This whole idea confuses me. Why pay $14 bucks for a 32 MB use once card when I just bought a bunch of reusable cards for $6 each.

I can see some situations where they'd be useful. Things like surveilance photos where you don't want someone to say, "He deleted the frames that show my client is innocent."

For my part, I don't plan to buy one.

It might stand up better in legal matters where the images could be proven to be original, ie. not manipulated.

Actually I was just thinking about that on the way to work. With a film camera you always have the negative to maintain the integrity of the shot. How does one do that with digital?

... You burn a CD? :?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...onics_mfr.html

Since it is fairly easy to make a phoney shot with film (just shoot a digital picture), having film is in no way a guarentee of anything. Write once memory, CDs, film, .. can all be manipulated.

It is the integrity of the individual presenting the picture that really counts.

What?
8 track isn't being made anymore??????
Guess I'll have to go back to 33's & 45's!


These appear to be marketed for the mass idiots that have trouble inserting the batteries in their walkman!

Of course that EXCLUDES everyone here!

I guess it might catch on. Gotta admit getting batteries at the corner store is handy, why not removable storage?

Heh, I still have a folder of Benny Goodman on 78's but nothing that can play them.
I also remember just installing the new 8track in my AMC Gremlin and watching the tape come out in a rats nest of twisted plastic

Batteries at corner store? You don't use rechargables? Only thing I have that still uses normal batteries are the home theaters remote(aaa's) and the scale(9v, best to leave it dead ).

Just thinking and bringing this topic back. This idea is not as crazy as it seems at first. We find it crazy because all of us have computers and big hard drives and CD/DVD writers to handle/store/archive our pictures. However, the average John Doe that only wants to take pictures and doesn't even have a computer could find this idea actually useful. Sure, you can always go to a photo lab and get your pictures transferred to CD but for a non-computer person the idea could be good enough. But those chips must still be cheaper than film anyway.

Actually I doubt that the chips will be cheaper. Sure the basic innard is cheap but the packaging is where the money adds up. That little blue wafer that requires assembly will be hard to make for under the cost of a CD that is assembly lined pretty easy.

On the other hand I think I did figure out a market for these things. Tourist traps :roll: er Amusement parks. These could be held in bubble packs for pickup by Ma and Pa that ran out of that new fangled filmy chip stuff. These type of places would have no problem with a quick sale with a big markup rather than some touch intesive CD burn that takes 10 min for a download and burn.

Plus if you are without a backpack or purse carrying a CD is not convienient.

Those are assembled in a line too but the capital investment required by the manufacturers would be just the same as for the regular media we all know. Also, it is more expensive to assemble that package than make a CD, as you pointed out.