Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Walgreens PureDigital Camera Hacked

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the photos-on-the-cheap dept.

Hardware 177

Powercntrl writes "While the Ritz version of the PureDigital single-use camera was recently hacked, the Walgreens version wasn't - until now. Codeman, the same guy who brought us the I-Opener hack, found a way to add a standard Smartmedia interface to the Walgreens camera and extract images with a standard Smartmedia reader. Links to sample images showing the camera's quality are included."

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

**DUPE ALERT** (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716223)

Indeed.

MOD PARENT DOWN, AIDS CUM LIP FAGGET (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716259)

Parent obviously has a case of HIV

(Scrore: +5 Delicious) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716227)

I hate allof you...

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Quality? (0)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716234)

How good is the quality? 1 or 2 megapixel?

Re:Quality? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716364)

According to this [siliconvalley.com] , 2 megapixels.

Re:Quality? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716513)

PARENT IS GOATSE.CX LINK!!!!

Re:Quality? (1)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717600)

Oh well. I got my nice 3.3 next to me.

Re:Quality? (1)

Almost-Retired (637760) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717240)

And its slashdotted so easliy

$10 for 1280x1024 pictures (5, Insightful)

Brento (26177) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716242)

The reason for getting excited is that you can get these for $10 each. Walgreens expects that you'll return them to get your pictures "processed", and then they'll turn around and sell the cameras again to somebody else.

$10 for a camera that shoots 1280x1024 plus has a flash certainly isn't bad - but then you're going to rack up the expense of a SmartMedia socket, soldering, the memory card, and optionally, your own soldered USB connection. Even if you figure $40-$50 worth of materials, it's not a bad deal, if you can settle for its washed-out colors.

Re:$10 for 1280x1024 pictures (4, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716272)

Except that I have seen cameras of that quality for that price at target. No soldering required.

They even came with some chicken shit software.

Ooooh Chicken Shit software! (5, Funny)

twoslice (457793) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716360)

They even came with some chicken shit software

I can hardly contain my excrement...

Re:Ooooh Chicken Shit software! (4, Informative)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717380)

Yeah, I bought one [theverb.com] for my five-year-old, and guess what? It won't work without the chicken-shit software, which is too difficult for a five-year-old (and it doesn't really work right even for an adult). What I want is a sub-$100 camera that acts like a usb drive when my boy connects it to his PC (like my $250 camera does). Then he can drag-and-drop the pictures himself. He doesn't need a fancy LCD, just point-and-shoot plus flash. And no chicken-shit software needed.

Any cameras that meet these requirements?

Sub $100 digital camera/USB drive (3, Informative)

Fuyu (107589) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717773)

I've seen at Best Buy (and I just recently read a review about it, but I don't remember the site) a 64MB MP3 player/1.3 MP digital camera that plugs right into a USB port that sells for $99. It's white and orange.

Unfortunately.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716463)

Walgreens expects that you'll return them to get your pictures "processed"

Your pictures are processed here [tinyurl.com] ...

Re:Unfortunately.... (0, Troll)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716522)

Ugh... If that was your point, just FSCKING LINK DIRECTLY TO IT! It would have been funny if you linked to http://goatse.cx/. However, since you linked to http://tinyurl.com/4ui, YOU FAIL IT!

Moderators, do something about this poor excuse for an AC.

Anyway, I thought that you'd get a photo CD and a pack of prints, a la 35mm. Can anyone confirm this?

Instant slashdot (1)

mousse-man (632412) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716255)

That site is already pushing up daisies....

Re:Instant slashdot (0)

GerbilSocks (713781) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716278)

Is it possible to slashdot Slashdot?

Re:Instant slashdot (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716366)

Yes. It was a word-of-mouth slashdotting, and it was the Hellmouth series of articles that brought it down. Jon Katz wrote a book about geeks who moved from somewhere in Idaho to Chicago, and he mentioned that Taco actually told him to stop writing the stories because it was overloading (read: slashdotting) Slashdot's servers.

Re:Instant slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716471)

Taco actually told him to stop writing the stories

Taco has done the world a great service.

Re:Instant slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717014)

Linux-powered sites are dying!

