«

? "tony cooper" <> ?????? ??? ??????
news:...
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:49:10 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
> <> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 26, 10:02 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:03:46 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 26, 8:08 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:41:58 -0500, support <n...@spam.no> wrote:
> >> >> >ray wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:16:58 -0500, support wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >>> I am looking for a simple digital camera that:
> >>
> >> >> >>> 1. Takes pictures in JPEG format.
> >> >> >>> 2. Does not need any additional software to retrieve images
> >>
> >> >> I've never seen a digital that requires additional software to
> >> >> retrieve images. Many come with software to do this, but it's never
> >> >> required and the bundled software is usually useless.
> >>
> >> >> --
> >>
> >> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
> >>
> >> >There ARE cheapies that do not take a flash card. The memory is
> >> >strictly internal and you download pictures via USB. Those DO take
> >> >proprietary software.
> >>
> >> Give me an example of a currently available P&S that requires
> >> proprietary software.
> >>
> >> The USB cable and the card reader communicate to the camera through
> >> the same port. The computer does not see any difference between the
> >> cable interface and the card reader.
> >>
> >> In a Windows system, plug in either a card reader or a USB connection
> >> to the camera and a pop-up will appear asking how you want to upload
> >> the images. You can upload without any proprietary software.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
> >
> >I have one called ePix. I had another old one that I cannot find and
> >don't remember the name. What about those cheap Disney cameras- I
> >don't think they use flash cards and they do have a USB link.
> >
> >The ePix and the other one I had have a proprietary image format- you
> >cannot read the pictures- or even access them- with normal Windows
> >software.
>
> Read the post that triggered the discussion. The poster is asking
> about a camera that uses the .jpg format. A camera that doesn't use
> the .jpg format is not what the discussion is about.
>
> You can add it to the discussion, but it doesn't relate to the
> question or to my answer. You can also add pinhole cameras and camera
> obscuras. Neither uses a USB cable, a card reader, or downloads
> automatically to a Windows computer without the use of additional
> software.
>
ROTFLMAO!
> Interesting topics, but they have nothing to do with the question
> posed or the answer given.
>
>
>
>
> --
>

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

? "tony cooper" <> ?????? ??? ??????
news:...
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:39:44 -0500, "Mark B."
> <> wrote:
>
> >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:52:08 -0500, "Mark B."
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"support" <> wrote in message
> >>>news:9vymj.642$.. .
> >>>>I am looking for a simple digital camera that:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Takes pictures in JPEG format. 2. Does not need any additional
> >>>> software
> >>>> to retrieve images
> >>>>
> >>>> You help is much appreciated in advance.
> >>>>
> >>>> support
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Any camera currently on the market fills those requirements - just get
a
> >>>card reader, it's universally recognized on any PC and the transfers
are
> >>>faster than from the camera.
> >>>
> >> You don't need a card reader. Any digital P&S can use a USB cable.
> >> If the computer has a port for a card reader, it has a USB port.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, but not all cameras can be plugged in to any pc unless a driver is
> >loaded first - unlike a card reader.
>
> I know that threads drift and that new points are brought up during
> the progress of a discussion, but the OP's question was about picking
> a camera that doesn't have the need for additional software to
> retrieve images.
>
> The cameras that are currently available on the market don't need
> additional software. Some come with software, but the user doesn't
> need to install it. No "simple" camera that I'm aware of requires
> additional software. Format reading - e.g., RAW - may need software,
> but the poster is referring to .jpg images.
>
> Points about what Hassleblads require, drivers, etc. are not germane
> to the poster's question. They can valid points or interesting points
> of discussion, but they don't pertain to the specific question asked.
>
> >> While I now use a card reader, the "faster" bit is a non-feature
> >> feature. The difference in time between uploading a full card by
> >> either method is a matter of seconds. Unless you are trying to upload
> >> while the house is on fire, and those seconds are precious to you, it
> >> doesn't make a real difference.
> >>
> >The other reason I prefer a card reader is there's no risk of the camera
> >batteries running down
>
> Only a risk that matters if the batteries are depleted during
> download. The same risk exists if there is a power outage during
> download with a card reader even with a UPS.
>
> >nor is there a risk of the camera being knocked off
> >the desk.
>
> The risk is the same, but the source of the risk is different. You
> can catch the USB cable on something, or you can knock the camera off
> the desk picking it up to replace the card. The risk is due to
> clumsiness, and that isn't eliminated by use of a card reader.
>
> I use a card reader, but it would be no big deal to me if it wasn't
> available.
>
I use both a card reader and a USB cable



