may be one, as he thinks it will be tied up "for decades"). There is also a large group of slashdotters who think 17 years is a long time. For many it is -- 17 years is a lifetime when you're not old enough to vote.
I have yet to see the ones you're pointing to who think innovation is "I get to use everyone's work". Can you link to such a comment?
Re: (Score:3)
did you ever have one of those Polaroid instant cameras? Ever buy the SX-70 film/battery packs for it?
I remember 10 or 12 pictures to a pack at a cost of dollars per picture.
I'm sure that the "Special" paper will be a similar deal and take off like a lead ballon, but it's been the way Polaroid does business for a long time now.
It's also the kind of thinking that will probably not pave a golden future for the company.
now, get the hell off of my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
This story made me look on ebay. The cameras are essentially free and you can get Fuji film for about a dollar a picture....
Wait, what? (Score:2)
You know why I finally spent thousands on a DSLR, lenses, flashes, and so forth?
Because tech -- host computers, sensors, camera hardware -- had finally advanced far enough so that I wouldn't ever have to [make a / order a / send for a] print again.
Now Polaroid wants to sell me a camera that... that...
BWHAHAAHAHAH
Re: (Score:2)
Polaroid's somewhat classier GL10 3x4; but with Bluetooth from most smartphones or Pictbridge and a 35 print rechargable battery is still ~$170 on their site(shopping around might help; but I didn't).
Unless you are dedicated to polaroid in itself(in which case the still-available classic chemical s
Re: (Score:2)
Consider what it costs to print your digital pictures at home with your computer. The price of archival quality photo ink (usually six colors PLUS black and maybe gray), archival quality photo paper (choose glossy, matte, semi-gloss, etc), and a good printer plus routine maintenance on the printer (need to clean out the heads which wastes ink). NOW consider the ZINK system which combines the paper and ink. Looking at the paper cost (40 sheets for $15) I get about $0.38 a print. I'm sure I pay more per p
Re:What about a film polaroid (Score:5, Informative)
Not only are some trying it, but Polaroid is not alone.
The linked site contains a link to Zero Ink, which shows other products on the market.
Some of them, like the Tomy Xaio look a little more appealing than the Polaroid.
http://www.zink.com/TOMY-xiao [zink.com]
I suspect there is a market for this, but probably not in digitally savvy countries where
everyone has a smartphone and can email the picture and put it on facebook before the
Polaroid can even print out a single copy.
Presumably these devices retain a digital image, so that capability may be added
just in time for the whole idea to go bust again.
The United States isn't so "digitally savvy" (Score:2)
I suspect there is a market for this, but probably not in digitally savvy countries where everyone has a smartphone and can email the picture and put it on facebook before the Polaroid can even print out a single copy.
Except the United States market isn't so "digitally savvy". Here, a typical smartphone plan runs $70 per month, and even the cheapest plans from Virgin Mobile are $35 per month, compared to dumbphone plans that start at $7 per month. Someone who doesn't print a lot of photos might come out ahead by buying a dumbphone and a separate printing camera as opposed to a smartphone.
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin now has some deal with Sprint for a prepaid phone with limited phone minutes but 1Mbit unlimited (data) internet access, tetherable at no extra charge, for $25/mo. prepaid and no contract. Friend just got this. Maybe it's a sign that the US's ridiculous rates might be coming down.
now I just need an esper (Score:3)
Also it's so that Roy Batty can chew out Leon for leaving behind his precious photos.
Re:What about a film polaroid (Score:5, Insightful)
Its what you DON'T bring to the party that matters - that is, a wireless printer. Instant printing has a niche at some types of events, so I can see this filling that. Sure, you can bring a printer with you. You could also bring a laptop with you. That isn't the point of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and in the process you add bulk an an additional component that can break down. Plus, you're limited to a tiny print compared with a small printer. There may very well be a niche, but I can't imagine it being a worthwhile endeavor in that form factor.
Done in 60 seconds and you still want it enlarged (Score:3)
Plus, you're limited to a tiny print compared with a small printer.