MIRROR! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717061)

Here's a mirror [dreamwater.org] of the posting, courtesy of Worm Quartet [wormquartet.com]

Bah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716268)

That's nothing compared to my Thane pocket camera!

while it may be neat... (0, Troll)

segment (695309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716271)


Let's suppose someone decided to turn around and sue you or something for manipulating their product, something small like this... Could cost you a pretty penny in legal fees. Or... say it takes you what a couple hours, couple of dollars to pull this `hack` off... For what in all honesty other than to say `look what I did`. Come one now... Digital cameras are dirt cheap. Not to rag on the `hacker', but let's get real what true purpose does this serve?

I'm not trying to troll around, nor put anyone's `work' down, but I'm trying to think of any value this may have and sadly I see none. Now had he said something really productive like he hacked the camera to make every pic to be Angelina Jolie, or some other sexpot, then I'd work with him...

Re:while it may be neat... (5, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716303)

Could a car manufacturer sue me for taking their cheapest car, installing third party leather seats, and pimping it out to the max? I would be circumventing their luxury line and bypassing all their dealer options and business model. Should I be considered... a criminal?

You're missing the analogy... (0)

kialara (145164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716649)

You're forgetting that the car manufacturer requires you to buy their gasoline only, and that's how they make their money.

Different situation. Not that I disagree... Bad business models don't give them the right to sue.

Re:You're missing the analogy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716803)

> You're forgetting that the car manufacturer requires you to buy their gasoline only, and that's how they make their money.

Almost.

The car manufacturers are extremely close with the Republican party (like Alabama brother-sister "close").

The Saudi Arabian governmment is just as close to the Republican party via "US" (just headquarters, really) oil companies.

So yeah, while you say this facitiously... the connection already exists.

A pity we cannot eliminate corporate "donations" and enemy countries that buy our politicians. I'd rather pay $2.00 a gallon and have methenol (US corn) power my idiot neighbors H2 Humvee (the prick has "children" and "US" stickers all over it the fucking traitorous poser...)

Re:You're missing the analogy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716966)

I'm getting worried with your oil story. Oil is amazingly cheap, considering it is an *extremely* dangerous career. I don't know if you have ever worked in the fields, many people routinely die to extract gasses and oils from deep within the earth Pressurized deposits of radioactive decay, including the radioactive sources themselves come out with the oil. Lethal gases, mostly sulpher dioxide, carbon dioxide, and others will blanket your work area on a daily basis. Unusually high pressures deep within are unlocked and threaten to launch you to the moon. The machinery is huge, clunky, and can rip your arms off if you don't handle the pipes and chains right. Or you can fall off the rig and drown in a pile of mud.

This is not a job you want to do. Its slave labor.

I have done surveying here in the US. We have lots of oil. But we require fair wages and just don't do a lot of it here anymore. Our survey equipment is often buggy and results are routinely fudged to get the job done. Many sites with lots of oil are frequently dismissed and the investors move on to new areas for drilling and exploitation. Its a messy industry filled with NDA's, people ending up dead, and fortunes lost.

Ever wonder why there are people in the Middle East don't like us? And our politicians are acting funny? Its the politics of oil. Its the fuel that feeds our economy. Its what keeps us warm in the winter. And why people will always be bitter.

Consider the price of oil compared to decades ago. Or milk. Or any other commodoty item by the gallon. Its amazingly cheap! Wholesale futures rates of refined gasoline are currently in the 80 cent per gallon range in quantities of 40,000 gallons or more.

Re:while it may be neat... (2, Insightful)

MarkJensen (708621) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717497)

Unfortunately, the camera mod could be tied into the DMCA, in which case, you would be considered a criminal.

I, personally, think that this is a neat hack (in the pure sense of the word), but I am sure that Walgreens is not charging $10 to own the camera, but more of a 'rental fee' for its use. Sort of like going to Blockbuster and thinking "Hey! A $5 movie! Cool!" and keeping it.

Walgreens probably won't get bent out of shape over a miniscule number of these leaving circulation (as the 'mainstream' folks don't have the inclination or abilities as the average /.er), but they might get upset about plans being put on the web...

P.S. Who modded the original poster (segment) a troll? I think it is a valid point, and isn't inflammatory...

