Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

How the Camera Phone Changed the World

Posted by Zonk on Sat Jan 20, 2007 06:31 AM
from the peeping-phone dept.
theodp writes "Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera to capture the birth of daughter Sophie, Slate takes a look at the impact of the camera phone, the gadget that perverts, vigilantes, and celebrity stalkers can all agree on. 'With this kind of device,' Kahn told Wired, 'you're going to see the best and the worst of things.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2007, @06:35AM (#17693518)
    Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera

    And people say gay marriage is unnatural!

    And, I didn't know that Kahn is a minister.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Camera" is feminine and "Phone" is masculine in my language you insensitive clod!
    • >>Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera

      And people say gay marriage is unnatural!


      Well, marrying a cell phone with another cell phone is just silly.
      • by ddvlad (862846) on Saturday January 20 2007, @07:04AM (#17693626) Homepage
        Well, marrying a cell phone with another cell phone is just silly.

        Yes, but marying a cell phone and two cameras is 3G. What is the world coming too?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          but marying a cell phone and two cameras is 3G


          You mean 3D ... :-)

          That would be cool, having two of those tiny cameras in your phone and then being able to send 3D stereo pictures. Only thing to figure out is how to display them, but I've seen solutions for that too (single screen, no glasses / goggles).

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      kaaaaaaaaaaahn!!!!!!

      sorry i had it do it
  • Camera Phones Suck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2007, @06:43AM (#17693552)
    I do a lot of business with companies who for security reasons will not let you take a camera phone onto their premises. I also have to leave mine at home when I go to parents evening just in case I might possibly take a picture of a school pupil.

    Now, have you tried to get a non camera phone lately? Difficult to say the least.

    If I want to take a picture then I get my Digital Camera out (Nikon D2x) and do it properly.

    Current camera phones have the same quality as CCTV cameras did 10 years ago.

    I'm sorry (and will probably get modded down as a troll) this is one invention I could certainly do without.
    • by mabinogi (74033) on Saturday January 20 2007, @07:18AM (#17693666) Homepage
      > I also have to leave mine at home when I go to parents evening just in case I might possibly take a picture of a school pupil.
      what?

      When parents can't take photos at school events, it may not be the terrorists, but someone has certainly won....
      I know that my daughter's school has no problems with parents with cameras, whether they be phone cameras, handicams, or SLRs. Have things really sunk that far elsewhere?
      • by celardore (844933) * <celardore@gmail.com> on Saturday January 20 2007, @01:26PM (#17695830) Homepage
        I remember a couple of years ago I was in a swimming pool with friends. They had a little pool for kids to swim in, which was empty save for a gran & grandpa and their grandchild. They wanted to take a snapshot of the kid swimming for the first time, the lifeguard then came over and said they weren't allowed cameras and tried to confiscate it. They argued that it was only their grandkid even in the area let alone the shot. The manager was called and eventually the grandparents had to leave with no first photo of the kid swimming, which I'm sure would have been a treasured memory for the whole family.

        That was a couple of years ago at least, but remember... I live in the UK. These rules are commonplace. I wouldn't be surprised if you're not allowed to take pictures of your own kid winning the race at sports days, just in case you're a pedophile.

        Just had a thought... I know that there are photos of me and my sisters in the bath when we were very young. I think my mother has them in a drawer somewhere, should I report her to the authorities???
    • by identity0 (77976) on Saturday January 20 2007, @08:23AM (#17693908) Journal
      Actually, camera phones do have uses beyond taking fuzzy pictures of your drunk friends. Unfortunately they don't seem to be coming over to the states for some reason.

      If you've seen any Japanese magazines or websites lately, you'll notice square barcode-type things on some ads or sites. See the bottom left of this site [nhk.or.jp]. They allow you to use your phone camera to take a pic, then your camera web browser goes to an address encoded in the pic without having to type in the address. Basically the same thing Cue:Cat did, but on commodity hardware.

      Okay, now you're thinking, "So what? I can get ads easier?", but there are other uses for the technology, too. I've heard some European countries have methods of paying for stuff using a cell phone, where you take a pic of a barcode like that, and the price is charged to your cell account.

