eNews: Eye-Fi

[FLiPMaRC]

Add-on Wi-Fi connectivity to any camera :cool:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/10/eye-fi.jpg http://www.eye.fi/index.htm

http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/04/eye-fi-heads-to-beta-this-month/
It looks like those jonesing for some WiFi action on their digital camera (without, you know, actually buying a new one) won't have to wait much longer, as the much-buzzed-about Eye-Fi SD WiFi card is set to go into beta testing later this month. The card doesn't require specialized drivers and will supposedly work with any camera that's been "qualified by Eye-Fi," letting you wirelessly transfer photos directly from your camera to your PC or to select websites. Exactly which cameras have "qualified" we're not sure, with the company only saying that they've tested "numerous camera brands and models" and that they're aiming for "broad camera interoperability." The card will also come with a Compact Flash (Type-II) adapter so you can use it with your precious D-SLRs. As of this writing, there's still no mention of the beta program on Eye-Fi's website, but the company says additional details and a sign-up procedure will be available in the coming days. It will also cost you, of course, though Eye-Fi's promising a full money-back guarantee. Let's just hope the beta testing doesn't take too long, cause we're guessing the available slots are gonna fill up pretty quickly.

[John_Reed]

I wonder what premium one will have to pay for this added function to a 1GB SD card, which can be bought for ~$25 these days? Also, if the WiFi bandwidth isn't too hot, it'll have trouble keeping pace with USB 2.0 High-speed, won't it?

[Rhys]

How does the card know which wifi network to use and which computer to send its data to? You could end up taking photos for Paper X and Paper Y gets all the photos!

Given that wifi is nominally 54mbps with the 802.11g standard and that wifi can be very variable (I get variable wifi - even when I'm right next to the transmitter), I'd say a good rule of thumb would be to say you'd get 48mbps most of the time.

Now... file sizes. RAW at 18Mb would take up 2.35 megabits. Call it 2.4 megabits so I don't have to fiddle with loads of data. Now, assuming a standard transfer error of 50% then this will come to 3.6 megabits. Sounds a lot but it should work - until the wifi network gets really bogged down which is when the internal buffering from the card comes in. 1 GB sounds pretty decent.

On the whole I like this idea but I'd like to see a receiver card that works on a Hyperdrive or something similar so that we can transmit camera to belt storage pack.

[FLiPMaRC]

How does the card know which wifi network to use and which computer to send its data to? You could end up taking photos for Paper X and Paper Y gets all the photos!Good point, but I'm not sure you can send the files from the camera to the computer. I think you might need to be on the computer to retrieve the files from the camera. This device creates a wireless connection that you need to establish using the computer. At least that's how I understand it.

Edit: It does say you can transfer directly from your camera. But how? If your camera doesn't have wi-fi functionally from the begining, how is that possible?

Given that wifi is nominally 54mbps with the 802.11g standard and that wifi can be very variable (I get variable wifi - even when I'm right next to the transmitter), I'd say a good rule of thumb would be to say you'd get 48mbps most of the time.

Now... file sizes. RAW at 18Mb would take up 2.35 megabits. Call it 2.4 megabits so I don't have to fiddle with loads of data. Now, assuming a standard transfer error of 50% then this will come to 3.6 megabits. Sounds a lot but it should work - until the wifi network gets really bogged down which is when the internal buffering from the card comes in. 1 GB sounds pretty decent.Hopefully they'll come out with a 802.11n version :cool: 802.11n is rated at 540mbps, but 200mbps typical :)

[John_Reed]

Now... file sizes. RAW at 18Mb would take up 2.35 megabits. Call it 2.4 megabits so I don't have to fiddle with loads of data.
Last I checked, an 18 Mega-BYTE RAW file amounted to 8X18 = 144 Mega-BITS? About a 3 second transfer time on the WiFi connection you cited.

[cdifoto]

This entire system is vague at best. No point getting your gadget hormones raging just yet.

[FLiPMaRC]

This entire system is vague at best. No point getting your gadget hormones raging just yet.
It's that time of the month :p

[Rhys]

Last I checked, an 18 Mega-BYTE RAW file amounted to 8X18 = 144 Mega-BITS? About a 3 second transfer time on the WiFi connection you cited.

Nope.

4 bits = 1 nibble
8 bits = 1 byte
1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte
1024 kilobytes = 1 megabyte
1024 megabytes = 1 gigabyte

So 18 Megabytes = 18x1024x1024x8 not 8x18. That's a total of 273687552 bits.

I did make a calculation error, however, in my previous posting.

Now let's see how many 54,000,000 (54mbps) I can get out of 18 megabytes. Well, I'm getting 5.068288 seconds per image or 0.19 images per second. And that's before we start talking about transmission errors and network slowdowns!

[John_Reed]

Nope.

4 bits = 1 nibble
8 bits = 1 byte
1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte
1024 kilobytes = 1 megabyte
1024 megabytes = 1 gigabyte

Rhys, having been a memory chip designer for a helluva long time, I was probably "byting" before you were "biting." No lectures needed on these terms. We're just trying to get the numbers right here.


So 18 Megabytes = 18x1024x1024x8 not 8x18. That's a total of 273687552 bits.
Not by my calculator. It's 150,994,944 bits, just multiplying your numbers.


I did make a calculation error, however, in my previous posting.

Now let's see how many 54,000,000 (54mbps) I can get out of 18 megabytes. Well, I'm getting 5.068288 seconds per image or 0.19 images per second. And that's before we start talking about transmission errors and network slowdowns!
You're missing the more fundamental error you made, when you said that (and I quote you) "RAW at 18Mb would take up 2.35 megabits." Maybe we woke up on opposite sides of the space-time continuum? Peace, brother.

[Rhys]

Not by my calculator. It's 150,994,944 bits, just multiplying your numbers.

Ok. As far as I know a megabit is a million bits.
Anyway, 18 megabytes = 18x 1024 = 18432 kilobytes. Multiply by 1024 to get 18874368 bytes. Multiply by 8 to get 150994944 bits exactly as you stated. I wonder how that calculation error crept in. I used the built-in Windows calculator which as far as I know is accurate. Oh well. Thanks for pointing it out (twice :o )



You're missing the more fundamental error you made, when you said that (and I quote you) "RAW at 18Mb would take up 2.35 megabits." Maybe we woke up on opposite sides of the space-time continuum? Peace, brother.

Ok. So we have 54,000,000 into 150,994,944 which does equal about 3 seconds per image assuming 100% correct transmission and full 54mbps speed.

[John_Reed]

Peace, brother. Confluence is once again ours!