AllThingsD » Canon

Demystifying Advanced Compact Cameras

Lauren Goode — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:00:24 +0000

For a lot of people, a “point and shoot” camera translates to “scratch your head, read instruction manual, Google some stuff, aim camera, point, shoot and frown at grainy or under-exposed photo.” In other words: It’s complicated.

It hasn’t always been this way. But more compact digital cameras now come loaded with features that were once reserved for bigger-bodied, pricier models. This is part of a broader strategy by camera makers to convince you to buy a camera other than the one built into your smartphone. But it doesn’t necessarily convince you that you know what you’re doing with these cameras.

[ See post to watch video ]

What do all those numbers on lenses mean? What’s a “CMOS” sensor? Does the ever-increasing number of megapixels really matter?

In this column, I’ll attempt to answer these questions and more.

Sensors

  One area that digital camera makers have been focusing on is sensors. Image sensors are basically chips, ranging in size from your pinky nail to a postage stamp to a poker chip, that capture light and convert it into electrical signals to create a digital image.  

The larger the sensor, the more light it is able to capture, thus allowing for better photos in low light. Think of it as the difference between using a Dixie Cup or a bucket to collect rainwater — the rain, or in this case, the available light, has a better chance of hitting a larger surface.  

Many smartphones have tiny sensors, which is why, even as they boast higher megapixels (more on that below) they still don’t take great photos in low light. A basic point-and-shoot might have a 1/2.3-inch or 1/2.5-inch sensor, while a high-end professional camera will have a full-frame, or giant, sensor.

But there’s a growing, in-between category of advanced compact cameras, ranging from around $300 to $600, that’s getting a boost from better sensor technology.   For example, Canon’s PowerShot G1 X has a large 1.5-inch sensor –- the largest that’s ever been in a Canon PowerShot model. The popular Sony RX100, which is also a point-and-shoot, has a one-inch sensor. Fujifilm’s new X20 compact camera has a ⅔-inch sensor that’s comparable to the sensors in Fujifilm’s higher-end cameras.

 All of these cameras cost around $600 or more, compared with the less expensive Canon G12, Canon S95, Panasonic Lumix LX5 or Nikon Coolpix P7000, which cost between $300 and $400.

The former not only have slightly larger sensors, but also have “CMOS” sensors (pronounced “see moss”). So … what does CMOS mean, you ask?

CMOS stands for complementary metal-oxide semiconductor, and over the past few years this type of sensor has been emerging in digital cameras. Another type of sensor you might see in cameras is CCD, or charged-couple device.  

One simple way of distinguishing the two is to look at CCD as analog and CMOS as digital. With both, light hits the sensor and the light is converted to electrons. With a CCD sensor, that process is transferred to another part of the camera. But with CMOS, the process happens in the sensor itself. Some camera makers say CMOS sensors allow for speedier functions in other parts of the camera. But each has strengths and weaknesses in different applications.

It’s not just the sensor that determines the overall quality of photos. Aspiring photogs will also want to consider the lens and the camera’s processing power. One camera maker I spoke to used a car analogy to explain this: You can have a great transmission but it’s not going to do much for you if you’ve got a weak engine.  

Megapixels

Do megapixels matter? The way some camera (and smartphone) makers talk about megapixels, one might assume that an eight-megapixel compact camera is better than a five-megapixel, a 16-megapixel compact camera is better than the eight-megapixel, and so on. But that’s not necessarily the case.

 A new camera that boasts more megapixels may equate to higher-resolution images, but if everything else about the camera — lens, sensor, processor — isn’t as advanced, the addition of more pixels into the same sensor space can actually add noise, or graininess, to photos.  

A few professional photographers I consulted agreed that more is not always better when it comes to megapixels. They also said that megapixels really only matter if you plan to print out big, poster-sized images, or if you plan to do a lot of cropping later on.

For many consumers, anywhere from five megapixels to 10 megapixels is plenty.  

Optical Zoom Versus Digital Zoom

One of the most obvious features that compact cameras can lord over smartphones is optical zoom. Smartphones use digital zoom, which digitally magnifies the image on your phone’s screen, resulting in grainy photos. Compact cameras usually use an optical zoom lens that will mechanically zoom to capture a clear, sharp image, even if the subject is a good distance away.  

Camera makers like Nikon, Canon and Samsung have been introducing more “super-zoom” compact cameras, meaning they zoom extra-long distances, ranging from 18x up to 30x. I like to call these neighbor-stalker zooms.  Why? Most experts I spoke with say that a 10x optical zoom is plenty for casual photography. If you’re going to take photos of your kid from way across the soccer field, or you fancy yourself a bird photographer, then you might want a little more zoom.

Lenses

  Lenses are probably worthy of an entire column, but for the sake of space, I’ll boil it down to two key things.  When you look at a compact camera with a lot of bells and whistles, you might see different sets of numbers on or around the front of the lens.

One might say something like 6.4 – 25.6 mm or 25 – 100 mm, and the other might say F 1.8 – 4.9.   The first set of numbers refers to the focal length, or, the camera’s ability to capture subjects, both near and far, in an image. In other words, it tells you how much of the subject you’ll see. The example above is a pretty standard range.

  The other set of numbers is the starting aperture, also referred to as the “f-stop.” This indicates how much light is allowed to pass through the lens. This can get even more complicated when you start to look at f-stop as a ratio to focal length. To make it simple: With f-stop, a lower number means brighter pictures. A lens with a higher f-stop means the image will be darker. Many standard point-and-shoots have a starting f-stop of 3.1. But some more advanced cameras might boast a starting point of 2.4 or 1.8. 

Manual Controls

 With advanced compact cameras, even amateurs who love auto mode might find themselves becoming control freaks. These souped-up cameras offer everything from white balance to shutter speed to ISO control settings.  

One feature that has been creeping its way into more consumer cameras is the ability to shoot “raw” photo files — something that pro photographers demand with their cameras, but consumers have had less use for. Raw file options mean that in addition to capturing a standard JPEG image with a scene setting attached — say, “portrait,” or “nighttime” — the camera will capture an unprocessed, uncompressed image at the same time. Be aware: Raw photos are much bigger than JPEGs.

It’s a brave new world in digital photography. For many people, I’m willing to bet that a smartphone camera is still the only camera they need. But for those who want to make the leap to a camera they can grow into, or for DSLR owners looking for a smaller device, there are plenty of good compacts out there with advanced features. A little research — and a little patience — is key.

Canon Sees Profit Growth on Weaker Yen

Juro Osawa and Kana Inagaki — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:00:13 +0000

Canon Inc. said its net profit for the fourth quarter fell fractionally from a year earlier but forecast a rise in profit for 2013 as its overseas sales get a boost from the yen’s weakening.

While profit slid by 0.4 percent for the three months through December, the Japanese camera and printer maker said it expects a 14 percent increase in net profit to ¥255 billion ($2.81 billion) in 2013 and a 27 percent growth in operating profit to ¥410 billion.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Asia's Electronics Giants Jump Into Health Care

Juro Osawa — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:30:52 +0000

As Asian consumer electronics makers look beyond gadgets for new revenue opportunities, there’s one area that many are finding attractive: Medical equipment.

Samsung Electronics Co., the powerhouse behind the Galaxy line of smartphones, said Tuesday that it has acquired NeuroLogica, a Danvers, Mass.-based developer of medical equipment such as computed-tomography (CT) scanners. Samsung didn’t disclose the financial terms of the deal.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Big Blue Is Still the Big Dog of Patents

Arik Hesseldahl — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:15:26 +0000

Computing giant IBM has retained its position as the company granted the most patents in the year. It’s the 20th consecutive year that IBM has done so.

IBM said today that it was granted 6,478 patents in 2012, which is also a record. The company has about 8,000 researchers and inventors working in 46 states in the U.S. and 35 countries around the world. The full tally of patents over 20 years amounts to nearly 67,000.

The next nine companies in the Top 10 list of patent recipients are:

Samsung, which received 5,081 patents
Canon: 3,174
Sony: 3,032
Panasonic: 2,769
Microsoft: 2,613
Toshiba: 2,447
Hon Hai : 2,013
General Electric: 1,652
LG Electronics: 1,624

So what does IBM do that other companies don’t? I had a quick conversation with Katherine Frase, IBM’s VP for Industry Solutions and Emerging Business. “The process of getting to so many patents means that inside the company there’s a mindset that’s geared toward writing down what you do when do something that’s original and that has business value. There’s a tangible focus on writing things down. And you’ll write down five to 10 times the number of things that actually pass muster toward getting a patent. But that process keeps the notion of innovation at the front of your mind, not at the back of the mind,” she says. “It shows up in patents, and that’s an indicator, but the cultural assumption that innovation isn’t an accident but is made up of lots of little things that you remembered to capture along the way is more important than the patents themselves.”

So, what sorts of things did IBM receive patents for in 2012? Here’s a sampling:

U.S. Patent #8,275,803: System and method for providing answers to questions. Remember Watson? The talking supercomputer that cleaned humanity’s clock on the TV game show “Jeopardy,” and then followed it up by going to medical school and becoming a big-shot doctor working on treating cancer? This would be the patent on how Watson takes in questions expressed in natural language and returns an answer.

U.S. Patent #8,250,010: Electronic learning synapse with spike-timing dependent plasticity using unipolar memory-switching elements. If Watson weren’t enough for you at mimicking and improving upon humanity, IBM is working on something even more complex: Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics, or SyNAPSE. It’s a project focused on cognitive computing aimed at emulating the workings of the human brain.

U.S. Patent #8,185,480: System and method for optimizing pattern recognition of non-Gaussian parameters. I don’t have the slightest idea what a non-Gaussian parameter is, so I’m not going to even try to explain this one, beyond saying that it has to do with recognizing patterns in data as the volume of information grows. One example IBM gives is traffic data: If you’re measuring traffic patterns, every day you get more data, and thus the patterns change and evolve, or existing ones become more pronounced and predictable.

There are 6,475 more or these patents from 2012 and, no, I won’t even try to list any more. Here’s a short video that IBM produced on the subject:

Three Reasons to Watch Interest-Based Social Networks in 2013

Jay Jamison — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:20:57 +0000

Leszek Glasner / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this year, I wrote about the emerging trends in social and the “Rise of Interest Based Networks.” In my blog post, I argued that social media, like traditional media before it, was a big and broad market and would support a range of offerings beyond the “big three” social networks of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. I forecast that we would see a rise in more verticalized, topic specific services. Where Facebook organizes around one’s friends, or “social graph,” these new social media sites would organize around users’ interests, the “interest graph.” Interest based networks such as Pinterest, Quora, Mightybell, PandaWhale, Thumb and Fitocracy are just a few examples of companies we saw gain traction among consumers and investors in 2012.