As I understand it, you can enlarge a digital photo later on a full-size printer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The name Polaroid and many decades of being used for candids. Polaroid has instant credibility as the company for instant pictures. Having the two things connected creates the immediacy which is different than:
take picture -> go home to printer -> get supplies -> print on right paper -> show of pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would love the advantage of physical film. It is important to be just be able to pass them around, or to hold a stack or have different people looking at different pictures. Actual film feels better than a digital image. I don't know if it feels $1-3 per picture better.
Re: (Score:2)
I can send a copy of it to any bluetooth enabled phone nearby if they want a copy (can this camera print multiple copies? That's something the original polaroids lacked). For sharing later, I can put them online.
Huh? My phone isn't even a smartphone, but it will take passable pictures (on a par with the 16mm single-focus disposable cameras everyone used to use), send them to another Bluetooth-enabled phone (bluetooth is great for getting them in your PC, as long as I use the Linux computer, Win7 doesn't see
Re:What about a film polaroid (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd buy it for $99 and I'm sure I'd end up buying more paper than I'm willing to admit, but at $300 I will never buy this camera. Ever. $300 is a brand new top-of-the-line smartphone, why would I spend that kind of $$$$ on a camera with "poor image quality"? [extremetech.com] A $300 smartphone would take better photos AND I can instantly post them online and s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the cost is out of control. $300 gets you a nice point-and-shoot. $20 gets you over 60 instant prints from the machine at Walgreens/CVS and over 200 prints at Snapfish.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't suppose I'll run out and buy one, since I have no use for prints anyways. Actually I agree they should be able to do a $100 camera if the printer is only $39. But even so the prices don't seem unreasonable, if somebody wanted the capability.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Nobody on slashdot has 25 friends.
Re: (Score:2)
All they need now is for Barry Manilow to write a jingle for it. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There you go! You get it.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree $300 is much too high. Especially since you can get a real Polaroid for almost nothing on ebay plus the film is still about the same price...
Re: (Score:2)
Brand new top of the line smartphone is 600+. Anything below this is a subsidy which you pay in monthly installments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get the subsidies and often sell the phones if I don't need them. NIB phones do well on ebay.
Re: (Score:2)
That would depend on how shitty your country's operators (and competition) is. In mine (Finland), I buy a smartphone, and my 1mbit/1mbit unlimited 3G data plan comes free with my 39€/month 24/1 ADSL2+ line.
Granted I do pay about double per minute and text message then I would if I got a separate 3G line with same data plan, and that would set me back about 10€/month, but I use less then that on calls and text messages at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a slashvertisement... and I'm okay with it. I really am. I have a very, very old Polaroid that probably doesn't work, but it sits on a shelf in my room just because it looks so fucking cool. Kids will be able to know the joy of instant photography again! Hooray!
I really hope more companies do stuff like this. Take a look at some of the greatest bits of culture and technology we've ever had (but have become obsolete) and apply modern technology to make it fit in today's world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the whiners above simply don't get it.
You can snap a picture and hand it to somebody. Maybe even write something on the back. With a pen.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably too little too late (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a soft spot for Polaroid cameras, having grown up back when they were all the rage (just after the dinosaurs died). The Land Camera was a lot of fun, back in the day. But, really, the only thing unique about this new camera is the printing, and no one wants to do that anymore.
The whole point of printing, way back then, was simply because it was the only way to share your images. That's no longer an issue. Even my mom's phone can send and receive photos. A print can only be shared with one person, while a digital image can be shared with an arbitrary number of people. There's just no advantage to being able to instantly print in this form factor.
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly agree. There are a few niche uses where having instant print out is useful, but I doubt very much that there's enough of a market for this to make it worthwhile. And most of those uses are ones where having a separate printer would be adequately satisfactory.
Re: (Score:3)
Medical uses may be the exception. A print copy in the file that can be looked at without a computer may be very useful in dentistry or plastic surgery. Separate printers add complexity. Dropping the print in the doctors lap makes sense.
I'm sure there are a few more corner cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you worked in a modern medical facility? nobody looks at pictures or diagnostic imagery in physical form anymore. Gone are the days of the x-ray snapped to the light panel on the wall. Everything is done on computers.
I agree there may be a niche for this, but the one you suggest just isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, printers are useful in medicine. The problem (for Polaroid) is that everybody has color printers (a stupid decision in and of itself, but I digress). I take pictures of medical stuff all the time - documenting the size of laceration repairs, extent of an infection, etc. I just email them to my hospital address and print it on the ward.