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

On Jan 27, 11:58 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:49:10 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
>
>
>
> <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> >On Jan 26, 10:02 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:03:46 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
>
> >> <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 26, 8:08 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:41:58 -0500, support <n...@spam.no> wrote:
> >> >> >ray wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:16:58 -0500, support wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> I am looking for a simple digital camera that:
>
> >> >> >>> 1. Takes pictures in JPEG format.
> >> >> >>> 2. Does not need any additional software to retrieve images
>
> >> >> I've never seen a digital that requires additional software to
> >> >> retrieve images. Many come with software to do this, but it's never
> >> >> required and the bundled software is usually useless.
>
> >> >> --
>
> >> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
> >> >There ARE cheapies that do not take a flash card. The memory is
> >> >strictly internal and you download pictures via USB. Those DO take
> >> >proprietary software.
>
> >> Give me an example of a currently available P&S that requires
> >> proprietary software.
>
> >> The USB cable and the card reader communicate to the camera through
> >> the same port. The computer does not see any difference between the
> >> cable interface and the card reader.
>
> >> In a Windows system, plug in either a card reader or a USB connection
> >> to the camera and a pop-up will appear asking how you want to upload
> >> the images. You can upload without any proprietary software.
>
> >> --
>
> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
> >I have one called ePix. I had another old one that I cannot find and
> >don't remember the name. What about those cheap Disney cameras- I
> >don't think they use flash cards and they do have a USB link.
>
> >The ePix and the other one I had have a proprietary image format- you
> >cannot read the pictures- or even access them- with normal Windows
> >software.
>
> Read the post that triggered the discussion. The poster is asking
> about a camera that uses the .jpg format. A camera that doesn't use
> the .jpg format is not what the discussion is about.
>
> You can add it to the discussion, but it doesn't relate to the
> question or to my answer. You can also add pinhole cameras and camera
> obscuras. Neither uses a USB cable, a card reader, or downloads
> automatically to a Windows computer without the use of additional
> software.
>
> Interesting topics, but they have nothing to do with the question
> posed or the answer given.
>
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

So I should never reply to someone who bends a topic a little? Good
luck on your policing of Usenet.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:47:48 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
<> wrote:

>On Jan 27, 11:58 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:49:10 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
>>
>>
>>
>> <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>> >On Jan 26, 10:02 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:03:46 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
>>
>> >> <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 26, 8:08 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:41:58 -0500, support <n...@spam.no> wrote:
>> >> >> >ray wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:16:58 -0500, support wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> I am looking for a simple digital camera that:
>>
>> >> >> >>> 1. Takes pictures in JPEG format.
>> >> >> >>> 2. Does not need any additional software to retrieve images
>>
>> >> >> I've never seen a digital that requires additional software to
>> >> >> retrieve images. Many come with software to do this, but it's never
>> >> >> required and the bundled software is usually useless.
>>
>> >> >> --
>>
>> >> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>
>> >> >There ARE cheapies that do not take a flash card. The memory is
>> >> >strictly internal and you download pictures via USB. Those DO take
>> >> >proprietary software.
>>
>> >> Give me an example of a currently available P&S that requires
>> >> proprietary software.
>>
>> >> The USB cable and the card reader communicate to the camera through
>> >> the same port. The computer does not see any difference between the
>> >> cable interface and the card reader.
>>
>> >> In a Windows system, plug in either a card reader or a USB connection
>> >> to the camera and a pop-up will appear asking how you want to upload
>> >> the images. You can upload without any proprietary software.
>>
>> >> --
>>
>> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>
>> >I have one called ePix. I had another old one that I cannot find and
>> >don't remember the name. What about those cheap Disney cameras- I
>> >don't think they use flash cards and they do have a USB link.
>>
>> >The ePix and the other one I had have a proprietary image format- you
>> >cannot read the pictures- or even access them- with normal Windows
>> >software.
>>
>> Read the post that triggered the discussion. The poster is asking
>> about a camera that uses the .jpg format. A camera that doesn't use
>> the .jpg format is not what the discussion is about.
>>
>> You can add it to the discussion, but it doesn't relate to the
>> question or to my answer. You can also add pinhole cameras and camera
>> obscuras. Neither uses a USB cable, a card reader, or downloads
>> automatically to a Windows computer without the use of additional
>> software.
>>
>> Interesting topics, but they have nothing to do with the question
>> posed or the answer given.
>
>So I should never reply to someone who bends a topic a little? Good
>luck on your policing of Usenet.