With the end of 2012 approaching, I started to assess what’s happened in the space this year and identified a few areas with the potential to reshape the social landscape. As we move into 2013, a year in which funding appears to be harder to secure, these factors will be instrumental for both start-ups and larger companies alike.

First, the move to mobile has definitely affected interest-based networks. A notable shift was Pinterest’s launch on phones and tablets, but many other start-ups also made a mobile push. Fitocracy, an interest based social network oriented around fitness that was originally Web-only, launched its iPhone app earlier this year, and has seen usage on mobile surge to a huge percentage of its overall engagement and traffic. Thumb, an iPhone and Android-based social network that allows people to ask questions and get instant responses, sees extremely high user engagement through its mobile apps, to the tune of over five hours per month per monthly active user and over 1 billion total yearly responses.

Users are spending lots of time engaging on social media from their mobile devices, but they are discerning and demanding. Consumers want responsive, well-designed mobile apps, and as engagement on mobile continues to grow, social services that nail their mobile experiences will reap the benefits of this momentum.

Brands are looking for a piece of the action on social and mobile

Second, a consistent concern over the year has been the effectiveness of advertising as a revenue driver on new social and mobile platforms. On the eve of the Facebook IPO, GM pulled back from its $10M advertising spend, and they are not the only ones who have doubted Facebook’s plan to drive revenue on mobile. More recently, after a disastrous snafu that released earnings early, Wall Street analysts dropped Google’s share price by nearly 9 percent due to concerns that its mobile ad business would not monetize as well as it did on the Web. These examples underscore a basic concern, namely, mobile and social-oriented networks are not set up to monetize as well as the Web on desktops.

My own view is more optimistic. Certainly social networks will have to refine their offerings for brands. This will likely take experimenting that will result in both good and bad outcomes that focus on solutions that benefit both companies and users. Mark Cuban recently critiqued Facebook’s approach on its Promoted Posts because it failed to reach a balanced solution for both parties. Over time, I expect that the mobile and social spaces will offer new opportunities to advertisers and brands to adapt and connect more effectively with their target markets. This isn’t a broken market; it’s just still in early stages of maturity.

As with any maturing process there are both good and bad examples of how brands can work with social networks. Even on Facebook, which is the most heavily embraced by brands, many are weak in how they connect with fans and followers. For example, I’m a fan of Canon cameras, as are nearly 1.1 million other Facebook users. Visit Canon’s Facebook Fan Page, though, and it’s a ghost town. The last activity on the page I see was from April of this year. It’s ridiculous. Canon is the global market share leader in digital SLR cameras, with over a million fans willing to interact with them on Facebook. Yet the brand shows no evidence of photo contests, no showcasing of products, and lacks recent video demos of its cameras or lenses. Clearly, there are still global brands that haven’t really leveraged Facebook yet.

On the other hand, companies that are finding ways beyond advertising to connect with people encourage me. Walmart, for example, is starting to use Facebook to connect with users and drive business to its stores this holiday season. Here’s one recent example from my own Facebook stream:

This is fun. As a video game nerd, I get pulled in thinking about whether a Halo or WoW toy should be the rollback of the day. Walmart connects with me in an interesting way, and if I engage, the company gets potentially useful data. Walmart is starting to evolve.

The potential for mobile social companies is even larger. Brands see the rising engagement and importance of mobile, and are working to figure out how to leverage it effectively. I look to companies like BlueRun Ventures portfolio company Verve Mobile, that focus on mobile ads targeting users leveraging location data, and see this opening all sorts of new opportunities and campaigns options for brands and advertisers. There is often a misperception that location-based marketing is about catching a consumer as they are in front of the shelf or just walking into the store. On the contrary, there are more creative ways to leverage location that are as insightful as search was to intent. For example, understanding that your target consumer is shopping at competitors’ stores or has visited a number of locations in your category is a strong signal of purchase intent. These are opportunities that weren’t available before smartphones. Couple location with data from social or interest-based graphs, and it becomes a powerful platform.

The fact that the relationship between social and mobile networks and brands is still maturing bodes well for start-ups, as they are nimble enough to test the countless avenues toward revenue. This is especially true for the interest-based social apps and services, which are known to quickly gain users and engagement. Brands are going to be looking for scale and how much time their users spend on the service interacting. By focusing on building a great community, there will be an opportunity to ride the wave of advertising dollars that will inevitably shift into social and mobile as brands adapt. Start-ups also need to think about what an ad unit really means on their service and how they can monetize their brands without compromising their product experience. The aperture for advertising is more important than ever in mobile and it is something that both brands and start-ups need to work together on to get right.

Facebook hasn’t snuffed the competition; the social space continues to evolve

New interest-based networks continue to crop up, some breaking through quite strongly. Pinterest is the obvious leader of the bunch, proven by its ongoing expansion and growth this year. But multiple other interest-based social networks suggest a future that is more diverse and not dominated by one player like Facebook. For example, humor site 9gag exploded in the last 18 months to become a top 500 site globally, according to Web analytics firm Alexa. Fitocracy gives the athlete in us a place to share fitness achievements without sounding like a bore or braggart, and sees its users spending an average of 3.5 hours on the app each month, a number that is second only to Facebook and Thumb in terms of user engagement. Go ask a question on the mobile opinion network, Thumb, and you’ll get more than 50 responses in just a few minutes, as Facebook recently gave up on its foray into question and answer. User appetite for these new services continues to expand.

There are two broad categories of interest-based networks, and both are seeing companies succeed in 2012. One category is verticalized, subject-themed networks such as Foodspotting (food), Rapgenius (rap lyrics), 9Gag (humor), Wedding Party (weddings) and Fitocracy (fitness). The promise of these services is that they deliver value to users in a specific slice of their lives. They create strong, loyal communities that can be valuable targets for brands. The challenge they face in the evolving ecosystem is how to sustain growth and user acquisition given their vertical focus.

The other approach is horizontal: Pinterest, Quora, Path, Thumb and PandaWhale. These services span a broad range of topics, but offer a different interaction model — whether through pinboards in the case of Pinterest, or questions and answers in the cases of Quora and Thumb. These networks have broader audiences that can be spliced into specific targets, but will require large scale to deliver meaningful targets in specific areas (e.g. number of users on Quora that are interested in a particular topic). In this segment, the mechanics for driving engagement and analytics will be very important to delivering advertising targeting and conversion.

Both approaches will likely yield winners. And there are many questions I ask myself when evaluating these companies and looking ahead to 2013. For vertically focused networks, the question will be when and whether those services need to scale into other areas. Will Foodspotting expand to offer Winespotting? Will Wedding Party extend into Baby Shower Party? And will the users follow?

For horizontal services, the question is how to extend the entire platform more broadly, to make it more mainstream. Pinterest has seemingly crossed this chasm. Some have questioned whether Quora will do so, though I’m extremely confident it will.

Looking back on what has shaped the ecosystem to this point, it is impossible to ignore the effect continued growth on mobile and increased interest from brands will have on the current batch of social contenders in 2013, new and old. The goal is to deliver a service that adds value to users, builds a community, and helps power users and key contributors gain recognition and notoriety. But the path to success will be varied. I will say that from my vantage point as an investor that, heading into 2013, if mobile doesn’t factor very heavily into the approach of an interest-based social network, then I’m not interested. Skate to where the puck is going is the lesson here.

Jay Jamison is a Partner at BlueRun Ventures, who focuses on early stage mobile, consumer and enterprise investments. He also serves on the boards of AppCentral (acquired by Good Technology), AppRedeem, Foodspotting, and Thumb. You can follow Jay on Twitter @jay_jamison or read his blog at www.jayjamison.com.

Fujifilm’s XF1 Camera Blends Old-School Style With Advanced Control

Lauren Goode — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:00:20 +0000

We all know a few camera snobs. Maybe you’re one of them — and prefer to call yourself a camera “enthusiast.” For these people, simple point-and-shoots or smartphone cameras just don’t do the trick.

  With this customer in mind, Fujifilm has introduced the XF1, a $499 digital camera that’s more compact than a big-bodied DSLR with interchangeable lenses, but has some of the manual controls and capabilities of its higher-end cousins. Its funky retro design will catch the eyes of vintage camera lovers.

  Most notably, the camera has a manual control 4x optical zoom that also acts as its power function. Twist the lens a bit, and the camera is in standby mode. Fully extend the lens, and the camera turns on and is ready to shoot. To power off, you rotate and press the lens back into the camera body.

[ See post to watch video ]

This hands-on, manual zoom may feel more familiar for consumers who have experience with DSLRs. During testing, it allowed for more precision when I was taking pictures, and the lack of electronic zoom means the camera can get more than 300 shots per battery charge. I’ve been using the XF1 for over a week now, and I’m pretty pleased with it.

  But beyond its bells and whistles, the XF1 lacks a couple of features that are becoming standard in digital cameras.

With its blend of auto and manual settings and its $499 price point, the XF1 joins the ranks of cameras like Canon’s $449 PowerShot S110 (an updated version of the popular PowerShot S100) and the Sony RX100, which retails for a whopping $649. But the XF1 lacks a touchscreen display and Wi-Fi capabilities, two features of the Canon S110. The XF1 doesn’t have built-in GPS, either.

And while it’s smaller than top-of-the-line DSLRs, the XF1 is still just a bit bigger than some of its compact competitors. The zoom/power function requires two hands to shoot, whereas the Canon and Sony are small enough to use with one hand.

The XF1 measures 4.2 inches by 2.4 by 1.2 inches, and weighs just under half a pound. It has a solid aluminum body with a dimpled synthetic leather covering that comes in red, black or tan. It has a three-inch LCD display.

On the top edge of the camera, you’ll find the shooting button, the setting wheel and a little pop-up flash. On the back, there are two more command dials, a playback button and “E-fn,” a customizable shortcut button.

I was able to customize the E-fn button so that white balance and ISO control, as well as raw image capture, were just a couple taps away.

  The camera has a 12 megapixel, 2/3-inch image sensor that allows for better image quality than photos captured with a basic point-and-shoot. For more advanced users, there are a multitude of settings that allow for manual fine-tuning.

But the XF1 can make less-skilled photogs look good, too: Even in auto mode, the camera captured sharp, professional-looking images with just the right amount of blur in areas outside of the focal point.  

Photo taken with Fujifilm XF1. Advanced mode, Toy camera filter.

The Fujifilm XF1 also has an EXR mode, basically a high-powered auto mode. I found myself shooting in this mode the most.

With EXR, the camera looks for faces to focus on and continually adjusts the focus. It also employs scene recognition. So, on a bright sunny day, the camera would automatically go to a high-resolution mode, while in low light it would reduce the overall resolution of the image to prevent it from looking too noisy.

 The downside of EXR mode is that it can drain the camera’s battery more quickly. Also, when I was taking pictures of moving subjects — whether taxicabs on the street or falling snowflakes — both auto and EXR were apt to capture blurry images, so a manual setting that allows for shutter speed adjustment is best for these scenarios.

