<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: About Camera Phones</title>
	<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2019</link>
	<description>Independent Tech News and Product Reviews from former VP and head of CNET.com and Longtime Computer Shopper Columnist, Alice Hill author of the popular "Hard Edge" column. Originally named AliceandBill.com.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:34:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Yew Han</title>
		<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2019#comment-4383</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:37:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2019#comment-4383</guid>
					<description>The day a camera-phone capable of taking wedding photoes,stop-motion sports action, and stay small enough to fit into a pocket is still far away. It would be a challange to include an internal flash, and implement high shutter speed.
Present camera-phones are great for casual and emergency-situation pictures.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The day a camera-phone capable of taking wedding photoes,stop-motion sports action, and stay small enough to fit into a pocket is still far away. It would be a challange to include an internal flash, and implement high shutter speed.<br />
Present camera-phones are great for casual and emergency-situation pictures.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: James</title>
		<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2019#comment-4349</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2019#comment-4349</guid>
					<description>And while I'm at it... back in the 1920s, photos were really small, like 1x1.5 inches. As time went on, we went to 3x5 and 4x6 prints, so that you could finally see people in the pictures.

Now people hand around cell phones with 1" screens and wide angle lenses so that the picture of their child occupies an area of less that 1x1cm. Umm, that's very nice. Isn't this a regression?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And while I&#8217;m at it&#8230; back in the 1920s, photos were really small, like 1&#215;1.5 inches. As time went on, we went to 3&#215;5 and 4&#215;6 prints, so that you could finally see people in the pictures.</p>
<p>Now people hand around cell phones with 1&#8243; screens and wide angle lenses so that the picture of their child occupies an area of less that 1&#215;1cm. Umm, that&#8217;s very nice. Isn&#8217;t this a regression?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: James</title>
		<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2019#comment-4348</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:51:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2019#comment-4348</guid>
					<description>The question is whether a 1M camera phone with a $1 lens is really going to take reasonable pictures. I would be happy to have a cell phone that lives until the end of the contract. So  far we're batting about .180 on that.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question is whether a 1M camera phone with a $1 lens is really going to take reasonable pictures. I would be happy to have a cell phone that lives until the end of the contract. So  far we&#8217;re batting about .180 on that.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.333 seconds -->