Re:while it may be neat... (2, Interesting)

dattaway (3088) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717670)

Let me ask if this is the future you want. Car dealers may not charge you $10 to own the cars, but more of an incentive for you to bring them in for "service." Since reverse engineering the internals of the car is now illegal, it would be forbidden to determine what kind of oil or fuel it uses. To publish any information you find about your tinkering could get you into big trouble. It could prevent *all* car manufacturers from making a profit and no incentive to sell cars.

I'm sure we are not confused about a rental agreement and Walgreen's cameras. But I do play the cd's I legally rented illegally on my Linux box with mplayer. Am I a criminal? I heard someone who made it possible for me to enjoy a movie in the privacy of my own home has been made a criminal just for that.

You see where this is going? We are allowing companies to artificially commoditize the market into exclusive goods. Its wasteful, harmful for the environment, stifles innovation, and destroys any sense of freedoms that may occur naturally.

Re:while it may be neat... (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717938)

Unfortunately, the camera mod could be tied into the DMCA, in which case, you would be considered a criminal.
Only if it involves circumventing an access control mechanism designed to prevent access to copyrighted materials unauthorized by the copyright holder.

Which it isn't. The "only" copyrighted materials here are the individual's photos, and the individual, as the copyright holder, has a perfect right to authorize him or herself to access those photos.

Re:while it may be neat... (3, Insightful)

penguinoid (724646) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716420)

To my knowledge, there is no law that says you don't own a material object that you bought. Like you're allowed to destroy the things you buy, no? But don't trust me, I'm not very well informed about laws.

SCO and MS coming to mind here (1)

segment (695309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716626)

To my knowledge, there is no law that says you don't own a material object that you bought

This same sentence reminds me oh so much of MS licensing the 'FAT' file system and their whole licensing scheme. As well as SCO suing everyone.

Re:while it may be neat... (2, Interesting)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717606)

Well, they could put up a sign at the store saying that by buying these cameras you are agreeing to return them when the memory gets full for picture processing. Then it would be a contract clause. As long as you have to see and read the contract before buying the camera you could be bound by it. (This would be different from 'shrinkwrap' licensing in that you would see the contract before money changed hands.)

Not that I've seen such signs...

Re:while it may be neat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7718302)

I sure do miss the days when a signature was required for a contract to be effective.

Remember the toner cartrage business... (0)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717661)

...wonder if this falls under DCMA?

Re:while it may be neat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716423)

You have to think outside of the box. I could use this as a good camera in stange places. Model Airplane aerial phtography comes to mind, as well as remote monitoring of wild game trails. I would not worry about losing one of these cameras in either situation.

Sure there are other options out there, but don't you get at least a small sense of pride by doing something yourself? Or if there is not a ready made solution on the shelf do you just forget about the problem?

If you want every picture you take to be a sexpot, then marry an agreeable hottie like I did. Just don't ruin that fine firm belly by getting her pregnant! She will never bare her midrif for the camera again!

Damn, she's looking over my shoulder so this has to go out AC....

Re:while it may be neat... (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716425)

pay in cash at a Walgreens you normally don't go to (considering that they are mostly in Wisconsin right now I don't think that will be a problem).

Re:while it may be neat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716519)

considering that they are mostly in Wisconsin right now

Walgreens has over 4000 stores in 44 states with sales of 32.5 billion dollars in fiscal year 2003, if my memory serves me right.

Re:while it may be neat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716708)

IF YOU RTFA:

the cameras are only being sold in WI as of right now.

Re:while it may be neat... (1)

wolf- (54587) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717720)

More of us would READ the ARTICLE if it wasn't SLASHDOTTED. News for Nerds Willing to Wait 24 hours for a linked site to come back online.

Re:while it may be neat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717918)

Only the first few can RTFA. It was slashdotted in milliseconds.

Re:while it may be neat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717960)

Hours later and the site is still slashdotted. The least /. could do is warn the webmasters of sites like those that a link is about to be posted. Not everybody has the good fortune to have unlimited bandwidth.

And watch your F language! There's no need to have that F attitude.

Re:while it may be neat... (1)

Darth_Foo (608063) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716611)

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Walgreens or the cameras are mostly in Wisconsin right now? I think the Walgreens a quarter of a mile away from my house in Tennessee has these disposable cameras.

Re:while it may be neat... (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716869)

Take your tin foil hat off and just buy the thing instead of thinking you have to dodge the man.

What are they going to do, come after every single person who has ever bought one of these crappy little cameras and demand to have it back?