These days, a digital camera would not be complete without plenty of filters to slap on your pics. The XF1, like the Canon S110 and Sony RX100, has a variety of filters that can be previewed in the display screen.

Photo taken with Fujifilm XF1. EXR mode in low light.

These are buried in Advanced mode, and include a “toy camera” effect with darkened edges, a “color pop” mode, and a handful of partial color settings that create monochrome images with a single color standing out. I spent a day playing hipster, taking pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge with various filters, and I have to say I really liked the results.  

The XF1 records video in full 1080p HD. My video clips looked crisp, and the camera captured good sound — although, it doesn’t have an input for an external microphone. The red designated video button on the back is pretty handy, and the wheel on top of the camera doesn’t have to be turned to any kind of “TV” mode first, so you can just point and record.

The XF1’s complexity at times veered toward confusing. The camera can show as many as 31 different indicators on the display, meant to be helpful hints or warnings, and I couldn’t seem to shake one blur warning.

Photo taken with Fujifilm XF1. Advanced mode, monochrome filter with red color pop.

Fujifilm suggested it was because I was shooting in low-light areas, but this happened even in decent light. (And one of the claims with this camera is that it’s supposed to be excellent in low light.)

Another example? For video clips there’s a “YouTube” option, which apparently does nothing except mark your clips, since the camera isn’t equipped with Wi-Fi.

And, because I had to refer to the instruction manual quite a bit, I also found a couple instances in which the manual was misleading.

Overall, the XF1 is a solid camera for photo hobbyists and “prosumers” looking for a little style and a lot of control. Those who aren’t sold on the manual zoom might want to try other midrange cameras, such as the Canon S110, before committing to the $499 Fujifilm XF1.

Two Budget-Friendly Printers You Won’t Want to Throw Out the Window

Lauren Goode — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:00:30 +0000

It’s the impetus for meltdowns at your desk, the cause of late-night trips to FedEx Kinko’s and that one thing your parents always ask you to fix for them when you’re visiting.

It’s the frustrating, fallible printer.

But not all printers will make you want to live a paperless life. For this week’s column, I’ve been comparing two Wi-Fi-equipped inkjet printers that go easy on your wallet and on your stress levels: The $80 Canon Pixma MG3220, and the Epson Expression XP-400, which normally costs $100, but I found at retail for as low as $70.

Both printers came to market this summer, and are compatible with Windows and Mac operating systems. In addition to printing, scanning and copying, both work with mobile apps that let you wirelessly print the photos from iOS or Android devices — a must-have feature in the age of smartphone photo-snapping. Other printers I considered, like some Brother inkjet multifunction printers and HP’s Photosmart 7520 e-All-in-One, offer similar features, but cost more.

[ See post to watch video ]

One of the printers I tested stood out from the other: The Epson Expression XP-400. I’d recommend this one for users who, like myself, mostly print work documents and personal paperwork with the occasional photo printout. It fit well on my gadget-covered desk, is the easier of the two to set up, and has an intuitive LCD screen that took the trouble out of troubleshooting. The Canon Pixma MG3220 is powerful and prints beautiful photos, but it’s bulkier and uses a confusing combination of letter and number codes to guide you through printer functions.

The Epson measures 15.4 by 11.8 by 5.7 inches, without its paper trays extended in the back. It weighs just nine pounds, lighter than its predecessor, the NX430 printer, which I’d been using for a few months, before Epson quietly replaced it with the XP-400. The Canon measures 17.7 by 12 by six inches, and weighs 12 pounds. It’s a front-load printer, so its trays will take up even more real estate on your desk.

The Epson’s 2.5-inch LCD screen and capacitive touchpad help make the set-up process pretty painless. After a four-minute initialization process, I quickly connected the printer to my Wi-Fi network at home by typing in my password. I never had to look at the printer manual.

Setting up the Canon was a bit more complicated. When I tried to use the one-touch wireless setup option, I got a few cryptic signals on the tiny display on top of the printer, which I decoded using Canon’s online manual. I ended up connecting the Canon printer to my laptop with a USB cord and set the printer up for Wi-Fi that way. (Afterward, I could physically disconnect the two.)

The Canon claims a higher print speed, and in my tests, I found this to be mostly true. It definitely has a little bit more oomph when printing.

The Epson, on the other hand, claims a higher print resolution. To my average-consumer eye, text and graphic printouts — Word docs, Excel sheets and logos — looked bold and crisp from both printers. The most obvious difference was in printed photos on glossy and matte photo paper.

While I expected the Canon to totally trump the Epson when it comes to photo printing, the Epson held its own at first. A couple of photos the Epson spit out had truer colors, while some of the same shots printed on the Canon had a warmer hue. A printout of my 3-year-old niece on the beach came out looking oversaturated. A photo of me and my boyfriend sitting at a winery looked a little orange compared to the Epson printout.

But after printing out a few dozen photos in various sizes — some raw photos, and some that had been doctored — I determined that the Canon printed better photos, ones that I would actually frame. The Canon especially shined with large, colorful photos, like the one I took of the Golden Gate Bridge, or the one of a giant Mets logo at the ballpark.

I printed these photos over Wi-Fi from three sources: Desktop applications like iPhoto or Canon’s own desktop photo app; an SD card, which I could insert directly into the Epson printer (the Canon doesn’t have a card slot); and from my mobile devices, including an iPhone, iPad and an Android smartphone. To print from mobile, I downloaded Epson’s free iPrint app and Canon’s Easy-PhotoPrint app, also free.

Both apps were straightforward and easy to use, though the Epson iPrint app always defaulted to the top of my iPhone’s camera roll, which means I had to scroll through 2,600 photos to get to the most recent ones.

Naturally, printing lots of photos will drain your ink cartridges pretty quickly. The Canon, at 180 pages of text or 70 color photos for every standard pack of cartridges, has a slightly higher page yield than the Epson. The Canon cartridges will cost you around $50, though some refill packs can be found for less. The Epson’s standard print pack costs around $40 in most retail stores. Both printers take (more expensive) higher-capacity ink cartridges, if you plan to do a lot of printing.

The function that almost gave me printer rage again was scanning. One feature that sets this Epson apart from earlier models is that it scans directly to the productivity app Evernote. But this isn’t listed anywhere among the “Scan” options on the printer.

After asking the company about this, I found out that I had to first go online and install something called Epson Connect, then send the file from the printer to a created email account that feeds to Evernote. The company hasn’t put together a user manual for this feature yet.

The Canon, meanwhile, showed me uninterpretable error signals again when I tried to scan, bringing me back to the list of error codes to figure out how to scan a single piece of paper.

If you’re looking for a speedier, slightly larger printer that cranks out pretty photos, the Canon Pixma MG3220 might be the better option for you. But if you need a compact, super-simple printer for your personal documents and the occasional photo, the Epson Expression XP-400 has given me one of the most pain-free printer experiences I’ve had in a long time.

Peering Into the Patent Portfolio Behind Google Glass

Liz Gannes — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:22:49 +0000

After the billion-dollar Apple-Samsung patent trial, the value of the intellectual property around mobile devices is a lot less hypothetical than it used to be.

One of the areas of rapid development is head-mounted displays — most famously Project Glass, Google’s yet-to-be-released wearable devices that promise to do things like unobtrusively notify users about new text messages, help them navigate the world, and take pictures of their kids with no handheld camera necessary.

DVF models wear Google Glass at New York Fashion Week

Earlier this summer Apple was granted a patent for embedding displays in a wearable headset, something it had originally filed for back in 2006. Hmm, sounds a lot like Google Glass, right?

So I asked the folks at patent research firm Envision IP to look at the larger scope of patents around Google Glass-like technologies, from Google, Apple and other companies.

Envision just completed its analysis, finding that Google has 36 issued and four pending U.S. patents on head-mounted display and augmented reality technologies.

Google started filing around these topics in 2010, and has 10 design patents on eyeglass-like devices, plus patents for things like eye-tracking based cursor movement and selection, and the combination of hand, finger and head movements as inputs for a head-mounted device.

But Microsoft, IBM and Canon also began filing U.S. patent applications in this space as early as 1999. Microsoft has 53 HMD and AR patents, IBM has 41 and Canon has 58. Apple, Samsung, LG, Sony, Nokia and Panasonic also have small numbers of U.S. patents in the space.

Envision found that these older patent portfolios deal with general aspects of HMD involving hardware and digital processing technology — things like lenses and optical hardware.

Google’s patents are more focused on usability, input and Internet integration, Envision said.

Envision picked out two Google patents that it thought stood out from the rest: 8,235,529 covers unlocking a screen using eye tracking, and 8,184,070, which describes methods for selecting based on an accelerometer. Both of these seem to significantly improve on the existing patented technologies in the space, Envision said.

Still, it should be said that like all patent analysis, this is based on an outdated view of the world. That’s because U.S. patent applications aren’t published until 18 months after they are filed.

HP Sails Into Perfect Storm for Printers

Arik Hesseldahl — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:58:43 +0000

Pop quiz: When was the last time you bought a printer? Or an ink cartridge? Or a package of printer paper? Of course, the answer is going to vary from one situation to another, but chances are you’re using a printer a lot less often than you used to.

It’s not hard to see evidence of that wider trend in the results of several companies in the printer and printer supplies business. In a research note out today, analyst Chris Whitmore of Deutsche Bank Securities looked at sales trends over the last 10 quarters at printer companies including Canon, Epson, Lexmark, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard and found that combined sales for equipment and supplies were down 6 percent year on year.

Additionally, sales of printing equipment during the last year have declined similarly, which is a bad sign for sales of supplies as they tend to lag sales of hardware by nine to 12 months and are more often than not the profit-making end of the business. Another indicator, sales of printer paper (specifically A3 and A4 paper) fell 6 percent in the second quarter to levels that are 20 percent below their historical peak in 2006.

Whitmore’s conclusion: The use of printed pages is on what appears to be a permanent decline that could only accelerate as tablets like the iPad and others like it get more popular. “Simply put, the content that was once printed for distribution or portability is now simply being distributed or shared electronically,” he writes.

All of the companies in Whitmore’s survey have already reported their earnings this quarter, except for one: Hewlett-Packard, and it reports its quarterly results on Aug. 22. When we last heard from HP, revenues in its imaging and printing group had decreased by nearly 9 percent, or more than $1 billion, for the six-month period ending April 30, down to $12.4 billion. Leading that decline was a 6 percent drop in sales of supplies, which may not seem important until you realize that sales of supplies have historically amounted to about $17 billion a year, or more than two-thirds of HP’s $25.7 billion revenue in the printer business.

It’s not the first time this trend has been so apparent: HP’s printer fortunes looked very stormy indeed ahead of another earnings report earlier this year.