Surgery has a camera with a wireless link that prints automagically.
So even in institutions stuck with paper charts, there are a bunch of ways of printing a digital fil
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that and the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. We just built a state of the art cancer treatment facility and had to install a half-dozen light boxes. Why? Because pre-existing patients frequently have films that have not yet been digitized.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. This is exactly what my mom would be looking for. She doesn't like the camera on the phone - its not familiar and feels foreign (a phones a phone not a camera). She doesn't like that digital photos are only on digital devices, why wait for a computer to start up or a disc to load? She wants to take a picture, hold it in her hand, talk about it, and have it available to look at instantly later. She can organize her photos in a physical way, in a photo album or shoe box. She can take it to the nei
Re: (Score:2)
Your mom may still prefer a print, but it ends there.
You will show your guests the phone, or print it wirelessly to the printer in the next room.
Your kids will push the live video from their phone direct to the bigscreen on the wall and directly to the guests phone.
In each case the older generation with be thought to be hopelessly out of touch.
Your mom at least will leave you the shoebox. Most of your photos will die with your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
The big screen on the wall still ties you down; you can't take the photo and run to show it to someone in the next room.
You can if you have a big screen in every habitable room.
The screen on your phone ties you down; you can't hand one photo to one person to look at while someone else in the circle is looking at a different one.
You can if each person has a phone or tablet and you multicast all your photos to all the phones and tablets.
Re: (Score:2)
Tablets are currently expensive, but they're getting cheaper. My mother has a first-generation digital photo frame. It only does 640x480, but images on it look reasonable and the display is about the same size as a print photo. It cost about £40, several years ago. Colour eInk is likely to make a big difference in this market, because you'll be able to make battery powered digital photo frames that only use power when changing the photo that's displayed.
The big screen isn't the only place to di
Re: (Score:2)
I've no idea why you've been modded up, because what you are saying is FAR from true. The lack of polaroid instant prints was a real hassle for a lot of people. Not the least in the movie industry, where it's often necessary for art, costume and make-up depts to have prints to refer to. Yes they can use small printers back in their trailers, but that's a real hassle on set.
I'm sure there's plenty of other people who find hav
Re: (Score:2)
There's just no advantage to being able to instantly print in this form factor.
You, sir, are suffering from a blinkered imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
your mom is more tech savvy than mine.
If it takes more than two button presses, or requires her to stop talking, she won't do it.
And she's not alone. That's not technophobia either, but an unwillingness to have to learn how to deal with hundreds of different user interfaces, which all operate differently, and an unwillingness to expend more time on something than strictly necessary. While she knew perfectly well how to measure the light and set the shutter speed and f-stop ring accordingly for a good shot
Re: (Score:2)
As for 14 MP, that seems ridiculously high for a camera that can't have optics to support even a fraction of that. Spend more on the lens and less on the MP count, and I might just buy one for a couple of relatives.
Yeah, where did that decision come from? For a 3 x 4 inch print at 300 dpi that comes out to around a 1 MB file. The print quality was described as 'not so good' so it's unlikely that they are printing at some insane resolution.
Kodak sold off [bythom.com] it's sensor business to raise operating capital. Doesn't look to good for the dinos.
Re: (Score:2)
If it takes more than two button presses, or requires her to stop talking, she won't do it.
It's not much more than that to send a picture via bluetooth on my phone. From the menu when the picture is visible, you select send, then via bluetooth. It pops up a list of all bluetooth devices it can see, and then lets you select the one you want. So, probably seven or eight button presses, but most of those are selecting menu items.
This is for the older crowd (Score:3)
My first temptation was to scoff and say this is the digital age, why print them out.
Then I remembered 2 years ago, I got my dad this sony dyesub (Sony DPP-FP95, I think 97 is the newest). It prints pics perfectly, as good as the store. And because it's dyesub, it's superior to inkjet in every way: the dots blend together and aren't discrete, it has a clearcoat so no smudging, and the toner is dry on plastic so no printhead to dry out after a period of nonuse. It's the first digital gadget he really uses and actually loves: after every damn trip he sits down and make pics after pics. I know, I get sent a packet every so often with the sony branding.