      Basically, don't just think of it as "A crappy camera glued to a cell phone", but as "An optical sensor attached to a pervasivly-networked device". There is a world of possibility in using it as an input device for ubiquitous computing. Where other attempts to make computer interaction seamless in the real world have failed, the camerphone might succeed because it uses technology that is useful for other things (camera + phone, regular printer + ink), and widely adopted by the public already. It's all a matter of software to make it useful, no new harware needed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I've been to events like that. Where some peon wants to check my phone for camera or some shit. I just said "no" and kept on walking. Most of these little shits are used to getting their way. When faced with open defiance they lock up. The key is to keep on walking, by the time they recover your long gone.

    • Most high end phones used by serious people like blackberries etc have a NC model standing for no camera. On a related note the company I work for also bans camera phones but you can get a camera phone pass if you are at a certain job level. It has become a kind of status item. The untrusted masses have just ID cards. The intemediate have a camera phone pass , the executives have property passes which let them them take laptops in and out and the IT guy has a Gold pass which lets him move multi-million doll
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        My mum uses one of these [nokia.co.uk]. She's really not into the whole "get a jack-of-all-trades" thing, but just requires a very basic phone in case her car breaks down or in case she's out and wants peace of mind.
      • by Animaether (411575) on Saturday January 20 2007, @09:05AM (#17694066) Journal
        There are tons of phones without cameras. There is absolutely *no* problem whatsoever getting a phone that doesn't have a camera. Every time an article about cellphones comes up somebody cries out "Can't I just have a phone? One without a camera???", and every time the basic answers is that you damn well can.

        Now the problem is that these people aren't asking if they can have a phone without a camera. And they know it. They want a phone that has WiFi, stereo bluetooth, a big high quality color screen, 3G, can play back every media file under the sun and better yet they can put custom software on and isn't locked to any provider... but not a camera. And that is where you do end up getting into "good luck, mate" territory.

        Seriously - walk into a store, look on the web, check out office supplies stores (guess what - they sell cell phones that are literally no-frills so that employees can have a cheap company phone).. there are plenty of cell phones without a camera. And if that is their only argument, then they shouldn't complain that it is not a very fashionable design or that it only has a fixed-matrix black-and-white LCD display and they can't download the latest music onto it let alone watch that StarGate SG-1 they recorded to Ogg Theora.
        • (guess what - they sell cell phones that are literally no-frills so that employees can have a cheap company phone)
          And about time, mes sieurs! I'm tired of all those literally-frilled phones getting caught on my coatsleeves right in the middle of a rousing bout of lawn-tennis!

        • Now the problem is that these people aren't asking if they can have a phone without a camera. And they know it. They want a phone that has WiFi, stereo bluetooth, a big high quality color screen, 3G, can play back every media file under the sun and better yet they can put custom software on and isn't locked to any provider... but not a camera. And that is where you do end up getting into "good luck, mate" territory.

          So they're not just asking for a phone, they're asking for a good phone. Bastards. Should be
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          The thing is, there are people who would like a phone with other high end features, but can't have or don't want a camera phone. Most, if not all of the no-camera phones are very basic phones that are pretty stripped down. It would be trying to find a motherboard for a computer without integrated Firewire. There are plenty of boards out there that lack it, but try to find one with high end features like SATA Raid, gigabit eithernet, and PCI Express, but no Firewire.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "I work in a refinery, where security is extremely prohibitive towards cameras and camera phones"

        The morons. Just wait until Moore's Law really kicks in, and we get camera phones built right in to the collar of one's blouse or polo shirt. Don't they know there's a singularity coming?
          • I have a 5 MP camera phone as I write this. Things are starting to get better in the phone area, so much that I guess 5 - 10 years later, we might see the promised ubiquitous all in one device. It isn't perfect today, but for non-professional use, a camera phone is more than what the majority requires.