This decline was at least one of the reasons that HP CEO Meg Whitman combined the company’s printer business unit with the personal computer unit under Executive Vice President Todd Bradley. Selling printers and PCs together, the thinking goes, creates an opportunity to save on costs that are otherwise duplicated.

But there may be other more fundamental changes coming to the way the printer business operates. In an interview with AllThingsD in June, Bradley hinted at such changes, especially around ink products, and indicated the company might reconsider cutting some money-losing printer models on the low end.

No one expects HP’s quarterly results to be particularly good. In fact, the consensus view of analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial calls for it to report overall sales that declined by about 3 percent year on year.

And the future doesn’t look any brighter, especially as the decline in printing extends into the workplace. Companies like Xerox and Lexmark have tried to minimize the damage by turning printing into part of a wider document and work-flow management service. But these services may fall victim to tightening corporate IT budgets. As Whitmore puts it: “From an enterprise standpoint, printing is increasingly a cost to be managed lower rather than area of spend or investment. Although many enterprise print vendors are competing via managed print services engagements, this trend speaks to the discretionary nature of spending on printing. As such, we suspect it will be the most vulnerable to future spending cuts.”

Two Slim Digital Cameras Worth Considering – Even With Your Smartphone

Lauren Goode — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:00:44 +0000

Let’s face it: Smartphones, with their ever-improving cameras and ability to instantly share photos, are munching away at the digital camera market.

But some consumers still appreciate the features that a more powerful camera can provide, especially when it comes to shooting photos at weddings, on vacation or in situations that require a little more zoom.

That’s where cameras like the Sony Cyber-shot TX66 and Canon PowerShot Elph 520 come in. This Sony costs $350, while the Canon camera costs $300, with some retailers offering it for $259.

[ See post to watch video ]

The Sony is impossibly tiny and takes vivid 18-megapixel photos, but some photos I took didn’t capture depth well, nor did they look much better than pictures taken with a cheaper point-and-shoot. The 10-megapixel images captured with the Canon were softer-looking, and the camera itself offers more manual control, as well as better optical zoom, which more serious photographers might appreciate. But the consumer looking for a simpler camera might not need all of these bells and whistles offered with the Canon.

Also, neither camera is Wi-Fi-enabled, and since they use microSD cards for storage, they won’t work with something like a Wi-Fi-equipped Eye-Fi card, which wirelessly transmits images from the camera to a nearby computer. Users will be forced to transfer and share all photos the old-fashioned way: By plugging into a computer.

First, the Sony: It’s 3.8 inches by 2.3 inches — about the size of a credit card — and just 0.5 inch thick. It weighs 3.9 ounces. The camera went on sale in March of this year and is available in four colors: White, purple, pink and silver.

Like Sony’s earlier TX55, the Cyber-shot TX66 has a 3.3-inch OLED (organic light-emitting diode) touchscreen that I really liked. The display was bright, the screen was responsive to the touch and it was easy to navigate through all of the menu options of the camera from the screen. Shooting HD video required just one quick tap on a red “movie” button. (It’s worth noting that audio capture on the video, however, was poor.)

The front of the camera is made up of two panels, one that slides up to reveal the lens. The lens doesn’t project or extend from the camera when you shoot photos; instead, this camera has something called a “folded optic” design, so the lens extends within the body of the camera. My only gripe about the design is that the power button and elongated shoot button are too small, dictated by the slimness of the camera body.

I had both cameras with me during a recent trip to Los Angeles, so I took lots of photos of friends, scenery and the colorful characters at the annual E3 videogame conference.

Photos taken with the Sony in standard mode were vivid and bright. For example, I took pictures with both cameras of a flower bush in a front yard while walking down the street in Venice, Calif. The photo taken with the Sony popped with color; the photo taken with the Canon PowerShot Elph 520 was more muted.

The Sony has plenty of in-camera options for punching up your photos without feeling overwhelming, such as color-enhancing effects, background de-focusing options and the ability to change the tone of your photo. It even offers 3-D shooting, by capturing two images at once and splicing them together for the “stereo” effect needed for 3-D, though those images can only be viewed on a true 3-D screen.

The camera has a 10x digital zoom, but it still wasn’t powerful enough to take great photos of the people onstage at a press event when I was seated in an area’s mezzanine level. The Canon, by comparison, has a 12x zoom, and took better photos from far away.

In my experience, the Sony’s battery life was better than the Canon’s. The initial charge took around two hours, but the battery was still going after a few days of intermittent use, while the Canon’s battery life was nearly drained under the same circumstances. Sony says the expected battery life for shooting still images is up to 250 images per charge.

The Canon PowerShot Elph 520, meanwhile, gets just 190 shots per charge. Plus, unlike the Sony’s internal battery, its battery is a rounded stick that has to be removed from the camera and placed on a separate charger. I didn’t lose it while I was testing it, but I could see that easily happening.

The Canon, which hit the market in early May, has a boxier, more substantial body than the Sony. It measures 3.34 inches by 2.12 inches by 0.76 inch, and weighs 5.5 ounces.

I felt better about throwing the Canon into a bag with a bunch of other gear, but it’s just thick enough that it wouldn’t fit into my pocket the way the Sony did. The Canon is available in blue, black, red and silver.

The Canon PowerShot Elph 520 has a nice, three-inch diagonal LCD screen, but it’s not a touchscreen like the Sony’s. There are a few buttons on top of the camera, including a big, round button for taking photos, and seven tiny buttons on the back of the camera for turning flash on and off, navigating through menu options and recording video.

For someone who isn’t familiar with high-end DSLRs, especially a Canon DSLR, the menu options might seem confusing. It has more than two dozen scene settings and photo effects. It also offers some manual controls that more experienced photo-takers might appreciate, such as the ability to adjust the exposure and the ISO, or sensitivity of the camera in low-light situations.

Some consumers might initially like the softness of some of the Canon photos, especially in its auto mode, as I did. Others might find the photos to look too noisy. You can adjust the sharpness of the photos, but they still won’t look super crisp.

If you’re looking for a “real” camera to supplement your smartphone, both of these cameras will do the trick and save you space. But consumers who want a super-small — and simple — camera will likely prefer the Sony Cyber-shot TX66, while those used to a slightly more advanced camera may want to consider Canon’s Power Shot Elph 520.

HP's Whitman to Shed More Light on the Future, Including Job Cuts, Today

Arik Hesseldahl — Wed, 23 May 2012 12:30:20 +0000

Hewlett-Packard will report its quarterly earnings today after the close of regular trading in New York, and there’s a lot riding on what its senior executives, especially CEO Meg Whitman, will have to say.

The consensus among Wall Street analysts calls for HP to report sales of $29.92 billion and a per-share profit of 91 cents. And, for the most part, analysts are expecting HP’s results to be in line with expectations, if maybe a little light on sales.

One possible curveball, however, is Europe. Given HP’s exposure to the faltering markets on that continent, about which Dell complained in its earnings report yesterday, HP could conceivably see its results hurt more by Europe than by Dell.

Europe accounts for 37 percent of HP’s revenue, making it the most heavily exposed there among the large IT vendors. “The increasing uncertainty and resulting macro weakness in Europe will likely act as an ongoing headwind to growth,” wrote analyst Chris Whitmore of Deutsche Bank Securities in a note to clients Tuesday.

But the big item on the agenda will be HP’s plans for restructuring, and how many jobs may be lost. As AllThingsD reported last week, HP is contemplating a restructuring that could see as many as 30,000 jobs eliminated, including 5,000 through voluntary retirements. What’s unclear is over what length of time these jobs will go — I’ve been told by sources that this is a key detail, and it is likely to be a fairly long period of time.

The reductions would be the latest in a long, painful sequence of cuts for HP that began years ago. Whitmore notes that HP chopped 50,000 jobs over the course of five years under the tenure of former CEO Mark Hurd. “We suspect HP will position this cost cutting as ‘cut to reinvest’ — an interesting strategy considering HP has been restructuring for the past decade,” Whitmore writes.

Whatever restructuring Whitman puts on the table, Whitmore expects it will help HP maintain its prior guidance — it expects to finish the year with a per-share profit north of $4.00 — but it’s still not going to be easy. Summer PC demand is expected to be soft, and the lack of a tablet strategy isn’t helping. Demand for corporate PCs will likely be a rare bright spot, but just barely.

In printers, the relatively weak results of printer concerns Canon and Lexmark don’t exactly imbue the market with confidence that the trend of sliding profits and sales in HP’s printer operation, recently combined with the Personal Systems Group in a sweeping reorganization announced last month, is anywhere close to being reversed.

One thing to watch for — and something about which Whitman has hinted in the past — is SKU reduction. An SKU is industry lingo for “stock-keeping unit,” and it refers to specific models and makes and packages of a given product. Consumer printers — and, in fact, printers in general — would be an obvious place to cut back on the number of models offered to the market, and it would be perfectly in line with Whitman’s prior messages emphasizing simplicity and streamlining HP’s approach to the market. While I don’t expect Whitman to go on at length about this subject, it’s the sort of thing she may touch on as she hones the “simplicity” message.

What not to expect: One big bomb dropped all at once, outlining the sum total of Whitman’s long-term strategy for HP — one she has already admitted will take a long time to implement. The fact is, it’s a big job, probably one of the biggest in all of the corporate world, and so it’s necessarily coming out in pieces. Today’s piece will be a big one.

There's a Storm Ahead for HP's Printer Business

Arik Hesseldahl — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:21:26 +0000

When the troubled IT giant Hewlett-Packard reports its quarterly results tomorrow, most analysts expect it to come through and meet — and perhaps even beat — some already diminished expectations.

Yet HP is facing a significant problem in a key market: Printing. HP’s Imaging and Printing Group, or IPG, accounts for roughly 20 percent of HP’s revenue, making it a bigger business by revenue than the enterprise and server, storage and networking businesses.

As it does with most printer vendors, the business model of IPG works like this: HP sells a printer, more often than not at a loss, then makes up for the loss by selling the customer ink and other supplies over the next several years of the printer’s useful life.

In this business, HP is the king. In a survey of the state of the printing market issued last week, the market research firm IDC pegged HP’s overall share at north of 41 percent. In 2011, by IDC’s reckoning, HP sold more than twice the number of printers as its nearest rival Canon, and more than the combined unit sales of its nearest three rivals — Canon, Epson and Samsung.

So what’s the problem? The printing business is on the wane. For all of 2011, combined sales grew by 0.7 percent, according to IDC, and what little growth there was didn’t go to HP. IDC says HP’s printer shipments declined by 0.7 percent last year, while Canon, Samsung and Brother all saw their shipments grow.

And sales in key market geographies make the picture look even worse. In the U.S., for example, IDC says the market for printers in 2011 contracted by 9 percent, while HP’s unit sales plummeted by more than 12 percent. On a unit basis, IDC says, HP sold fewer than 4.2 million printers to U.S. customers, compared to 4.8 million in 2010.

