60 GB Color Screen Photo-Capable iPod?

[maya]

LOL.. this wins the award for the dumbest thing ever said.

Humans have been around for over 160,000 years, and you think major evolution occured in the last 300 years?!

If you went back to 1750 say, with a computer (in Doc Browns delorian..obviously) they would have the same mental ability to learn how to use it as anyone here in 2004.

That is your opinion. Have you even noticed in this century alone how far humans have evolved and what we have accomplished to date. We have done things so fast in such a short time compared to any given century.

if you took a portable computer to 1750 there will think its witch craft and prob burn you for it LOL.

They will not grasp the who virtual world thing, believe me. People of those times are simple and If I am right and all you do is sit in the office at your computer and with little to no physical activity you will not be able to plow a field. You can try however won't be able to keep up.


This is the point of the argument, its to keep up. And people from 1750 will not be able to keep up with computers as you would not be able to keep up with all day physical activity.

take care.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Exactly.

And the latest $8000 pro model DSLR cameras also ship with 2 inch displays - they have a zoom feature for detail, if you need it.

Yes, but tonight you will not be able to use the camera's display to review or otherwise see a picture you took this morning and already offloaded to another device to free up your memory card.

Take the display of the picture on an iPod for what it is. It is for a preview and minor cataloguing (delete a really crappy picture, for example ) duties. Neither the iPod display nor the camera's display will serve as a final medium in which to appreciate the photograph. The TV screen (video out) does a better job so it is good to have that option on the road, but it also does not qualify as a good medium for really appreciating a photo.

 

[melgross]

more thoughts

In addition to my above post, I have a couple of other things which I think would be of interest.

In regards to screen size. Current backlit LCD's require a certain amount of space around the display. This limits the display size on an iPod to less than what otherwise could be fit.

OLED displays don't have the same requirement. While I have not disassembled my iPods, I've seen enough photos of the internals to see what could be done.

Before I start, and you all say that I'm nuts, I have some credentials in this area. Until we sold our business to JBL in the mid-eighties, I was a partner in a pro audio manufacturing concern named Magnum Opus Inc. (later Peacetime Communications Inc.). I designed speakers, as well as audio products. I therefore have experience in this area.

From what I can see, Apple could move the wheel a quarter of an inch down towards the bottom of the case. If they were willing to slightly square up the front sides of the case, they would have about three eights of an inch more room for a longer OLED display. The OLED would also let them add another eight of an inch on top.

If you measure the display you have now and add three eights to the height and three eights to the length, you have a display that is markedly larger.

To go one step further, Apple could make this touch sensitive, as in My Palms', or the Pocket Pc.

Apple could work out interface guidelines for this, and other software houses could come up with a myriad of new apps.

This, combined with the wheel, would give the iPod user almost infinite control. Apple wouldn't need to give a stylus, as the control could be by fingertip. Apple could supply screen protectors like those that are sold for other small devices like this.

The ultimate, of course, would be to add infra-red control to the top of the unit. All that would need is about one half by one quarter inch space for the emitter on the side of the top of the iPod. Almost no space inside would be required. Perhaps less than a half inch square of circuit board
space, under where the emitter would be located. Of course, Bluetooth could be added as well. My D-Link Bluetooth USB adapter is mostly plug and case. The chip would fit right in.

What could be done with a device such as this?

 

[CalfCanuck]

Yes, but tonight you will not be able to use the camera's display to review or otherwise see a picture you took this morning and already offloaded to another device to free up your memory card.

Take the display of the picture on an iPod for what it is. It is for a preview and minor cataloguing (delete a really crappy picture, for example ) duties. Neither the iPod display nor the camera's display will serve as a final medium in which to appreciate the photograph. The TV screen (video out) does a better job so it is good to have that option on the road, but it also does not qualify as a good medium for really appreciating a photo.

Well, it seems you and I agree about the very limited use of a color LCD screen (or video out, for that matter) as merely a quick check to delete obviously unuseable images.

But that's exactly why I want a MASS storage device - I can shoot 20 GB in the field, and upload EVERYTHING to portable storage. But my digital darkroom work begins AFTER I get connected to a real computer with a large, high quality display.

A 2' screen or a 5" inch screen won't make any difference for photo work.

 

[jeffzoom]

oled anybody?

could Apple possibly use an OLED screen? I think they produce less heat and don't require a backlight

 

[toughboy]

tell me about the battery life.. tell me about the size, the thickness .. tell me about how much in/out sockets will make it more easily get malfunctioning ... nope baby, I dont want my photos on anywhere.. I've got a 12"PB, I carry it around everywhere.. Thanks!

 

[sinisterdesign]

Had I owned a video iPod, I would have taken it instead. I could have offloaded a couple of TV shows and watched them when:

2) While I was enjoying a calorie-rich breakfast (after 12 hours of fasting for my blood test) at a nearby fast-food joint (15 minutes)

3) While I waited for my Venti Java-Chip (again, more calories) to be made. (5 minutes)

so mactarkus, i take it VIDEIO IPOD = MORE ENJOYABLE CALORIES ??

seems reasonable to me....