            You're missing the point. They haven't even got the phone part down yet, but instead of making the actual phone features better, they're wasting time on the camera. Of course they're doing it to take you

  • The good: as a tool to conveniently record crime or emergency. (in addition to quotidian snapshot use) The bad: abuse/invasion of privacy. neither: as tool to do work (as an evidentiary tool recording what one has done or has observed in a job role) So, the variable is intent.
  • by king-manic (409855) on Saturday January 20 2007, @06:51AM (#17693584)
    But I still keep my cell phone picks. Pictures are mementoes for most people. That crazy night when me and the girls snuck into the basement of bio-sci just as it closed and rode around on carts and chucked dry ice into the toilets.... Those types of memories don't need a 20 megapixel roloflex camera. Thats what I use it for.. and also naughty photos. just too pervy pulling out a SLR to take those pictures. It makes girls a bit nervous.
  • Its very small, but its still not as small as my RAZR, and considering all the other crap in my pockets, i dont need the added weight making my pants fall down. Its nice to have a camera with you at all times and not have the extra bulk of it. I was semi-involved in a car accident last week, once we all pulled over everybody whipped out their camera phones. Also for spur of the moment crap that i'd never have a picture of otherwise. Now if im doing dedicated photography, or am somewhere that i know ill want
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      i dont need the added weight making my pants fall down.

      Back in the day we solved this problem by buying pants that fit; although I admit it is amusing to watch the chavs trying to play basketball with one hand tied up in the problem of holding their pants up.

      And extra amusing when one of them manages to trip over their own pants.

      KFG
  • why o why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by localoptimum (993261) on Saturday January 20 2007, @07:28AM (#17693698)
    I HATE camera phones. What I'd like is a good, tiny phone, where the batteries last for ages. If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home".

    Here's the problem. The cellphone was supposed to make it easy for people to be reached on-the-move. For "security" reasons we are not allowed to use our phone everywhere, because the people who are taking photos of us and watching us on videos don't want us to take photos or videos of them (just count how many police brutality incidents on youtube also involve the rough handling of the guy capturing said incident on a camera). On european trains there are "quiet" zones where phones are banned, and if we use our phone on a plane then the phone will immediately detonate all of the explosive liquids stored in passenger's hand-luggage and cause sony lithium-ion batteries in apple G4 powerbooks to burst into flames.

    Lastly, and even more importantly than plane death, upgrading the phone's camera just gives the mobile phone industry another excuse to charge you a higher subscription than the previous year.

    • Re:why o why? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by east coast (590680) on Saturday January 20 2007, @10:28AM (#17694602)
      I HATE camera phones.

      Hot ticket, pal: don't friggin buy one then.

      What I'd like is a good, tiny phone, where the batteries last for ages.Not knowing what your definition of "ages" is makes this a hard point to talk over but I get 5 days of regular use (normally 15 minutes of talk a day, 24-7 standby) out of my Samsung (with a camera!)

      If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home".

      If you're toting that thing around with you every and you don't do photography professionally that's just foolishness. Don't get me wrong, carry what you like, but Joe Sixpack (and 95% of all slashdotters for that matter) don't want to carry a normal camera around with them let alone a SLR. It's nice that you pat yourself on your back with all your fancy equipment but the fact is that it hurts your debate against cell phone/camera integration. That's akin to say "I own a pair of Sennheiser Prestige HD590s, why would I want a small pair of ear pods for when I'm out and about with my mp3 player?". Some people would be impressed that I own the Sennheiser, some people would understand that it would be incredibly stupid for me to lug around my headphones when I'm out walking the track.

      Here's the problem. The cellphone was supposed to make it easy for people to be reached on-the-move. For "security" reasons we are not allowed to use our phone everywhere

      I don't know where you are but in my local area I've never seen this. While I do understand and know of areas where photos are banned I've never heard of anyone getting harassed in these areas for using a cell phone.

      The rest of your argument deals with general technophobia and has nothing to do with the camera aspect of a cell phone. Oh well...

      upgrading the phone's camera just gives the mobile phone industry another excuse to charge you a higher subscription than the previous year.

      Really? Again, not knowing your situation... My cell service provider's plans have decrease since the introduction of the camera phone. I don't think the camera aspect has anything to do with it, they do charge 0.10 USD per picture sent over the cellphone without an inclusive package. They charge the exact same for text messages too.