Slowing hardware sales are only the leading edge of the problem. Remember that HP takes a loss on every printer it sells and makes it up on much more profitable supplies. Here’s where the numbers start to look scary: As overall revenue in the IPG was essentially flat year on year in 2011 — sales were $25.78 billion in 2011 versus $25.76 billion in 2010 — sales of supplies declined.

That may not seem important, until you realize that sales of supplies account for more than two-thirds of IPG’s revenue: Printer supplies are a $17 billion annual business that had been growing until 2011 when sales headed south. Sales of ink cartridges tend to track sales of new printers on a six- to nine-month lag, but there’s also a long tail that feeds into the existing installed base. Printers can stay in service for years, gobbling up ink.

A decline in ink sales can have an outsized impact in IPG’s profitability: Operating margins in IPG declined from 17.1 percent in 2010 to 15.4 percent in 2011.

And if market trends weren’t enough to drag down HP’s printer business, there are economic ones, too. Canon manufactures key parts of HP’s LaserJet printers in Japan. That caused two significant problems: Logistics costs increased as a result of the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan last year. Meanwhile, the strength of the Japanese yen relative to the U.S. dollar is adding even more incremental costs.

The bottom line: Printing has been one of HP’s long-term strengths. If people are printing less, they’re buying fewer printers. And if they’re buying fewer printers, they’re buying less ink. All of it is bad news for the world’s biggest printer company. We’ll see just how bad on Wednesday, when HP reports its latest results.

Three Cameras in Focus at CES

Lauren Goode — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:08:41 +0000

Smartphones are munching at many industries, including cameras. And while some camera makers are looking to compete by making their digital cameras “smarter” — which means adding more Wi-Fi capabilities and apps — others are focusing on their core capabilities: Taking pictures. Here are three cameras that stood out at the Consumer Electronics Show last week:

Canon PowerShot G1 X
The Canon PowerShot G1 X follows the PowerShot G12, which will stay in Canon’s product lineup; the G1 X adds the largest sensor to date for a Canon PowerShot model. Bodywise, it’s not as chunky as a DSLR, but it’s larger than the PowerShot G12, and still has a pretty solid composite-material body, weighing in at 19 ounces and measuring 4.98 x 2.93 x 2.12 inches.

The camera uses a 1.5-inch, 14.3 megapixel high-sensitivity CMOS sensor, which is 6.3 times larger than the G12’s sensor. A representative for Canon says it works especially well in low light.

Interchangeable lenses aren’t an option — the G1 X does have a 28mm-to-112mm (4x) optical zoom lens — and for hobbyists, this will be just fine. But for fans of the Canon 5D, 7D, and 60D, the lack of lens options could be what makes them stay true to their DSLRs.

The G1 X also captures 1080p HD video, with optical zooming and auto-focus features. It’s got a pop-up flash, and a fully rotating view screen. While some consumers might prefer not to have an extra view-screen “arm” hanging off the camera, regular video shooters might prefer this to an embedded view screen.

The Canon G1 X will cost $799, and is expected to hit the market at the end of February.

FujiFilm X-Pro 1
Fujifilm’s new flagship product will stoke the fires of your inner photo freak, but will likely leave a big, gaping hole in your wallet.

Fujifilm is touting a brand-new proprietary sensor that is supposed to set this device apart from other cameras. In fact, the new sensor is establishing the X-Pro 1 as the new flagship camera of Fujifilm. The X-Pro 1 has a 16.3 megapixel CMOS sensor, sized 23.6 mm x 15.6 mm. Fujifilm says this new sensor allows for the removal of additional low-pass filters within the camera, and still captures high-resolution images and true colors.

The X-Pro 1 supports three interchangeable lenses, captures 1080p HD video, and has a hybrid multi-iew finder that switches between electronic and optical view.

The body of the camera has a vintage look, which camera buffs will appreciate, and it’s palpably heavier than Fujifilm’s X100 camera.

With the X-Pro 1, Fujifilm is targeting an advanced photographer, and likely one that is focused on taking still images, rather than video. The price point hasn’t been set yet, but it will likely retail for more than the FinePix X100, which retails for $1,200. Fujifilm is aiming for a March 2012 launch of the X-Pro 1.

Nikon 1 Series
The belle of the CES ball this year was Nikon’s D4 camera, which won various awards throughout the week. But the D4 is geared toward professionals — and costs $6,000.

For consumers, the Nikon “1″ series cameras may be the way to go. These cameras actually hit the market last October, but were still getting attention at last week’s big show in Las Vegas.

The Nikon 1 V1, at $849, is slightly bigger than the J1, and has an electronic viewfinder and one other feature that I feel is a real bonus. Otherwise, the V1 and J1 are almost identical. The 1 series cameras are not full-fledged DLSRs, but offer some of the same advanced functionality, and support interchangeable lenses. They pack in a 10.1 megapixel, 13.2 mm x 8.8 mm high-speed AF CMOS sensor, and have a 2.7x lens focal length. Like many digital cameras on the market, they capture 1080p HD video.

There’s one dial on the back for toggling between the four functions of the camera: Still images, video, motion snapshot and smart photo selection. For some users, this makes the V1 and J1 simpler to navigate than other compact cameras; others might not like some of the limits on customization. Bounce-flash accessories, like the SB-N5 speedlight for the V1, are available for purchase, and offer a bit more illumination than built-in pop-up lights.

But there’s one small feature on the Nikon 1 V1 that makes a big difference, in my opinion — the external audio input. Very few point-and-shoots or DSLRs come with a microphone jack; in order to capture good, isolated sound on many cameras, you’d have to slide an accessory into the “hot shoe” at the top of the camera. With the Nikon 1 V1, you could attach a stereo mic and stop apologizing for the bad audio and ambient noise in your videos.

The Nikon 1 V1 retails for $849; the Nikon 1 J1 costs $699.

Ever Made a Wi-Fi Device? You Probably Just Got Sued.

Arik Hesseldahl — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:03:27 +0000

Ever heard of Mosaid Technology? Neither have I, but it’s a Canadian chip designer that’s been around since 1975. And if you’re among the 17 companies it sued today, you probably wish you’d never heard of it.

That’s right, 17 companies all at once, and all over six patents related to Wi-Fi that it says are being infringed. The defendants include household names like Dell, Research In Motion, Intel, Canon and Asus, as well as some lesser known names in tech like Atheros–the wireless chipmaker that’s being acquired by Qualcomm–Marvell Semiconductor and the Chinese networking concern Huawei.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, which is notable because this district has developed something of a reputation of being friendly to so-called patent trolls, companies who make their living not by making products, but by suing established companies with the resources to either pay damages or cash settlements after arguably infringing on some patents they happen to have. When a few cases filed in this court went in favor of the plaintiff some years ago, numerous others followed. It also gained the nickname of “rocket docket,” meaning patent cases tended to be wrapped up inside of one to two years, much faster than in other courts.

Mosaid says it has licensed the six patents in question to 15 other companies, some of which you’ve heard of. They include Sony, Samsung, Panasonic and Nokia.

And if you’re not on either list–sued today or working with a license–and sell a Wi-Fi enabled product, you can probably bet that Mosaid is coming for you sooner or later. As Mosaid CEO John Lindgren put it in a company statement: “We believe that all companies offering products that implement the Wi-Fi standard require a license to our wireless patents.” Sounds like Mosaid’s lawyers are going to be busy.

Man, I Got So WikiLeaked Last Night

Beth Callaghan — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:23:29 +0000

“WikiLeaks” has entered the canon of the English language, but not according to the OED. Research done by a group known as Global Language Monitor shows that “WikiLeaks” has appeared in global media more than 300 million times since 2006. The Texas-based group cites a minimum of 25,000 mentions in English-speaking media as a requirement for the name to become its own lowercase, generic word. Unfortunately, GLM doesn’t specify its definition or whether the word would be used as a noun, verb, adjective or adverb.

Digital Cameras Improve Zooms, HD Function

Katherine Boehret — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:26:27 +0000

With Thanksgiving fast approaching, so, too, comes the start of the holiday shopping mayhem. Once again, digital cameras are rocketing to the top of wish lists, and once again, shoppers are tentatively entering electronics stores with bewildered looks on their faces.

[ See post to watch video ]

To alleviate some of that shopping stress, I’ve compiled a buyer’s guide for different camera categories with prices and pointers to innovation. This year, manufacturers have improved photo-location tagging and are offering artistic photo alteration and clever ways to label images for future sharing on social networks.

Let’s Get Physical

Consumers are starting to understand that better sensors make it possible to do things like taking photos in low light, which can really make a difference in photo quality. Some high-quality sensors are making their way into affordable models, like the CMOS sensor in Nikon’s $300 Coolpix S8100. High megapixel counts aren’t overly important, though more megapixels per photo still make it easier to zoom in while editing and give higher resolution in a larger photo or poster. A 14-megapixel camera like the Olympus FE-47 costs just $100, but a recent Consumer Reports review gave it low marks in handling shake and liquid-crystal-display screen quality. Optical zoom, or the physically manipulated distance between the camera and a subject, is still more important than digital zoom, and it’s easy to find many models with 7x optical zoom or better. LCD screens on digicams are so large that they leave little room for optical viewfinders, thus making built-in image stabilization all the more important. Image stabilization comes on nearly all new cameras. And more digicams than ever are capable of recording high-definition videos.

Breaking It Down

Digital cameras can be divided into four broad categories: pocket-size, point-and-shoot, super- or mega-zooms and digital single-lens reflexes (D-SLRs). I’ll leave SLRs out of the discussion, since they’re still primarily aimed at hobbyists who don’t mind the cost and effort of buying additional lenses, filters, flashes and other accessories.

Most pocket-size digital cameras cost between $100 and $300, weigh no more than seven ounces and lack optical viewfinders, forcing users to look at LCD screens to compose pictures. Most of these LCD viewing screens measure between 2.6 inches and 3.5 inches diagonally. Samsung, however, has an even bigger touch-screen LCD, at 3.7 inches, on its CL80 camera priced at $350.

These small but powerful machines capture images with 10, 12 or 14 megapixels and their optical zoom lenses usually range from 3x to 7x, though a handful of manufacturers are boosting their cameras’ optical zooms. The $170 Casio Exilim EX-H5, for example, is equipped with a 10x optical zoom lens.

Today’s point-and-shoot digital cameras are sleeker and more stylish than they used to be, though they remain somewhat bulkier than their pocket-size relatives. The point-and-shoot size can allow for better optical zoom lenses, and these models sometimes cost less than the pocket sizes. The $300 Canon PowerShot SX210 IS and $280 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS5 are equipped with 14x and 12x optical zoom lenses, respectively.