 

[gotohamish]

photo ipod

2 words:

scroll zooming.

 

[toughboy]

photo bank is a completely different concept than iPod.. Once, there was an Archos Photobank-Jukebox thing.. it was as triple big as iPod and triple bulkier,triple uglier.. if Apple really wants putting photo stuff and etc on a portable device, why not make a Newton II.. At least we can have more features as we carry that "big" thing around.. iPod should stay as a jukebox, nothing less nothing more.. make it thinner, make it cheaper, thats much greater development for me..

 

[t300]

could Apple possibly use an OLED screen? I think they produce less heat and don't require a backlight

True...It also consumes LESS battery.

 

[CubaTBird]

question ONE, will the screen be in 16 bit, 24 bit, or 32 bit color, thats the question we should be askin. second, this is a rumor and isn't official yet. so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[~Shard~]

I don't know about Giggles but yes. Yes I am one of those people. Give me a cell phone that can go a week on standby and 8 hours of talktime. I'm sick of having to plug my phone in every 2.5 days because some dumb*** company is more concerned if they can drop a widescreen projection TV in their phone instead of trying to get better battery life.

That being said unlike the phone industry I think Apple knows where its priorities are. They know people prize a long battery life on their MP3 player. If they implement this don't expect a huge drop in playback times. Apple isn't stupid. Arrogant yes. Stupid no.

As I stated in a previous post, I never said all those extra features were useful and wanted, and I feel your pain as well. And, also as I stated in a previous post, I agree that Apple at least has its priorities straight and would do a good job with respect to the design and whatnot of this new iPod if it ever comes to be, whereas other companies would, and have screwed things up royally in the past.

 

[~Shard~]

WOW!!! Think about it, Porn!!!; But 60gigs. isn't that a bit small for music and porn?

Is that a iPod in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

<Sigh> Ah yes, leave it to a newbie to make the standard funny, clever, and completely original statement involving porn to contribute to rest of our discussions...

 

[zelmo]

That is your opinion. Have you even noticed in this century alone how far humans have evolved and what we have accomplished to date. We have done things so fast in such a short time compared to any given century.

if you took a portable computer to 1750 there will think its witch craft and prob burn you for it LOL.

They will not grasp the who virtual world thing, believe me. People of those times are simple and If I am right and all you do is sit in the office at your computer and with little to no physical activity you will not be able to plow a field. You can try however won't be able to keep up.


This is the point of the argument, its to keep up. And people from 1750 will not be able to keep up with computers as you would not be able to keep up with all day physical activity.

take care.

Are you saying that if you plucked an infant from 1750 and brought him/her to 2004, that he or she would somehow be less mentally able to adapt to our modern technology that an infant actually born in 2004? Or that an infant from 2004 raised in the 18th century would be unable to adapt to hard labor as well as a child from that era? Hahahaha. Evolution does not happen overnight, and certainly does not advance that far in a scant 300 years.

I'll grant you this - if I showed up in 1750 with my PB (hey, I couldn't go there without it ), they would phreak out, probably stone me to boot. That just means that the culture of the age is quite foreign to what we know. That has nothing to do with the mental development of a person from 1750, and everything to do with the environment in which they were raised. Hand an iPod to someone in the year 1900 and you'd get a similar reaction. Technology is what has advanced quite far in the last 100 (50, 25,10, 5, 2!!) years, not people.

 

[Steven1621]

out just in time to go with panther, anyone? the complete union of iLife...

 

[~Shard~]

However that said you brain is far more evolved than the 18th century person.

Sorry, just found this amusing, had to comment...

Yes, of course we have progressed fairly rapidly these past couple of centuries, but that does not mean in the least bit that we are more evolved. Look at the Egyptians building the pyramids thousands of years ago, were they inferior to us? And that’s just one of many examples I could give. Although we have progressed and would like to think of ourselves as “advanced”, I truly believe a lot of knowledge has been lost over the centuries and we could learn a lot from certain ancient civilizations. One should not solely use technology and our advancement over the past century to judge whether we are more evolved than previous cultures. One could argue that our dependency on technology to do everything for us, our focus on all things "physical" and a lack of focus on aspects such as spiritualism, etc. have rendered us more primitive than some of our ancestors in some repsects. But, all of that is for another debate in some other thread I'm sure....

There is always a good and bad point about everything, don't argue that just because you think IYO a muti mouse is great that its well suited for all.

Look at all the trouble I caused with my innocent little 2-button mouse comment - I love being a bastard!

 

[~Shard~]

out just in time to go with panther, anyone? the complete union of iLife...

I don't follow ya - do you mean Tiger?