Re:while it may be neat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716467)

...not when you build an array of these things. There's some research value in it from my perspective. Late, true you'd want better cameras... but camera's done grow on trees.

Re:while it may be neat... (4, Funny)

chrysrobyn (106763) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716679)

Let's suppose someone decided to turn around and sue you or something for manipulating their product

I see your point. However, if you actually buy the product, it's not illegal. If you're merely licensing the product, then you're altering someone else's equipment. Alternatively, perhaps the author of the HOWTO could be prosecuted for advocating destruction of property.

To use your analogy, I'm in trouble if I pimp out a Hertz rental car and then fail to return it. If I buy a Kia, however, and then put in BMW accessories that I purchased, neither Kia nor BMW will care (although some BMW employees may get heartache).

Grumble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716273)

Is this camera available at all Walgreens? If not, they (the "hackers") should've waited till all of us got a chance at getting our hands on them.

Now Walgreens will just shut the program down, and withit goes my dream of getting a 1MP webcam for under $10... :-(

Iopener (3, Funny)

kajoob (62237) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716287)

Anybody wanna buy my hacked iopener that I don't use anymore so I can buy a bunch of these cameras?

Re:Iopener (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717007)

Would you take a hacked CueCat in exchange?

Woo hoo! (3, Insightful)

i_am_syco (694486) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716301)

I needed a digital camera. Santa's going to be visiting a tad earlier this year. To tell you the truth, a reusable digital camera is just begging to be hacked. Why these companies are putting them out at all is beyond me, because the analog film quality is so much better.

Re:Woo hoo! (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716489)

because 99% of the population isn't going to use them to hack. Who in their right mind is going to pay $10 to buy the camera and sit there soldering a USB cable to the inards to get the pictures off? Not a non-geek I can tell you that.

Re:Woo hoo! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716858)

..and a geek can surely buy some 40-50$ cam for themselfs..

Re:Woo hoo! (3, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716512)

Yes, there really is no reason to have a reusable digital camera without an LCD screen. What's the point of even having it be digital if you have to get the pictures processed by the store anyway? Isn't the whole point of digital cameras that you can preview the pictures and that you DON'T have to get film processed? These cameras allow neither of those - they're pointless!

You can get film developed and put on a picture CD at a much higher quality than this. Why even bother having it be digital??

Re:Woo hoo! (2, Insightful)

CTho9305 (264265) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717967)

The general population believes slogans like "digital quality" mean that digital is inherently better.

Re:Woo hoo! (2, Insightful)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716605)

It's cheaper for them.

Developer chemicals and machines are expensive. Cheaper overhead == more profit.

SuperComment (4, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716329)

Let me get it all out of the way for y'all, ok?

  • What a waste of time
  • What crappy images
  • Don't they have some poor child in the third world they could be helping with their science project
  • Good job destroying their business model, because everyone is going to run out and buy these because they're loaded with features
  • FIRST/SECOND/THIRD POST
  • The black helicopters from the Santa/Jesus Conspirary are out to get me and my alien friend, but if you happen to have a time travel S3-4QB, we'll be safe!(props to all the true wackjobs that end up -1. You guys are something special).
  • SCO sucks.
  • I for one welcome our new cheap crappy picture-taking overlords
  • Slashdot editors suck, this is a dupe.
  • Oh, I actually read the article now- ok, it's not a dupe. The slashdot editors still suck.

Did I miss anyone?

yeah... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716385)

your bearded mom

Dude, it's a PARODY (3, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716386)

God, can't anyone take a damn joke? I hope you all get meta-moderated to hell.

Re:SuperComment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716397)

You certainly did, sir!

and the obligatory "let me get all the stupid, repetitive posts out of the way for ya" post!

Re:SuperComment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716412)

Yeah, you're a fucking nigger.

Re:SuperComment (3, Funny)

gooman (709147) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716480)

Dude, turn in your membership...

You missed:
Microsoft!
RIAA
MPAA
and the potential Beowolf cluster (Imagine).

you missed... (5, Funny)

iamplupp (728943) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716580)

..."slashdotted already. they must be hosting it on a hacked camera"

Re:you missed... (2, Funny)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716632)

..."slashdotted already. they must be hosting it on a hacked camera"

And don't forget...