If this polaroid is the same way, good on them. I can barely keep my digital pics organized, I don't expect older people to really grok photo organizing software either.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok, I am going to scoff at the new polaroid. One area where they sold a lot of film was the construction industry. You'd go out to bid on a job and you'd take 2-3 pictures to show where equipment was going to go. Didn't need a great picture and didn't have time to go get film developed. It was a great way to get things done. While I'm sure some people will love these new cameras (mostly grandparents and children, I think), I just don't think the volume will be there. On the other hand, it's not
Dye-subliminal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to remember reading reviews...
Here's an interesting article for you: Please read it carefully!
https://www.pcworld.com/article/139100/the_10_worst_pc_keyboards_of_all_time.html [pcworld.com]
It's obvious that keyboards are a bad idea, maybe you should stop using them.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem comes when your dye-sublimation printer is also dye-subliminal
Surely that applies equally to any other printer technology with a flaky network connection?
True, but it's funnier when it's a dye-sub.
nostalgia (Score:2)
Not all of us, that remember the Polaroid fondly, are dead yet :) It may be a small market. And shrinking, most assuredly. But if there's money to be made.....
Special paper... and expensive (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, at 20$ for 30 sheets of the special photo paper it needs, I don't see it being successful.
I guess they're probably trying to use the classic inkjet printer selling scheme, where the printer is cheap but the cartridges are expensive... though their camera is 300$.
It can also print just 25 photos with its battery which is not clear if it's removable or not - strange number considering the paper is sold in packs of 30.
Re: (Score:2)
Its the old hot dogs vs hot dog buns thing...
so they sell 8 of them when you need 6? (Score:2)
i wish Bre would figure this out so Makerbot could start opening retail stores and getting insipid journalists to drool over his genius
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because the typical example of that paradigm is Gillette, and that example is much older. I'd be interested to hear if there is an even earlier widespread use of that paradigm. (OK, according to wikipedia, he only started that after the competitors did... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_business_model [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
With Gillette blades, you only have to change one when it starts to bother you. For some it's once every two weeks or so, for me it's once every 2-3 months. And it's basically a few meters walk to where you store them.
With this camera, it's not like you're going to carry 20 packs of paper in your backpack every day... the purpose of the camera's gimmick, the integrated printer, is no longer there.
If you do plan on actually carrying photo paper, you'd have to get extra batteries because as they say it can on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, at 20$ for 30 sheets of the special (3"x4") photo paper it needs, I don't see it being successful.
Especially since the price for 40 sheets of 4"x6" ZINK paper for the PanDigital printer is $15.99, or better than 1/3 the price per unit area.
There is no Polaroid (Score:5, Informative)
It's just a brand name now that's licensed out. Edwin Land's company is long gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least you have to give it to them - that's one product to which this brand is fully fitting.
Hair & Makeup (Score:2)
Might be useful in niche markets such as film & television. Polaroids were often used to ensure continuity between takes and after breaks - take a picture of the actor before stopping and use it as a comparison point when it's time to get going again. Could use digital but this would just be easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you take an iPad (or a Android tablet) take the picture, store it away, take the continuity shot and check it. Hell, you could even write custom software to keep track of the metadata that typically got scribbled on the back.
The iPad, at least, has decent color fidelity. Better than an old Polaroid, especially under wonky lighting conditions.
I think your workflow would be much easier today than in years past.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be useful in niche markets such as film & television. Polaroids were often used to ensure continuity between takes and after breaks - take a picture of the actor before stopping and use it as a comparison point when it's time to get going again. Could use digital but this would just be easier.
A nice cheap 42" TV screen is going to be quicker, cheaper and more effective as it will highlight every flaw in the before picture nicely. You can get something suitable for $400 in Australia. I imagine much cheaper in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Because makeup artists working out of a tackle box-sized makeup kit in a random alleyway on a location shoot have room for a 42" TV?
No thanks. (Score:2)
http://www.pandigital.net/search.asp?Mode=Product&TypeID=26&ProductID=30 [pandigital.net]
$.40 per 4x6. That's expensive as hell. I'll keep my color laser that costs me about $.14 per page for 8x11.