      Furthermore, not to beat a subject to death, I have used my camera phone for productive reasons. There's a million times that I found myself saying, "if only I could get a picture of this". Digital cameras were nice because there was no processing time, but I didn't carry mine unless I really felt I was going to use it. Now I don't worry about it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          If you only want a really basic phone, then you can buy one without a camera. But, if you want one with other features (like WAP, which I use to check my email), it's almost always bundled with a camera.

          Yeah but that's not the issue. The issue was that the original poster wanted a phone with no crap with a good battery life. At the point where you're going to be willing to carry a phone with extra features who cares if there is a camera included? Don't use it.

          I'll tell you the first time I bought a camer
    • "If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home"."

      A real photographer doesn't have to get out his camera because it's always with him. Furthermore, for convenient use, real photographers with commonly use a PnS rather than their SLRs. What you are is a photography poser, and one that needs to mention the cost of his lenses at that.

      Do you also carry around a two-way pager for your text messages since you abhor
  • by dino213b (949816) on Saturday January 20 2007, @07:56AM (#17693816)
    I think many people have a problem with the cell phone camera quality: If manufacturers bother putting a camera on a cell phone, they may as well have decent quality, right? Well, one thing that is overlooked with these cameras is the possibility of digital (panoramic and frame) stitching.

    By using OSS such as Hugin and Enblend one can increase the resolution of images, add to the field of view and basically achieve the following results:

    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/bedroom .jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/diversi ty_of_books.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/room33. jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/jsd-van .jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/car.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/car3.jp g [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/ariz.jp g [cardope.com]

    Slightly wider shots:
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/livroom 1_corrected.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/par-ph0 _corrected.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/pan-ph1 _corrected.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/grandca ny_corrected.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/dd_corr ected.jpg [cardope.com]

    Please note that some of these processed images have not been color corrected with enblend - otherwise they would have turned out much better.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Yes you can go to all that trouble and end up with a bunch of slightly blurry or over processed pics, or you could just use a real freaking camera and get it right. What you've posted is technically interesting but of little practical use. Who's got the time to do all that?
  • 911 (Score:5, Informative)

    by deviceb (958415) on Saturday January 20 2007, @08:40AM (#17693982) Homepage
    Pertaining to this topic..
    911 calls in NYC will activate the camera on mobile phones so people can send video of the emergency as it happens.
    CNN usually gets images or video from peoples phones within minutes of the incident happening. The 911 people down in NYC just want the same data feed for emergencys..

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday January 20 2007, @09:12AM (#17694098) Homepage Journal
    One thing the camera phone has accomplished is a general 'dumbing down' of peoples sence of quality of photos, which has nearly killed the film camera industry.

    They get used to poor quality since its *everywhere*, and accept it as 'good enough' since its more convenient..

    ya, its a rant.. so sue me :)
  • by MrSteveSD (801820) on Saturday January 20 2007, @09:44AM (#17694306)
    To me the greatest thing that camera phones (and cheap digital cameras in general) bring is a possible curb on government oppression. Around the world in both totalitarian regimes and democracies, people gather to protest about various government actions and decisions. In totalitarian regimes and sadly also in our democracies, these protests are often met with grossly excessive force from riot police. In democracies the police often wait until the media finish and leave before making their move on the protesters.

    However, now that so many people have camera phones (even in non-democracies), it's much harder to get away with such oppression. All it takes is for one person to film a police officer beating an unarmed man cowering on the ground and it will be around the world very quickly.

    I think this prevalence of cheap and portable video-capable devices has lead to a change of tactics in some countries. In an environment where everything the police do is being recorded on video, governments are seeking to avoid confrontation altogether. It has become increasingly popular to either herd protesters into "Free Speech Zones" (in the US) or just effectively ban protests altogether as is the case in the UK, for half a mile or so around parliament square.

    In case you're wondering, I've never actually been on a protest myself. Like most people I am either too lazy or too scared of being clubbed by Police to attend (which is exactly the attitude governments like).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Not dissimilar to what happened with Saddam hussein.

      The plan was to release a nice clean film of a dignified hanging. The moment the cameras were off they changed tack completely.
      Luckily someone had a camera phone.