"In Soviet Russia, Walgreens hacks YOU!"

Re:SuperComment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717068)

Yeah, you forgot "They got Saddam!" with a link to two stories up or down.

Re:SuperComment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717317)

d000000d,

when you call super on the Comment you don't have to restate all that..

Re:SuperComment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717435)

Did I miss anyone?

Yeah, you forgot the
  • Meta-comment summarizing all of the most common comments, questions, and complaints. *list follows*
Nice try though.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7718320)

In Soviet Russia, cameria hacks YOU.

Quick! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716353)

Someone find a bandwith hack for this site, it`s dying!

Film (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716354)

What's the point of digital without an LCD? None. For disposible, nothing beats film. If digital rentals are to take place, they should be in some sort of locked waterproof plastic case that must be torn up to get access to it... unless you have the Walgreen's key. Also, calling it a rental would be better - and charging a deposit fee to keep people from using them for this purpose.

Re:Film (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716475)

you are a stoopid MoFo... its all about gettin your $$ to go further, just like when you homebrew!!

Re:Film (3, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716805)

The point of "digital without an LCD" is to save money for Walgreens.

Over the long term, digital cameras are inherently cheaper than film cameras. A digital "disposable" may cost a little more than a film disposable initially, but the processing and refurbishing cost is negligable.

Think of it as a delaying tactic.

As time goes on and electronics get better and cheaper, the cost difference between a film and a digital camera of equivalent quality will end up favoring the digital. A film camera contains all kinds of mechanical devices that a digital camera doesn't need.

And this shift will start at the low end, where the optics aren't good enough to resolve images better than cheap digital hardware can replicate.

So, just as all cheap watches are electronic ("quartz" watches are basically an accurate timer driving a motor), all cheap cameras will soon be digital. The niche that all these expensive 24-hour automatic film processing labs are filling... processing the output of cheap cameras... will dry up as only professionals (who have their own darkrooms) and antiquarians and hobbyists (who either have their own darkrooms or will end up having to make them) keep using the increasingly expensive film.

So, they're trying things, looking for a new niche they can scratch open, and you know you should never scratch a niche.

Re:Film (1)

Sleepy (4551) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716903)

> What's the point of digital without an LCD?

Well, sonny take a seat on my lap and let me tell you about the dark days of photography when we had no LCD displays. I think the year was 1995...

Back then, we walked to school through waist-high snow for two miles.

A digital camera is no less crippled without an LCD display, than a film camera is. You use the viewfinder.

Of course, if you're the type that puts your index finger over the aperature when you shoot, this won't help you...

For me, this camera will be something I take where it might get damaged or lost. Like a toga party, for example..

Re:Film (1)

Paddyish (612430) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716967)

What's the point of digital without an LCD?

Well, for one, you can erase shots and re-take them. Says so right on the package.

Re:Film (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717443)

How do you know you need to erase it if you can't see it???

If you hack it, virtually free photos (3, Insightful)

enosys (705759) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717444)

If you don't hack it and just use it as a disposable, I agree, there isn't much of a benefit from it being digital. Sure, you can delete the last photo but that's not that big of a deal. I'd be more concerned about the image quality disadvantages.

However, once you have a hacked camera it's a different story. Because it's digital you can take virtually free photos. The batteries in the Ritz version lasted me for about 300 photos and they're just standard AA, easy to change. Sure, it would be better if it had a picture display LCD but it's not like the lack of it makes the camera useless.

BTW I've read that a slightly more expensive version with an LCD is coming out in 2004.

mirror/text copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716433)

anyone care to post? /.ed as usual ...

damn it! (1, Insightful)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716474)

Now they know, in advance about these stories and these dinky sites getting slammed.

Why don't they mirror these little sites on the awesome OSDN system ahead of the rush?

Shit, within seconds of release the sites are out of order and the entire story is for naught and NO ONE gets to see what it's all about.
Quite often the site exceeds it's bandwidth allocation and is taken offline by the ISP for the remainder of the month.

By the time this site will be viewable again, Walgreens will have pulled the camera from the shelves..

Re:damn it! (1)

mr_tommy (619972) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716505)

Why they couldn't apply their massive genius to creating some kind of mirror system is beyond me.

Re:damn it! (2, Informative)

Cobain (104632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716529)

This [slashdot.org] is why they don't cache webpages. RTFF!