 

[~Shard~]

Are you saying that if you plucked an infant from 1750 and brought him/her to 2004, that he or she would somehow be less mentally able to adapt to our modern technology that an infant actually born in 2004? Or that an infant from 2004 raised in the 18th century would be unable to adapt to hard labor as well as a child from that era? Hahahaha. Evolution does not happen overnight, and certainly does not advance that far in a scant 300 years.

I'll grant you this - if I showed up in 1750 with my PB (hey, I couldn't go there without it ), they would phreak out, probably stone me to boot. That just means that the culture of the age is quite foreign to what we know. That has nothing to do with the mental development of a person from 1750, and everything to do with the environment in which they were raised. Hand an iPod to someone in the year 1900 and you'd get a similar reaction. Technology is what has advanced quite far in the last 100 (50, 25,10, 5, 2!!) years, not people.

I was about to type up pretty much the same thing, but you've done it for me so I'll just say "well said" and that I agree. Technology has advanced, but that is not to be used as the sole measure of how the human civilization itself has progressed and evolved.

 

[mulletman13]

I see this as a useless novelty.

Besides who the hell wants to carry a cord around with them when they show their pictures?

Lame.... give me a regular 60gb ipod for music and I'll be happy.

 

[elskeptico]

I'd buy one

heck yeah

 

[maya]

Are you saying that if you plucked an infant from 1750 and brought him/her to 2004, that he or she would somehow be less mentally able to adapt to our modern technology that an infant actually born in 2004? Or that an infant from 2004 raised in the 18th century would be unable to adapt to hard labor as well as a child from that era? Hahahaha. Evolution does not happen overnight, and certainly does not advance that far in a scant 300 years.

I'll grant you this - if I showed up in 1750 with my PB (hey, I couldn't go there without it ), they would phreak out, probably stone me to boot. That just means that the culture of the age is quite foreign to what we know. That has nothing to do with the mental development of a person from 1750, and everything to do with the environment in which they were raised. Hand an iPod to someone in the year 1900 and you'd get a similar reaction. Technology is what has advanced quite far in the last 100 (50, 25,10, 5, 2!!) years, not people.

::laughing hysterically::, who said anything about bringing a CHILD from the 1750, to 2004 or visa versa. I was stating that an elderly us unable to grasp too much information since they grew up beyond the 25+ year mark. As you age your brain slows down and it takes a longer time to grasp and understand new think as quickly.

Please read my argument on this in regards to the one button mouse issue, I have made it clear. It would seem you have been confused in this matter by making an issue about it not me.

And it all depends to an extent to the child and they genes from the 1750, for all you know it could suffer from ADHD or something that was inherited from its parents gene pool. So no there is a lot of varying factors, its not a simple CUT and PASTE issue as you feel it is.


Take care.

 

[maya]

Sorry, just found this amusing, had to comment...

Yes, of course we have progressed fairly rapidly these past couple of centuries, but that does not mean in the least bit that we are more evolved. Look at the Egyptians building the pyramids thousands of years ago, were they inferior to us? And that’s just one of many examples I could give. Although we have progressed and would like to think of ourselves as “advanced”, I truly believe a lot of knowledge has been lost over the centuries and we could learn a lot from certain ancient civilizations. One should not solely use technology and our advancement over the past century to judge whether we are more evolved than previous cultures. One could argue that our dependency on technology to do everything for us, our focus on all things "physical" and a lack of focus on aspects such as spiritualism, etc. have rendered us more primitive than some of our ancestors in some repsects. But, all of that is for another debate in some other thread I'm sure....



Look at all the trouble I caused with my innocent little 2-button mouse comment - I love being a bastard!

The ancient Egyptians and other civilizations were advanced in other ways, such as building, the beginning of medical science, astronomy, etc. However we can go into history as being the first with technology, space travel, and advancing on medical science on earth.

When I posted my comment on evolved brains, I meant the knowledge that we have obtained in the last 100 years, something they didn't have in 1750.

So we do have a place in history

LOL, sure we shall leave it for another thread.

Yeah, you did bring the 2 button mouse issue. LOL.

 

[Phat_Pat]

sorry if this has already been posted (haven't read through all 11 pages) but C|Net has a article about this rumor now.

Linky

 

[~Shard~]

I see this as a useless novelty.

Besides who the hell wants to carry a cord around with them when they show their pictures?

Lame.... give me a regular 60gb ipod for music and I'll be happy.

Yah, those damn cords always weigh me down, what a nuisance...

 

[~Shard~]

The ancient Egyptians and other civilizations were advanced in other ways, such as building, the beginning of medical science, astronomy, etc. However we can go into history as being the first with technology, space travel, and advancing on medical science on earth.

When I posted my comment on evolved brains, I meant the knowledge that we have obtained in the last 100 years, something they didn't have in 1750.

So we do have a place in history

LOL, sure we shall leave it for another thread.

Agreed, and I understand the point you’re trying to make. We’ll leave it at that!

Yeah, you did bring the 2 button mouse issue. LOL.

Thanks, I'm proud with how that turned out...