Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Iomega Thread without Iomega -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (7568)	2/20/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Respond to of 10072

prick-du-jour <<If you are comparing resolution to 35mm film, then there is no contest. Film still blows digital away, even the newer 2+ Megapixel ones. The highest quality digital cameras ($10,000 or more) can offer quality that has been described as very close to actual 35mm, the only problem is that the file size is 80MB per picture. This is why Flop! is handicapped by its design limit of 40MB. CompactFlash already is available in 96MB and 128MB is due this Spring. CompactFlash will be able to grow as digicam files sizes grow. **The new Nikon Coolpix950 writes a 6.5MB file size for its uncompressed mode.>> Here's a previous post of yours: Message 7894697 <<My new iMac is screaming for this camera (Toshiba Digicam PDR-M4). It ships with 16MB of internal memory, uses Smartmedia for storage , and can handle the new 32MB >>. So, you're screaming for 32mbs of digital for your PERSONAL choice and 35mm megapixel quality is not an issue. But the 40mbs of clik! is not enough because, well, it's not as good as the (a) $5000 digital cameras to come with 96mbs of flash due out this summer and (b) gee golly molly, quality is nothin' compared to a 35mm. Let's keep the comparisons clear. High-end cost Digital to High-end. Medium-cost Digital to Medium-Cost, Low-Cost Digital to Low-Cost and Non-Digital to Non-Digital. "Film blows digital away". There you are again. Overstating. (a) New upgrades in the Pentium III and Xeon based gives computers increased "pixel capacity" (b) Improved compression technology also allows higher quality digital images to be stored on the computer/disk with less memory allocation, i.e., getting more pictures per megabyte could double by the end of 99, (c) SDRAM has also helped improve the speed by which images are downloaded to newer computer, and (d) improvements in software. Your computer, depending on the make and model, can only store so many "X pixels" per image. If your computer will only store up to 1 megapixels per image and you're transferring an image that is 2mps, the increased definition of the picture will be lost in translation. Most computers in use today store much less than 2 megapixel, so your points regarding 2mps vs. .6 is meaningless. The clik! was designed for the average household to store quality pictures on the computer for (a) storage, (b) downloading from costly media, (c) transferring via internet, (d) ease of use, and (e) mainly cost. The clik! was also designed for handheld computers (Compaq endorsement), MP3 players, PDAs, mobile phones, other information transfer/storage devices where flash has proved too costly for development/use/dissimenation. In case you forgot, 30% of all mobile telephones in place in Europe are used to store images, send faxes (that is not the case in the US yet - they are considerably ahead of the US in mobile phone use). The problem with the current Europe smart phone, generally Nokia telephone breed, is that the amount of information available for storage is limited and extremely costly. Clik! would help solve some of these smart phone problems - Clik! is now being tested, reviewed for product development by several carriers. 2megapixel storage capacity for clik! is fine for pictures, but for a fax - heck, that's way more than needed - 300 dpi is all that is needed there - or for checking the internet or the stock market via your phone? You don't need costly solid state, flash memory for this - no way. Power consumption has been an issue, but this has been solved to the satisfaction of some. 30 minutes of continuous use is okay. Stronger batteries are being developed in Korea. Allen gives a much more credible answer: <<What you have to do is to wait until you can buy a camera that is satisfactory in terms of picture quality, storage, etc., at a price you are willing to pay. Then buy it, and don't worry about what comes out six months later. Sure, the next camera will be better in some ways, but you will have had the use of your camera for six months. >> Nevertheless, we trust IOM won't come out and say they expect a wider loss (up to $-04) than anticipated as some bears are spreading or that new product development costs are greater than anticipated.