Or go to Walmart and borrow their dye sub printer for really nice 4x6's for less than a dime.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/High-Quality-4x6-Prints/5019648 [walmart.com]
Ad (Score:4, Insightful)
A statement of the form "nothing makes it easier than (brand)" is ad copy. It's a statement which means "we can't say it's better than the others, so we're going to make a statement which implies it's better than the others while it may only mean that all brands are basically the same" (after all, if they're the same, then nothing else is better).
An option (Score:2, Funny)
Isn't it cheaper and easier just to freeze your relatives in carbonite? That way you can preserve your memories forever and avoid all the nasty Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners.
Pricing (Score:2)
This is so sad, at the right price this could transform the market. Even the tiny old (2"x3") prints are really fun, and nearly everyone is amazed at the simplicity of the system.
Without the patent the market price would be 1p-5p a print and would be worth billions. With the patent and 50p for a print it is a total flop.
Miss (Score:2)
How expensive does each print come out to? (Score:2)
So, how much does the ZINK paper cost? I imagine it's probably not exactly cheap. . . give away the printer, sell the ink^h^h^h^h paper.
I think one of the things that did the classic polaroid in was that those insta-developing glossy photos were pretty expensive. I don't fully recall, but seems like the cartridges of polaroid "film" were something like a dollar per picture or maybe a bit more. I mean, that's not completely out of reach of the public, of course, but with a $200 digital camera you can take th
Missing the point. (Score:5, Informative)
A real-life example - many years ago, My girlfriend and I used a Polaroid to manufacture child pornography of ourselves and some of our friends (we were all 15 at the time). It was a crime most heinous, but high-school kids don't deserve to be charged and have their lives ruined because of it.
But Ethanol, why not just have them printed at a drugstore?
I was a film developer at a drugstore. All images are archived (yes, even at the "print your own" kiosks) and every picture on a roll of film is seen by the developer, because we have to manually correct for CMY, density, and a host of other factors for maximum customer satisfaction - which means that your trick of taking a few "normal" pics followed by a bunch of nudes and finally more "normal" pics doesn't keep your dirty secrets from us. Fortunately, I saw a lot of nudes but never saw anything questionable.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to upload the pictures to print them... Nowadays you can even print them directly from the camera, without a PC acting as a middle man.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. It's not as *immediate* as handing the photo to someone. You've got to ask for their e-mail or write down your web site or facebook account. Plus you've got everyone huddled around somebody's phone rather than passing several photos around.
What I think would be cool is for the photo paper to embedded have digital memory, so you could hand somebody a print and a digital copy at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
I can probably count on two hands how many I have actually printed.
I wonder how you count. If you were to count using binary, and a rolled finger as 0 and unrolled finger 1 (and you have 5 fingers per hand), you could count up to 2047 pictures (which is a significant part of the total shots). If you went for ternary or more, you could much more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
odd, i can only count to binary 1023 on my hands. you must have some strange hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, thats what I get for being a smartass!
Re:Binary Smartass (Score:2)
Nah, "Smartass is the step before innovation!"
(Hi Mods. Parent was talking about counting in binary on his hands.)
1 2 4 8 16 --> up to 31 on hand 1, 32 64 128 256 512 --> 1023 was what your snide critic was saying.
But! Just roll your hand (either up, or if the topology switch doesn't bother you, roll it over) and you can keep counting!
1024 2048 4096 --> 8191 right? Then *raise an arm* from 90 degrees in front of you to like 45 degrees or something. I'm starting to get a little fuzzy but I'll try. 1
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and I wonder what will become of those 4990 photos fifty years from now. Will anyone see them then?
I know I can look at silver halide photos one hundred years old with basically no degradation. How much effort/expense will it take to view today's digital photos a century from now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much effort/expense will it take to view today's digital photos a century from now?
Depends if anyone made the effort to look after them and keep copying them to new media.
The good side of digital is it's REALLY easy to make copies and you can do so without generation loss.
The bad side of digital is that individual copies often have a rather limited lifespan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can count on one finger how many photos I've printed in the past year. Then again, the only printer I have access to is a Kodak - it only prints 2MB images from the SD card reader, no Linux driver, and the Windows driver crashes halfway through the bloated .NET installer/ad-viewer.
Re: (Score:2)
You can wave these pictures and it will have exactly the same effect as waving a polaroid - none at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, but you're a geek.
If you read the article (yes, I know...) you'll also find something about the target market for this camera.