"When you can take a high-quality video or still with your cellphone and send it anywhere right away, we will be in the era of the "Real-Time Post Card™"
The key phrase here is "high-quality." If I take a reasonably high quality still shot, using about 1.1 mb memory, how long would it take to send that shot via wireless to some storage facility (i.e., host computer, email address, etc.)? Even at 56kb, you're talking about more than a few minutes for just one transmission. If you are shooting at 2.1 mb or higher, with no compression, you could be talking 10 to 15 minutes transmission time. I do not doubt that a lower resolution image could be handled effectively by wireless transmission, but I'd still like to have the original shot in high resolution for later uses, such as printing enlargements.
The point I was making was that Kodak is apparently unable to change from the quaint notion of having a consumer go to the corner drug store or photo processor to get a variety of services, such as developing and printing. Kodak seems to think that none of us are good enough or willing enough to make our own photos (slides, video displays, or prints) without their getting involved (and getting money for getting involved). In my view, nothing will do as good a job as the reliable flash memory for storage of images from digital cameras. What the photographer does subsequently with that image MAY involve sending a compressed version by wireless, or downloading it to a home computer, or several other alternatives. But if you don't have a good quality image to start with, forget it. High quality wireless, at least until the widespread implementation of third generation wireless systems, is just not feasible. |