Super-zoom or mega-zoom digital cameras satisfy people who want the power of a great zoom and optional manual settings without the hassle and expense of an SLR. At a glance, you might mistake these models for SLRs due to their bulkier bodies, and, in some cases, detachable (or hot-shoe) flashes. Nikon’s $400 Coolpix P100 offers a 26x wide-angle optical zoom, and Olympus’s $350 SP-800UZ is the smallest camera with a 30x wide-angle optical zoom. Both cameras have built-in flashes, but the Nikon includes an optical viewfinder while the Olympus offers only an LCD screen for viewing and capturing photos.

Shaking It Up

Camera manufacturers are adding creative new features to these devices. Starting the week of Thanksgiving, Casio will provide Hybrid GPS on its $350 EX-H20G, which geotags (adds digital location information to) images indoors where GPS satellite signals can’t reach. This works using a combined GPS radio and motion sensor to measure the direction in which the camera has moved, and how fast. When you’re back in satellite range, the camera corrects the geotag by cross-referencing its own estimates with satellite-provided latitude and longitude.

Olympus now has art filters, which let you view your subject with special effects before capturing the photo. Some filters supply gentle sepia, soft focus or grainy film. There is also a drawing filter, which makes a subject instantly appear as a sketch.

Samsung’s $150 PL90 model has a pop-out USB arm that reminds me a lot of the pop-out USB connector on Cisco’s popular Flip camcorders. Samsung’s USB arm eliminates the need for messy wires, or the removal of a memory card to transfer photos from a digicam to a PC.

Many cameras have and continue to supply guides that appear on screen as a photo is being captured. Sony’s NEX-5 offers this, and the Olympus Live Guide let you preview photo adjustments—like brightness or color saturation—on the screen as you make them. Nikon’s Scene Auto Selector, found in the Coolpix P7000, Coolpix S8100 and Coolpix S80, will automatically adjust the camera’s settings so users can stop worrying about scrolling through menus to select the right scene from a list.

Fujifilm offers the only true (not simulated) three-dimensional digital camera in its $500 FinePix REAL 3D W3, which I reviewed in August. These 3D images can be seen through the camera’s LCD viewing screen but not on laptops or television sets unless they’re 3D-capable and you’re wearing 3D glasses.

Kodak is trying to encourage sharing with its cameras by including a Share button that, when pressed, digitally tags images and videos with labels for Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Kodak Gallery or email, then automatically sends the photos to those places when you next plug the camera into a PC.

One last warning: Don’t be seduced by lower prices or better technology alone. Be sure you try a camera in the store before buying it. The way it feels or works for you is just as important as any technological specification.

Email Katherine Boehret at mossbergsolution@wsj.com.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Tackling 54,000 Photos With Two Programs

Geoffrey A. Fowler — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:57:24 +0000

Taking photos is fun. Sorting and editing them is not.

I’ve got 54,220 photos on my computer, including a few would-be National Geographic covers but far more out-of-focus portraits and poorly exposed sunsets that I’ve never bothered to fix or delete.

Thanks to plummeting prices on digital SLR cameras, amateurs like myself can now experiment freely with artistic shots, taking hundreds of photos without spending a small fortune in film. But those experiments generate a lot of homework by way of virtual stacks of photos in need of processing.

Lightroom’s dense panels of options.

Adobe Systems Inc.’s (ADBE) Photoshop is famous for helping photographers extract the most out of their shots in a digital darkroom. But at $699, Photoshop costs as much as a new camera and takes a graduate course to master. Moreover, Photoshop was designed to edit a single photo at a time, not for sorting through a collection.

A new generation of software from Adobe and Apple Inc. (AAPL) has emerged to fill the gap between Photoshop and entry-level photo-management software like Apple Inc.’s iPhoto and Google Inc.’s (GOOG) Picasa. For people who have graduated from point-and-shoot cameras, Adobe’s Photoshop Lightroom 3 ($299) and Apple’s Aperture 3 ($199) offer tools to organize large collections and tackle the nitty-gritty of digital developing and re-touching.

I’ve been testing Lightroom (for Mac and PC) and Aperture (for Mac only) to organize, process and share photos I took at my friends’ recent wedding. While both programs were designed with professional photographers in mind, I found they were effective at helping a hobbyist like myself whittle 400 photos to just 40 in less than an hour.

The programs also let me edit photos far beyond the basics of brightness and contrast. One shot moved from the reject to the favorites pile after Lightroom let me take advantage of my Canon camera’s advanced image format to boost the exposure of an image taken during a dimly lit reception.

Many professional photographers have a strong preference for one of the two programs. I preferred the overall aesthetic and photo-editing tools in Lightroom for extracting the best from my photos. Nonetheless, Aperture’s strengths lie in some nifty organizational tricks, and I would recommend it for people interested in three specific uses: upgrading from a large iPhoto collection; taking video with an SLR; or tagging photos with locations.

At their core, both Lightroom and Aperture are databases, but don’t let that scare away your inner Ansel Adams.

Lightroom’s database gives you tools to organize your photos into folders on your computer, create collections from across folders, and tag photos with keywords, star ratings, and other features. For people like me who are lazy about applying tags to describe photos, Lightroom offers a spray-can tool to virtually “paint” keywords on bunches of photos at one time.

Aperture’s approach to cataloging is borrowed from iPhoto. You put your photos into “projects” (known as “events” in iPhoto), which the software will suggest when you import images from your camera based on groups that were taken around the same time. You can also add keywords, ratings and other tags.

But Aperture has two more tricks up its sleeve. You can tag photos based on the people in them, using the same technology Apple built into iPhoto to recognize faces. While that’s a good idea, I found that Aperture (like iPhoto) didn’t do an ideal job at distinguishing faces, especially in profile.

Apple says the face-recognition function works best if you identify both a couple of front-on and profile photos for any person, and also let it finish going through your whole collection before using it.

More useful is Aperture’s ability to tag photos geographically. Some new cameras collect GPS data with each shot and Aperture charts that info with pins on a giant world map, making it fun to track a journey or search for all the photos taken in one place.

Unfortunately, the majority of cameras don’t capture GPS data, but Aperture does offer some tools for adding in location data after the fact, such as importing it from a photo taken by an iPhone at the same site. Lightroom can also record GPS data for photos, but you have to work with third-party plug-ins to get the same functionality as in Aperture.

It’s in the digital darkroom that both programs earn their keep. The biggest reason an SLR-owner should upgrade beyond a basic photo editor is so he or she can work with so-called RAW files, sort of digital negatives that use extra data from the camera’s sensor to give you artistic control over factors like exposure long after you’ve shot the photo. Both programs work well with RAW, and moreover, editing photos on both programs is nondestructive, which means you can undo any changes you make—all the way back to your original photo—even after the photo has been saved. Sometimes the sky really can be too blue.

I found Lightroom’s editing features to be the most intuitive. It uses a three-paned screen clearly showing all of the available adjustments, your photo, and a history of the changes made to the image. I felt Aperture made me hunt for some of those features, but some users may prefer its optional floating palettes to Lightroom’s dense panels of options, and also its elegant system for brushing changes onto an image.

Lightroom boasts some cutting-edge editing features, such as the ability to adjust photos based on profiles of the lenses used to take them. That’s especially useful if you are working with a wide-angle lens that can distort images. With the click of a button, a warped wall at the edge of a wide-angle photo is made vertical again. The lens profiling wasn’t automatic with my older-model Canon SLR, but still worked.

To be sure, there are well-known Photoshop tricks that neither of these programs can do, such as stitching two or more photos together. They also can’t digitally cut your ex’s head out of photos. But if you really need to do that, finding the right photo-editing software is the least of your problems.

And to my disappointment, both programs are missing an increasingly popular service called HDR, or high dynamic range, where you merge photos taken at different levels of exposure into a new photo that takes the best aspects of them all. To make these sorts of images, you have to download external plugins. That’s the occasion I most missed Photoshop.

Finally, the programs both offer tools to showcase shots in professional-looking books and prints as well as on websites like Facebook and Flickr. Lightroom has the most options for producing Web galleries.

Aperture will appeal to users with cameras that do the newest trick in digtial SLR photography: take video. Such videos, which can feature beautiful photographic characteristics like short depth of field, can be imported and edited right in Aperture. The videos can be included in the software’s handsome mixed-media slideshows without the need for a separate video-editing program.

Either Lightroom or Aperture is a worthy upgrade for any semi-serious photographer. Both are available to download for free limited trials and I’d suggest testing the workflow of both before committing your photo collection.

Walter S. Mossberg and the Mossberg’s Mailbox will return Sept. 16. Email Geoffrey Fowler at geoffrey.fowler@wsj.com.

Giving Your Pictures Some Va Va 'Zoom'

Katherine Boehret — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:24:47 +0000

Are you ready to take a step closer to the digital-camera big leagues? Many people who have used a basic point-and-shoot camera for several years are ready to bring it up a notch.

The next logical category of camera after basic point-and-shoots (and before digital single-lens reflex, SLR, cameras) are the so-called megazoom cameras, capable of zeroing in on a subject with around 20x optical zoom strength. They also have fairly high megapixel counts, capturing about 10 to 12 MP each, and offer several automatic and manual settings for capturing photos.

The Nikon Coolpix P90

Most of the cameras in this category resemble SLRs, with bulkier builds and protruding zoom lenses. But they cost somewhere in the $400 range—significantly less expensive than SLRs, which often cost over $1,000 for the camera body alone (lenses are typically sold separately). If you don’t want to spend the money or you aren’t completely sure you want to commit to learning the ins and outs of an SLR, this midrange model is a sound compromise.

Of course, these cameras have some downsides. Serious photographers who have grown accustomed to the high-quality photos of SLRs will point out the comparatively poorer photo quality of megazooms. But for average users like me, the quality of photos captured using a megazoom digital camera is a welcome upgrade from a point-and-shoot.

Another significant difference for point-and-shoot users will be adjusting to the size and overall bulk of megazoom cameras. Users can’t toss them into a small purse or pocket on the way out the door like they do with compact point-and-shoots. Instead, megazooms are usually seen hanging from neck straps or stowed away in camera shoulder bags.

Canon's PowerShot SX20 IS

Some smaller cameras are categorized as megazooms, including the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1K and Casio Exilim EX-H10BK, though both look more like thick point-and-shoot cameras. These Panasonic (PC) and Casio models cost between $250 and $300 and offer 12x and 10x optical zooms, respectively. But they aren’t capable of some of the more advanced features found on expensive megazooms—like 24x optical zoom or some manual settings and shooting modes.

This Christmas, I was fortunate to receive one such megazoom camera, the Nikon Coolpix P90, which costs around $400. Though I’ve used other cameras in this category, I was especially struck by how the capabilities of this megazoom altered my photo-capturing behavior.