Re:damn it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716949)

Which has always been a lame excuse.

Taco has always been an idiot.

Re:damn it! (2, Funny)

wolf- (54587) | more than 10 years ago | (#7718061)

Look! A 3 year old FAQ answer!
Shouldn't a techy/geeky/nerdy website have more up to date policies? Oh, well, just a thought.

summary -- with quotes (1)

baltimoretim (631366) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716856)

The site is a bulletin board. Here follow codeman's 2 informational messages (the formatting sucks, but what can you do?:

---first post---

ok i did some hacking on the walgreess version and here's what i have done..

first thanks to zonyl for getting me some cameras to mess with..

ok if you look at [this] [linux-hacker.net] you will see there is a daughter board on there with the nand flash for picture storage ..

if you remove that board you can add a smartmedia socket and using smartmedia card you will be able to get the pics with a smartmedia reader standard jpg's but it will not do more that 25 pics still (think its using fat12)..

also there is a serial port there labeled rs232 it a ttl level serial port ..

pin 1 rx []square on board pin 2 tx pin 3 gnd pin 4 data out ?? for lcd ?? video ?? if you hook up a max232 type chip to the board and a pc , in a term program hit space bar and the camera will return a 0x01 hex (looks like it does autobaud rate)

and if you hit the - key twice it will trigger the flash and count the remaining

counter down but does not write to flash .

and if you send a 029 dec (hold alt and type 029 on keypad then release alt) if will change the format of the data coming out on pin 4..( dont know yet )

so far thats all i got in one night .. codeman

---next post---

here are some pic to get a better idea of how it works

daughter card removed [here] [linux-hacker.net]

smartmedia socket added [here] [linux-hacker.net]

here it is complete. [here] [linux-hacker.net]

another one [here] [linux-hacker.net]

there is a door for the smartmedia card

codeman

an actual good reason for this (5, Insightful)

CRCates (557541) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716516)

The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera.
For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it).
Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips).
Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.

Re:an actual good reason for this (1)

Lord Kholdan (670731) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717327)

The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera.
For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it).
Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips).
Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.


You can do all that without having to hack the camera.

Re:an actual good reason for this (2, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717726)

No, the real benefit of hacking this camera is that you've hack something that wasn't supposed to be hacked.

Re:an actual good reason for this (1)

CRCates (557541) | more than 10 years ago | (#7718274)

I think that replies have missed the point of my initial comment. The idea is that you shouldn't have to pay for developing (and then return the camera) EVERY time you want to use it in a hazardous situation. The concept is that you could use them MANY times (not just the once permitted) and retain contol over where you get the photos produced (because you're not limited to the "out of the box" options.
As for the assertion that it is "wasn't supposed to be hacked". That's like saying that you can't upgrade a computer that you've purchased. Nobody would argue that you couldn't ADD memory or upgrade a video card to add additional features not available out of the box. You're "upgrading" the camera from the out of the box state. Who decides what's "supposed to be hacked" and what isn't? You purchase a good and if you want to throw it out, that's okay, if you want to hack it, that's your right too.

ok.. finally got the text from the /.ed site! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716563)

codeman:

ok i did some hacking on the walgreess version and here's what i have done..
first thanks to zonyl for getting me some cameras to mess with..

ok if you look at http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/website/p d_board_hr_back_mod
you will see there is a daughter board on there with the nand flash for picture storage ..
if you remove that board you can add a smartmedia socket and using smartmedia card you will
be able to get the pics with a smartmedia reader standard jpg's but it will not do more that
25 pics still (think its using fat12)..

also there is a serial port there labeled rs232 it a ttl level serial port ..
pin 1 rx []square on board
pin 2 tx
pin 3 gnd
pin 4 data out ?? for lcd ?? video ??

if you hook up a max232 type chip to the board and a pc , in a term program hit
space bar and the camera will return a 0x01 hex (looks like it does autobaud rate)
and if you hit the - key twice it will trigger the flash and count the remaining
counter down but does not write to flash .
and if you send a 029 dec (hold alt and type 029 on keypad then release alt) if will
change the format of the data coming out on pin 4..( dont know yet )

so far thats all i got in one night ..