      In any sizable protest now the majority will have camera phones - which means the scenario you describe of waiting until the media is out of the way isn't going to happen. Take film, email it from the phone, and keep out of the way of the police whilst it's emailing (which isn't long at 3G speed
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Absolutely! This is an extension of what Jello Biafra refers to as the "Camcorder Truth Jihad" and is exemplified by groups such as The Video Activist Network [videoactivism.org]. The ubiquity of camera phones can only help this spread.

      If anyone doubts the power of individuals with cameras, they could just ask George Allen [youtube.com] or Micheal Richards [youtube.com] for their opinions.
    • Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Snarfangel (203258) on Saturday January 20 2007, @06:43AM (#17693546) Homepage
      Camera phones have such poor quality. Why don't you just buy a disposable one for a few bucks and save yourself some pain.

      If only they'd put a crappy phone on a high-quality camera, I'd be set.
      • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by statusbar (314703) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Saturday January 20 2007, @08:49AM (#17694018) Homepage Journal
        One problem with the disposable camera is that after you take an important picture, the camera can be 'confiscated' and your picture is gone too. With a camera phone, the picture can be emailed to the world before the 'bad guy' can take your phone away....

        --jeffk++
        • While this is true, what we REALLY need is further integration. The GUN-cameraphone would solve a ton of problems. We'd probably even have direct democracy, finally.
      • Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hotdiggitydawg (881316) on Saturday January 20 2007, @09:28AM (#17694196)
        Actually I'd say that's more Insightful than Funny. While I don't need 70% of the functionality on most modern handsets (phonecalls & texts, anything else is a waste) - a decent bloody camera in the same device (IE. a replacement for a decent point-n-click digicam, I'm not talking SLRs here) is something I would consider using.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Do you mean this? [flickr.com] (flickr stores the original if you upload it, even though they don't want to show it if you don't have a pro account).

            It's larger alright. Sharper? Wouldn't say so, IMHO, it's much better at medium and large, the full resolution really brings out the flaws.
            Purple fringing, almost all detail eaten by heavy noise reduction (look at the smaller tree branches, there's nothing but blur), badly overexposed sky. And that's in nigh perfect conditions.

            It's pretty good for a phone picture, maybe it'
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      2003 called. It wants its criticisms of cameraphones back.
      • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

        by lukas84 (912874) on Saturday January 20 2007, @08:16AM (#17693886) Homepage
        Megapixels is only half of the quality discussion.

        A good camera has optical zoom, a bigger ccd (a bigger ccd at the same megapixel still gives a better picture), autofocus, etc.

        Implementing this in a cell phone requires space.
        • I definitely agree. (Score:4, Informative)

          by Explo (132216) on Saturday January 20 2007, @12:36PM (#17695526)
          I'm personally pretty sick and tired of the use of megapixels as indicator for the quality of digital cameras and cameraphones. I pretty much bet that my older P&S digical camera (Canon Powershot G3) absolutely trounces any 4-megapixel camera phones in image quality, despite being released in 2002. It's even worse than the use of mega/gigahertzes and MIPSes for computer performance; the optics, size of individual photosites and other factors just have so much impact for image quality that it's downright silly to use a single figure to evaluate the image quality.

          The above does not mean that I'd want phones with camera to disappear from the face of Earth; if the image quality is sufficient for somebodys needs, it's fine for me. I'd just like people to have some more informed bases for comparisons.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Dont know why American companies are so slow on the uptake. Milking older technologies for everything its worth?

        Because there are so many companies with so many standards and technologies. Look at how many different audio formats there are for cell phones. It's like each handset had to come up with its own format that it would accept. Plus in America we use are cell phones for 2 things, making calls and texting. In other countries cell phones are used for everything, so the demand for richer and better features are higher.

    • by Thunderstruck (210399) on Saturday January 20 2007, @09:30AM (#17694212)
      Screw megapixels, I can't wait for the first Video/Camera/Handgun/Phone...

      This would be a great combination, in theory. But do you really want to put a gun into a device that you frequently hold against your head? *Oops, wrong button!*
      • But do you really want to put a gun into a device that you frequently hold against your head?

        There was the story of the guy who got robbed several times and thus kept a gun on his night table next to his phone. All was well until the phone rang late at night and he "answered" the wrong object.

        -b.

      • It will give a new meaning to "point and shoot camera"