<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Slacy's Blog &#187; sd550</title>
	<atom:link href="http://slacy.com/blog/tag/sd550/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://slacy.com/blog</link>
	<description>This site is solar powered!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:33:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Eye-Fi: The good, the bad, the ugly.</title>
		<link>http://slacy.com/blog/2007/12/eye-fi-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/</link>
		<comments>http://slacy.com/blog/2007/12/eye-fi-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>slacy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eyefi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pictures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sd550]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slacy.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/09/eye-fi-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, I&#8217;ve got the Eye-Fi card from work. First, the good: It works. I was actually doubtful that this thing worked at all. I can attest that its a real product, and it actually works. It does connect to lots &#8230; <a href="http://slacy.com/blog/2007/12/eye-fi-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, I&#8217;ve got the <a href="http://eye.fi">Eye-Fi</a> card from work.  First, the good:</p>
<ol>
<li>It works.  I was actually doubtful that this thing worked at all.  I can attest that its a real product, and it actually works. </li>
<li>It does connect to lots of different online photo sites, including Gallery2 and Picasaweb.  Thats nice.</li>
</ol>
<p>And now for the bad &#038; the ugly:</p>
<ol>
<li>The first card I got was broken, and diagnosing this was quite difficult.  The replacement card seems to work okay.</li>
<li>I don&#8217;t actually understand the use case for this thing &#8212; you need to put the card in your laptop to associate it with a new wireless network.  There&#8217;s no &#8220;use any open wireless network you can find&#8221; option.  Thats a missing &#8216;killer&#8217; feature, in my opinion</li>
<li>It won&#8217;t connect to the Google Wireless in Mountain View, or any other wireless network which requires an HTML login page.</li>
<li>Its slow.  You have to leave the camera on for several minutes after taking a picture to wait for them to be uploaded to the web.</li>
<li>It doesn&#8217;t support movies.  If you take a movie on the camera, it just sits there, and isn&#8217;t automatically uploaded.</li>
<li>It chews up the camera&#8217;s batteries.  Yes, they say its low power, but plain flash memory uses literally no memory when the camera is idle.  The Eye-Fi makes a noticable dent in the SD550&#8242;s battery life
</li>
<li>It gets hot.  The area near the card is noticibly warm when using the camera now.  Thats sorta spooky, considering that Wi-Fi is nearly microwave frequency</li>
<li>The &#8220;Eye-Fi Manager&#8221; software is a web application.  (why?!)  You have to log in with userid &#038; password if you want to change settings on the card.  This makes absolutely no sense to me.  I bought a piece of hardware, why does it require a connection to the &#8216;net just to configure it?  Stoopid!  Oh, and by the way, the Eye-Fi manager really seems like alpha-quality software anyway.</li>
<li>There&#8217;s no visible status indicator for the card.  From the camera, there&#8217;s no way to see if all your pictures have been uploaded to the web.</li>
<li>It only comes in SD formfactor, not in CompactFlash.  I&#8217;ve seen adapters, but they seem to be made out of metal, so I can imagine that they&#8217;d work very well</li>
</ol>
<p>How this thing should work:</p>
<p>Since there&#8217;s clearly a reasonable CPU on the card, it should be doing something a lot smarter.  One option is to put a bunch of &#8216;virtual&#8217; pictures on the card that can be looked at and manipulate the settings of the card.  For example, there should be a visible image that says something like:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;34 pictures taken so far, 19 uploaded to the web, 15 remaining.  Currently associated with network &#8220;FooBar&#8221; with a speed of 3Mbps.  Pictures will be posted to Picasa&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>All that would be rendered in a JPG file that I could view using the playback interface of the camera.  When it comes to configuration, the only operation that I could think of that every camera supports is &#8216;delete&#8217;.  So, there could be a bunch of pictures, each of which says something like this:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Delete this photo to disable Wi-Fi connection for the card
</p></blockquote>
<p>or</p>
<blockquote><p>
Delete this photo to associate with open wireless network &#8220;Hacker&#8217;s Paradise&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>The embedded CPU could realize when the photos were deleted, and then perform the appropriate operation.  These 2 things:  Turing the WiFi capability on and off, and associating with any open network, are absolutely critical to making this a reasonable and useful product.</p>
<p>My end verdict:  Don&#8217;t buy the Eye-Fi card.  It has such a limited use-case that its nearly useless.  Its great for putting pictures taken at home on the web, live, and thats about it.  Maybe that meets a lot of people&#8217;s needs, but it seems like its just not that useful for a broad audience.  Its much much faster to just plug the card or camera into a USB 2.0 port and copy the pictures that way.  Posting to the web automatically is really nice, but could be written as a software-only solution for anything connected via USB. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://slacy.com/blog/2007/12/eye-fi-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Transcoding AVIs from a Canon SD550 to FLV files for the web.</title>
		<link>http://slacy.com/blog/2007/11/transcoding-avis-from-a-canon-sd550-to-flv-files-for-the-web/</link>
		<comments>http://slacy.com/blog/2007/11/transcoding-avis-from-a-canon-sd550-to-flv-files-for-the-web/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>slacy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canon sd550]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ffmpeg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mplayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sd550]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transcoding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slacy.com/blog/index.php/2007/11/26/transcoding-avis-from-a-canon-sd550-to-flv-files-for-the-web/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, I&#8217;ve been wondering what to do with the AVI files that we&#8217;ve been taking using our Canon SD550 camera. The movies are great, but they&#8217;re HUGE. The camera only uses mjpeg compression, so there&#8217;s a lot of room for &#8230; <a href="http://slacy.com/blog/2007/11/transcoding-avis-from-a-canon-sd550-to-flv-files-for-the-web/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, I&#8217;ve been wondering what to do with the AVI files that we&#8217;ve been taking using our Canon SD550 camera.  The movies are great, but they&#8217;re HUGE.  The camera only uses mjpeg compression, so there&#8217;s a lot of room for improvement in the compression.  So, I looked at transcoding them to FLV files, since Gallery2 has a built-in FLV player, so the files could be played right in Gallery.  </p>
<p>I came up with the following script that does a simple 2-pass encoding to produce a reasonable output file at 1.25Mbps.  I choose to go with a higher bitrate and higher quality, but this could be turned down to around 700kbps and still be reasonable.  Here&#8217;s the script:</p>
<blockquote><p>
#!/bin/bash<br />
input=$1<br />
output=./flv/${input/.avi/.flv}<br />
logdir=`dirname $output`<br />
mkdir -p $logdir<br />
logfile=$output.log<br />
ffmpeg -y -i $input -ar 11025 -ab 64k -aic -umv -b 1250k -r 30 -pass 1 $output -passlogfile $logfile<br />
ffmpeg -y -i $input -ar 11025 -ab 64k -aic -umv -b 1250k -r 30 -pass 2 $output -passlogfile $logfile<br />
rm $logfile*
</p></blockquote>
<p>And I run it like this:</p>
<blockquote><p>
# find . -iname &#8220;*.avi&#8221; | xargs -n1 -P2 ~/bin/flv_transcode.sh
</p></blockquote>
<p>It will create a toplevel &#8220;flv&#8221; directory, and put all the transcoded output in that subdirectory.   Mencoder can&#8217;t directly produce FLV output, so this ffmpeg-based solution is a bit easier.  Now, we just have to wait for Macromedia to support h264 files&#8230; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://slacy.com/blog/2007/11/transcoding-avis-from-a-canon-sd550-to-flv-files-for-the-web/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