codeman

here are some pic to get a better idea of how it works
daughter card removed
http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/ website/r es44442
smartmedia socket added
http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/we bsite/r es44441
here it is complete.
http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/galler y/website/r es44443
another one
http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/webs ite/r es44445

there is a door for the smartmedia card

codeman

Image Mirror (3, Funny)

Cryoabyss (443279) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716713)

I was only able to get a the picture of the hack. It looks promising so I'm heading to Walgreens to pick one up for use as a digital camera back in my 35mm SLR.

http://ice.syne.net:88/sd/sm_hack.jpg [syne.net]

Photoshopped? (1)

enosys (705759) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717490)

Thanks

That image is weird. I wonder if it's photoshopped or if the Smartmedia socket is just placed on top of the camera PCB (ie. not connected and not functional) I wouldn't expect them to just put pads there for soldering in one of those sockets and so I'd expect wires and perhaps some glue logic.

PureDigital Camera Hacked and... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7716793)

...poor quality pictures of Saddam's capture !

Does anyone else see the connection? :-)

USB Interface and Practicality (2, Interesting)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716901)

I don't know much about the hack, other than than the information regarding the camera at http://earth.prohosting.com/puredig/ [prohosting.com] . What I'm curious about is why no one has posted or is interested in a USB hack similar to the Ritz one. A smartmedia reader, as some have pointed out, is much more expensive than a USB cable. I know that I would not spend 10$ on a single use camera, then spend an additional 30-50$ on parts to make it arguably equivalent to a 60$ cheapie digital.

Driver needed (1)

ErrorBase (692520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7716942)

He has named the samsung memory chip, but not the two rather small ones right of it. On the daugther board is memory chip F [samsung.com] Memory upgrades anyone ?

Screw the camera (3, Interesting)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717037)

For $10, it would be nice if this could be used as a general purpose USB interface for other projects. (I'd RTFA, but it's pining for the fjords.)

Great idea! (1)

enosys (705759) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717527)

I wouldn't say "Screw the camera", I like mine and I've been using it a lot. However, your idea is really good. I bet this is the cheapest way to get a USB interface for a project.

The hardware isn't really meant to do that. The a SPCA504B chip is meant for use in a camera. However, it has an 8051 core with some extensions, it has I/O ports, there is external flash memory for code and the current firmware probably even supports a USB command for uploading new firmware.

Re:Great idea! (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7718040)

From some of the comments, it might just have a serial interface that a USB interface can be added to.

Hmm, 8051 core. That would be a damned nice little gizmo to have a bunch of for whatever. (I'll mention this on comp.arch.embedded to increase the slashdotting.) If nothing else, they'd make cheap security cameras, telescope add-ons, robot vision .. whatever!

Is there any chain in Canada that would have them before they disappear?

A much better alternative (1)

fname (199759) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717181)

Well, a better alternative for those using disposable cameras (digital or otherwise) at weddings or other parties. Some friends in the SF Bay area use a service from Big Day Snapshots [bigdaysnapshots.com] . Instead of getting 10 cheap disposable cameras for about $15 developed, they got 10 Canon A60 cameras to use for the day-- for $15, "developed"! Afterwards, they were given a CD with all the images and their own password-protected website. Pretty cool, they were psyched to get digital pix so easily; some of the guests even made mini-movies! Highly recommended for anyone getting married in the Bay Area. Beats the crap out of these disposable digital cameras.

Re:A much better alternative (3, Insightful)

timmytoo (732752) | more than 10 years ago | (#7717947)

What do you do when one of your drunk guests breaks it or your uncle Fred decides to take that nice Canon A60 home after the wedding? I'll stick with the $5 disposable film camera.

That looks like an enhanced fuji ix-10 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717222)

Having looked at the pics of this camera it looks a lot like an old camera I have - a fuji ix-10
If there are linux drivers for it it might work with them..

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717427)

fp or is this cheating?

fact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7717552)

Fact: the digital camera is dying

It is common knowledge that the digital camera is dying. Everyone knows that the ever hapless digital camera is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which digital camera is the worst off of an admittedly suffering digital camera community. The numbers continue to decline for Windows but the digital camera may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for the digital camera continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

All major marketing surveys show that the digital camera has steadily declined in market share. the digital camera is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the digital camera is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes the digital camera is already dead. It is a dead man walking.

Fact: the digital camera is dying

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?