The interjection of a "bend" in the topic is fine. The discussions
that result from new aspects of a extant thread are often more
interesting and informative than the original topic.

What should be kept in mind, though, is that the new subject is a
matter apart from the original topic. If the subject is "glass lenses
are superior to plastic lenses", you can bring in the fact that
pinhole cameras use neither glass nor plastic lenses and still produce
images. Just don't try to use this to make any point about the
superiority of glass over plastic in lenses.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> The only reason I switched to a card reader is that the three cameras
> that are used in this house require two different USB cables.
> (camera-side connections) The card reader eliminates the need to
> change cables.


Hello, Tony:

When using my Kodak camera docks (USB), I noticed that the file
dates/times of my photos (after they were copied to the hard drive),
corresponded to the times of the actual transfer! That's unacceptable,
as I want to know the exact moment a particular picture was taken.

Hence, for the sake of accuracy, I always employ a card reader,
nowadays.


Cordially,
John Turco <>

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:32:06 -0600, John Turco <>
wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
><edited for brevity>
>
>> The only reason I switched to a card reader is that the three cameras
>> that are used in this house require two different USB cables.
>> (camera-side connections) The card reader eliminates the need to
>> change cables.
>
>
>Hello, Tony:
>
>When using my Kodak camera docks (USB), I noticed that the file
>dates/times of my photos (after they were copied to the hard drive),
>corresponded to the times of the actual transfer! That's unacceptable,
>as I want to know the exact moment a particular picture was taken.
>
>Hence, for the sake of accuracy, I always employ a card reader,
>nowadays.
>
Never had that problem with Canons or Nikons using the USB port.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

John Turco <> wrote:
>When using my Kodak camera docks (USB), I noticed that the file
>dates/times of my photos (after they were copied to the hard drive),

Which ones? Created, accessed, modified? Different file systems and OSs
store different properties and set/update them under different
circumstances.

>corresponded to the times of the actual transfer! That's unacceptable,
>as I want to know the exact moment a particular picture was taken.

That information is readily available in the EXIF data of each picture and
it is persistent, i.e. it will not be changed when
moving/copying/storing/... the file.

jue

John Turco wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
>
> <edited for brevity>
>
>> The only reason I switched to a card reader is that the three cameras
>> that are used in this house require two different USB cables.
>> (camera-side connections) The card reader eliminates the need to
>> change cables.
>
>
> Hello, Tony:
>
> When using my Kodak camera docks (USB), I noticed that the file
> dates/times of my photos (after they were copied to the hard drive),
> corresponded to the times of the actual transfer! That's unacceptable,
> as I want to know the exact moment a particular picture was taken.
>
> Hence, for the sake of accuracy, I always employ a card reader,
> nowadays.
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <>

I also use a card reader, most of the time. I find the program "Exifer"
of great use when the file date doesn't match the photo date. Give it a
look.

"Jürgen Exner" wrote:
>
> John Turco <> wrote:
> >When using my Kodak camera docks (USB), I noticed that the file
> >dates/times of my photos (after they were copied to the hard drive),
>
> Which ones? Created, accessed, modified? Different file systems and OSs
> store different properties and set/update them under different
> circumstances.

Hello, Jürgen:

Well, I just tried it, again, with the same result: Windows XP Explorer
showed the time the image file was transferred, >not< when it was shot.

> >corresponded to the times of the actual transfer! That's unacceptable,
> >as I want to know the exact moment a particular picture was taken.
>
> That information is readily available in the EXIF data of each
> picture and it is persistent, i.e. it will not be changed when
> moving/copying/storing/... the file.
>
> jue

You're absolutely right, in that the "Exifer" application displays the
correct information, within its "Date Taken" field; I was implicitly
referring to Windows Explorer, in my previous comments.


Cordially,
John Turco <>

Ron Hunter wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> I also use a card reader, most of the time. I find the program "Exifer"
> of great use when the file date doesn't match the photo date. Give it a
> look.


Hello, Ron:

Thanks, but, I already had "Exifer."


Cordially,
John Turco <>