In the Snow

Granted, not everyone will react as I did, but I took my camera and set out on photography jaunts around my neighborhood in Washington, D.C., scaling piles of snow to capture just the right angle, and using tree branches to frame shots of the Capitol in the distance.

The details and colors in the photos that my camera captured were so much more vivid than those on my admittedly older point-and-shoot that I wondered what took me so long to make the upgrade.

I spent the first week with this camera using it in its Auto setting—an old habit that carried over from my point-and-shoot days (also because I didn’t have time to read through the manual).

But even in the automatic mode, photos looked astonishingly good—prompting compliments from family and friends. A week later, I delved into the camera’s user manual and learned how to use many more features.

A Downside

One big downside: Though the Nikon Coolpix P90 weighs only 16.2 ounces, its bulky shape prohibits it from being carried along on a whim.

I brought the camera on a family vacation, but left it in my room rather than trying to fit it in my bag during a trip to the beach and on a zip line ride through the rain forest. A compact point-and-shoot would’ve easily fit into a pocket.

But then I have my BlackBerry Curve 8900′s camera—with 3.2 megapixels, auto focus and a built-in flash—for snapping photos on the go. (Plus, I can instantly share the shots via email, Facebook or Twitter.)

As more mobile devices include good quality cameras, like Google’s (GOOG) new $179 (with T-Mobile) Nexus One super-smart phone with five megapixels and a flash, fewer people will need to carry point-and-shoots for quickly capturing digital memories.

A Pleasure to Edit

Editing photos captured by a megazoom is a real pleasure. I cropped and zoomed to my heart’s content, noticing more details in photos after looking at them on my computer than when I initially took the pictures. When I needed to trim someone or something out of a shot, I didn’t worry about degrading the photo’s overall quality. And because of their high resolution, my photos can be enlarged with very little quality or color compromise.

The Casio Exilim EX-H10BK

In addition to Nikon, many other companies make cameras for the megazoom category. Some examples are Canon’s $400 PowerShot SX20 IS, Sony’s (SNE) $480 Cyber-shot DSC-HX1 and Casio’s $400 EX-FH20. These offer several shooting modes, as well as scene modes for common settings like sunsets, backlight, night portraits, burst mode and panoramas. They have optical and/or digital-image stabilization to thwart shaky hands, settings for focusing in on a subject manually or automatically, and ways to save frequently used manual settings.

Flash Features

Some megazooms have built-in flashes, while others use an external mount so that a flash can be snapped on or off for use. (My Nikon came with a built-in flash.) They often have more than one flash that fits in the mount, leaving users with the choice of which one to use.

The digital cameras include LCD viewing screens as well as optical viewfinders. (The latter is commonly left off of many small point-and-shoot cameras, but it’s really helpful for people who want to hold the camera up to one eye for steadier shooting.)

Some LCD screens, like the Canon’s, swing out and swivel around. The Nikon’s can be adjusted up 90 degrees or down 45 degrees for shooting below or above a subject.

No matter which model, the megazoom category of digital cameras offers a combination of advanced features and affordability that could entice people who are ready to take the next step into a world of more serious digital photography.

mossbergsolution@wsj.com

Write to Katherine Boehret at mossbergsolution@wsj.com

A Windows to Help You Forget

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:02:03 +0000

In just two weeks, on Oct. 22, Microsoft’s long operating-system nightmare will be over. The company will release Windows 7, a faster and much better operating system than the little-loved Windows Vista, which did a lot to harm both the company’s reputation, and the productivity and blood pressure of its users. PC makers will rush to flood physical and online stores with new computers pre-loaded with Windows 7, and to offer the software to Vista owners who wish to upgrade.

[ See post to watch video ]

With Windows 7, PC users will at last have a strong, modern successor to the sturdy and familiar, but aged, Windows XP, which is still the most popular version of Windows, despite having come out in 2001. In the high-tech world, an eight-year-old operating system is the equivalent of a 20-year-old car. While XP works well for many people, it is relatively weak in areas such as security, networking and other features more important today than when XP was designed around 1999.

After using pre-release versions of Windows 7 for nine months, and intensively testing the final version for the past month on many different machines, I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft (MSFT) has produced. It’s a boost to productivity and a pleasure to use. Despite a few drawbacks, I can heartily recommend Windows 7 to mainstream consumers.

Like the new Snow Leopard operating system released in August by Microsoft’s archrival, Apple (AAPL), Windows 7 is much more of an evolutionary than a revolutionary product. Its main goal was to fix the flaws in Vista and to finally give Microsoft customers a reason to move up from XP. But Windows 7 is packed with features and tweaks that make using your computer an easier and more satisfying experience.

The new taskbar shows small previews of many windows and allows for larger previews.

Windows 7 introduces real advances in organizing your programs and files, arranging your taskbar and desktop, and quickly viewing and launching the page or document you want, when you want it. It also has cool built-in touch-screen features.

It removes a lot of clutter. And it mostly banishes Vista’s main flaws—sluggishness; incompatibility with third-party software and hardware; heavy hardware requirements; and constant, annoying security warnings.

I tested Windows 7 on 11 different computers, ranging from tiny netbooks to standard laptops to a couple of big desktops. These included machines from Lenovo, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Dell (DELL), Acer, Asus, Toshiba and Sony (SNE). I even successfully ran it on an Apple Macintosh laptop. On some of these machines, Windows 7 was pre-loaded. On others, I had to upgrade from an earlier version of Windows.

In most cases, the installation took 45 minutes or less, and the new operating system worked snappily and well. But, I did encounter some drawbacks and problems. On a couple of these machines, glacial start-up and reboot times reminded me of Vista. And, on a couple of others, after upgrading, key features like the display or touchpad didn’t work properly. Also, Windows 7 still requires add-on security software that has to be frequently updated. It’s tedious and painful to upgrade an existing computer from XP to 7, and the variety of editions in which Windows 7 is offered is confusing.

Finally, Microsoft has stripped Windows 7 of familiar built-in applications, such as email, photo organizing, address book, calendar and video-editing programs. These can be downloaded free of charge, but they no longer come with the operating system, though some PC makers may choose to pre-load them.

In recent years, I, like many other reviewers, have argued that Apple’s Mac OS X operating system is much better than Windows. That’s no longer true. I still give the Mac OS a slight edge because it has a much easier and cheaper upgrade path; more built-in software programs; and far less vulnerability to viruses and other malicious software, which are overwhelmingly built to run on Windows.

Now, however, it’s much more of a toss-up between the two rivals. Windows 7 beats the Mac OS in some areas, such as better previews and navigation right from the taskbar, easier organization of open windows on the desktop and touch-screen capabilities. So Apple will have to scramble now that the gift of a flawed Vista has been replaced with a reliable, elegant version of Windows.

Here are some of the key features of Windows 7.

New Taskbar: In Windows 7, the familiar taskbar has been reinvented and made taller. Instead of mainly being a place where icons of open windows temporarily appear, it now is a place where you can permanently “pin” the icons of frequently used programs anywhere along its length, and in any arrangement you choose. This is a concept borrowed from Apple’s similar feature, the Dock. But Windows 7 takes the concept further.

For each running program, hovering over its taskbar icon pops up a small preview screen showing a mini-view of that program. This preview idea was in Vista. But, in Windows 7, it has been expanded in several ways. Now, every open window in that program is included separately in the preview. If you mouse over a window in the preview screen, it appears at full size on your desktop and all other windows on the desktop become transparent—part of a feature called Aero Peek. Click on the window and it comes up, ready for use. You can even close windows from these previews, or play media in them.

I found this feature more natural and versatile than a similar feature in Snow Leopard called Dock Expose.

You can also use Aero Peek at any time to see your empty desktop, with open windows reduced to virtual panes of glass. To do this, you just hover over a small rectangle at the right edge of the taskbar.

Taskbar icons also provide Jump Lists—pop-up menus listing frequent actions or recent files used.

Desktop organization: A feature called Snap allows you to expand windows to full-screen size by just dragging them to the top of the screen, or to half-screen size by dragging them to the left or right edges of the screen. Another called Shake allows you to make all other windows but the one you’re working on disappear by simply grabbing its title bar with the mouse and shaking it several times.

File organization: In Windows Explorer, the left-hand column now includes a feature called Libraries. Each library—Documents, Music, Pictures and Videos—consolidates all files of those types regardless of which folder, or even which hard disk, they live in.

Networking: Windows 7 still isn’t quite as natural at networking as I find the Mac to be, but it’s better than Vista. For instance, now you can see all available wireless networks by just clicking on an icon in the taskbar. A new feature called HomeGroups is supposed to let you share files more easily among Windows 7 PCs on your home network. In my tests, it worked, but not consistently, and it required typing in long, arcane passwords.

Touch: Some of the same kinds of multitouch gestures made popular on the iPhone are now built into Windows 7. But these features won’t likely become popular for a while because to get the most out of them, a computer needs a special type of touch screen that goes beyond most of the ones existing now. I tested this on one such laptop, a Lenovo, and was able to move windows around, to resize and flip through photos, and more.

Speed: In my tests, on every machine, Windows 7 ran swiftly and with far fewer of the delays typical in running Vista. All the laptops I tested resumed from sleep quickly and properly, unlike in Vista. Start-up and restart times were also improved. I chose six Windows 7 laptops from different makers to compare with a new MacBook Pro laptop. The Mac still started and restarted faster than most of the Windows 7 PCs. But the speed gap has narrowed considerably, and one of the Lenovos beat the Mac in restart time.

Nagging: In the name of security, Vista put up nagging warnings about a wide variety of tasks, driving people crazy. In Windows 7, you can now set this system so it nags you only when things are happening that you consider really worth the nag. Also, Microsoft has consolidated most of the alerts from the lower-right system tray into one icon, and they seemed less frequent.

Compatibility: I tried a wide variety of third-party software and all worked fine on every Windows 7 machine. These included Mozilla Firefox; Adobe (ADBE) Reader; Google’s (GOOG) Picasa and Chrome; and Apple’s iTunes and Safari.

I also tested several hardware devices, and, unlike Vista, Windows 7 handled all but one smoothly. These included a networked H-P printer, a Canon (CAJ) camera, an iPod nano, and at least five external flash drives and hard disks. The one failure was a Verizon (VZ) USB cellular modem. Microsoft says you don’t need external software to run these, but I found it was necessary, and even then had to use a trick I found on the Web to get it to work.

System Requirements: Nearly all Vista PCs, and newer or beefier XP machines, should be able to run Windows 7 fine. Even the netbooks I tested ran it speedily, especially with the Starter Edition, which lacks some of the powerful graphics effects in the operating system. (Other netbooks will be able to run other editions.)

