In the message I received, "tOM Trottier" writes:
>They have replied to me before, so I'm optimistic.
>
>A wireless network, with live transfer of pictures when taken, would not
>only eliminate the cable, but could eliminate the need for mega-storage in
>the camera, and free the photographer to move around without carrying a
>laptop or hard drive. There could even be an alarm if the laptop or camera
>move out of a specified range.
Tom,
You'd still need quite a bit of *FAST* storage in the camera itself for
all the caching that would need to be done. Unless you're willing to
limit yourself to one shot per x tens of seconds for any full size raw
image.
802.11a theoretical data transfer rate (speed) is 54Mbps
802.11b theoretical speed is 11Mbps (with fallbacks to 5.5, 2 and 1Mbps)
802.11g is not even standardized yet, theoretical speed is 54Mbps max, IIRC
Let's assume here that average photo that will be taken with E-4/3 is
around 25MB. That means that to transfer a single photo from your camera
to computer, you'll wait 3.7 seconds using 802.11a or 802.11g or 18.2
seconds using 802.11b at their theoretical highest data transfer rates.
For real world experience, normally double to quadriple the figures. :-)
This makes 802.11b (Wi-Fi) theoretically comparable with high speed data
transfers achievable with USB 1. Practically, you're most probably get
roughly the same data transfer speeds as low speed data transfers in USB
1, I.e. some 1.5Mbps.
Firewire with 400Mbps (and up) and USB2 with 480Mbps have data transfer
rates much higher than any wireless made for consumers.
Of course, these are all theoretical speeds, however, there's a lot more
interference in wireless world than one can see in the physical cable.
In real world, 802.11b is too slow for large data transfers, and throw
in Bluetooth devices and you'll see your data transfer reduced to a
crawl. Interference is everything and with propagation of 802.11
devices, it will only get worse before it gets better.
So, instead of a wireless access, why not use iPod or similar device?
Sure, the speed of hard drive in such devices is slower than the
transfer rate achievable by Firewire or USB 2, but at least you have a
small sized mass storage on you wherever you go. (And it plays MP3 --
ugh).
Cheers,
Saso
- IT curmudgeon
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|