If you have a standard PC, called a 32-bit PC, you’ll need at least one gigabyte of memory, 16 gigabytes of free hard-disk space and a graphics system that can support Microsoft technologies called “DirectX 9 with WDDM 1.0.” You’ll also need a processor with a speed of at least one gigahertz. If you have a newer-style 64-bit PC, which can use more memory, you’ll need at least two gigabytes of memory and 20 gigabytes of free hard disk space. In either case, you should double the minimum memory specification.

Aero Peek lets you see your desktop by making your windows transparent.

Installation, editions and price: There are four editions of Windows 7 of interest to consumers. One, a limited version called Starter, comes pre-loaded on netbooks. A second, called Professional, is mainly for people who need to tap remotely into company networks (check with your company to see if you need this). A third, called Ultimate, is mainly for techies who want every feature of all other editions. Most average consumers will want Home Premium, which costs $120 for upgrades.

The system for upgrading is complicated, but Vista owners can upgrade to the exactly comparable edition of Windows 7 while keeping all files, settings and programs in place.

Unfortunately, XP owners, the biggest body of Windows users, won’t be able to do that. They’ll have to wipe out their hard disks after backing up their files elsewhere, then install Windows 7, then restore their personal files, then re-install all their programs from the original CDs or downloaded installer files. Then, they have to install all the patches and upgrades to those programs from over the years.

Microsoft includes an Easy Transfer wizard to help with this, but it moves only personal files, not programs. This painful XP upgrade process is one of the worst things about Windows 7 and will likely drive many XP owners to either stick with what they’ve got or wait and buy a new one.

In my tests, both types of installations went OK, though the latter could take a long time.

Bottom line: Windows 7 is a very good, versatile operating system that should help Microsoft bury the memory of Vista and make PC users happy.

Correction: The edition of Microsoft’s Windows 7 operating system aimed at business users is called Windows 7 Professional. This week’s Personal Technology column erroneously stated it was named Business.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at walt.mossberg@wsj.com

Another Ad You Can't Ignore: The New York Times Serves Up Old News

Peter Kafka — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:08:59 +0000

The Internet advertising industry is doing its best to grab the attention of Web surfers, who have been trained over the years to tune out the come-ons. Here’s the latest, from the New York Times (NYT): An ad for Canon (CAJ) that swaps out the entire front page of the paper’s business section, replaces it with a black-and-white version of the business section, circa June 2009, and then replaces that version with a color version of the same page. Eventually, the ad disappears and you get returned to the old version.

You’ll get the best sense of the ad if you head to the Times yourself, because it will auto-load, but if for some reason that doesn’t work, here’s a screen grab I took this morning:

I’m all for the industry trying new stuff, since my paycheck is at least partly dependent on ad dollars. And I think that outlets like the Times are more likely to succeed with extraordinary one-off presentations like the one that Apple (AAPL) ran on the cover of the Times and The Wall Street Journal a while back. And I’m also okay with publishers who allow advertisers to step between me and the stuff I want to see–within reason.

But the execution here seems off: When my screen turns from color to black and white, my first reaction isn’t “Cool, I wonder who sponsored the monochrome?” but “WTF? Is my MacBook busted?” My next reaction: “What happened to the headlines I was just reading?” And the next: “Maybe I should be reading a different site.”

That can’t be what Canon and the Times were hoping for, right?

Another problem: I’m not in the market for a printer (or is it a copier?) and I don’t know that I ever will be. I know that ad buyers don’t really care about that and that they’re generally trying to reach a very wide swath of people who fall into my general demographic profile.

But if you’re going to make it hard for me to get to the content I want, don’t you want to make sure you’re doing it for a good reason?

Mediocrity Rules! Why the iPhone's Crummy Camera Is Flickr's Favorite.

Peter Kafka — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:28:00 +0000

Flickr is one of the Web’s most popular photo-sharing sites. Flickr users’ camera of choice? The iPhone.

At least it was yesterday, when the LA Times checked in on Flickr’s stats; at the time, Apple (AAPL)’s handset had passed the Canon (CAJ) EOS Digital Rebel XTi as the most popular camera on Yahoo’s (YHOO) photo site. The stats are updated daily, though, and as of this afternoon, the Canon had pulled back in front by a few hundred users.

But the precise numbers don’t matter. The takeaway here is that people who like taking and sharing photos are happy to use an inferior camera–even the newest iPhone sports just three megapixels and lacks rudimentary features like zoom and flash–if it’s easy to use. And most important, if it’s already on the phone they’re carrying around.

I’m not the first to point this out, but I’ll reiterate: There are important/worrisome lessons here for other gadget makers.

Cisco’s (CSCO)’s Flip camera line, for instance, is great, and I used my Mino HD twice today for interviews. But if I was carrying around an iPhone 3GS or any other handset with video-recording capabilities, I’m not sure that I would have packed the Flip. And I’d probably end up filming a lot more interviews if my camera was always with me.

Same goes for Amazon’s (AMZN) Kindle, or any other would-be e-book reader: I appreciate that they’re designed specifically for reading and boast low-power screens that are easy on the eyes, hold up well in variable light, etc. But I read a newsstand’s worth of copy every day on my rudimentary BlackBerrry 8830, which isn’t designed for that at all; plenty of iPhone fans say they’re happy reading full-length novels on their gadgets.

That doesn’t mean that people who are passionate about cameras or novels or whatever won’t prefer specialized devices. But that leaves a very big chunk of the market–those of us who find that good enough is plenty good–for the iPhone or any other all-in-one tool.

[Image credit: Erik Pitti]

I Want My, I Want My SED

John Paczkowski — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:00:03 +0000

“We have big plans for the digital television business,” Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai said at a Canon exhibition in 2005. And with a new technology called surface-conduction electron-emitter display, and plans to use it to transform the lowly TV into a “multifunction information device,” Canon (CAJ) seemed well poised to execute them.

At the time, anyway. A patent dispute with Applied Nanotech soon stalled SED TV’s commercial debut. Which was a nasty break for Canon. With a performance and picture quality said to be far higher than LCD or plasma, SED was vital to expanding the company’s presence in the digital living room, which, lets face it, never extended much beyond digital cameras and printers.

Well, Canon’s big plans for the digital television business are back on track again. Applied Nanotech has dropped its claims against the company, saying to continue litigation “would probably be a futile effort.” And that means Canon is now free to bring SED TVs to market, some three years after first announcing plans to do so. Question now is this: Is it three years too late? With LCD and plasma displays more affordable, SED has lost quite a bit of its competitive edge. And with a decline in TV prices prompting profit warnings from the likes of Sony (SNE) and Panasonic (PC), the TV business isn’t looking too inviting.

Where Your Old Gadgets Find a Second Life

Katherine Boehret — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:32:45 +0000

It’s a fact of life and one of the reasons I have a job: digital electronics will eventually break or get replaced. But it’s hard to know just what to do with the gadgets that get left behind. Some people stuff them in junk drawers. Others want to donate or recycle their old electronics, but worry about compromising private data. And plenty of people want some monetary compensation.

This week I took a look at some options for people who want to get rid of old electronics, one way or another. The good news is that there are a handful of Web sites that make it easy to do this — and some of them may even pay you for your old products. The bad news is that you’ll likely receive only a fraction of what you originally paid, especially if you waited a while to get rid of it.

Some sites, like Gazelle.com and VenJuvo.com, offer cash for your items and/or will recycle products. Another site, TechForward.com, lets people pay a fee to “lock in” a value for how much the site promises to pay for the product in the future. MyBoneYard.com accepts only laptops, desktop PCs, cellphones and flat-panel monitors, and gives Visa (V) gift cards rather than cash.

I was surprised to receive significantly different value offers from Gazelle and VenJuvo when trying to sell the exact same products on each site. In one instance, VenJuvo offered me $30 more than Gazelle for a digital camera; another time, I got $15 more from Gazelle for an old Apple (AAPL) iPod. It’s worth the extra step to shop around at more than one of these sites before getting rid of something.

Both ask a few questions about the item, including its condition and whether or not it still has the accessories that originally came with it. Gazelle determines a product’s value using retail — think Amazon (AMZN) and eBay (EBAY) — and wholesale channels; VenJuvo uses similar criteria and also looks at competitors’ prices.

If you worry about someone stealing your digital data, you’ll likely not feel comfortable dropping something in the mail that’s chock full of personal information, especially if it no longer powers on to allow the owner to wipe this information.

Both Gazelle and VenJuvo accept at least some types of digital cameras, laptops, MP3 players, GPS devices, camcorders and gaming consoles. Gazelle also accepts cellphones. But they don’t take everything. Gazelle doesn’t take LCD TVs and VenJuvo doesn’t accept satellite radios and portable hard drives or any smartphones or cellphones other than the iPhone; neither accepts desktop PCs.

I took the closest look at newly released Gazelle, owned by Second Rotation Inc., and walked through the simple start-to-finish process of selling a gadget and receiving money from the site. After pulling up the site, people can find their product and its value by choosing from a list of nine categories or by typing some part of the product’s name into a search box.

I sold Gazelle a first-generation iPod Mini with four gigabytes of memory for which my boss paid $249 in 2004. I answered a few questions about the product: Yes, it still powered on; no, I didn’t have the original AC adapter, manuals or software installation CD, and it was in “excellent” condition, according to my assessment. Gazelle placed its value at $25.

At this step, I opted to add the iPod to my box and check out, but users can also add other items to a box, including electronics for recycling. Gazelle’s policy is that it pays 100% of shipping costs for any box shipped to the company, so long as there’s at least one item in the box worth $1. Eighty percent of transactions qualify for a free box; the rest can be sent with printed-out prepaid shipping labels, but you must find packaging.

Gazelle lets users receive payments via a mailed, paper check or using PayPal; money is received either way within five business days. People can also donate their money to one of 23 causes, including the American Red Cross and World Vision. I opted for PayPal, and the $25 amount was deposited shortly after Gazelle received the iPod.

I sent the old iPod to Gazelle in a brightly colored, empty box that arrives at a customer’s door a few days after he or she sells the device to Gazelle. I secured the old iPod in the box using balled up paper, and sealed it with packing tape. A prepaid shipping label was already stuck to it, and I needed only drop it off at UPS.

If Gazelle receives a product and decides that it isn’t worth what you said it was — either more or less — and you’d rather not sell, the company will ship the product back, free of charge. But while Gazelle’s site guarantees users that they’ll receive their money, and that personal data are safe with the company, no money-back guarantee is offered.

Gazelle hopes to calm nerves by posting detailed instructions on the site about how to wipe a device of all private information. But the company hasn’t yet done this, and numerous users will remain skeptical even with such instructions.

I also poked around on VenJuvo Inc.’s Web site of the same name, www.VenJuvo.com, which is derived from two Greek words meaning “support, assist and delight sellers,” according to the company. This site, too, buys products back from people, though it pays via check, PayPal or Kmart (SHLD) gift card. Users fill out similarly simple questionnaires on each product to help assess value. Unlike Gazelle’s style of mailing boxes to users, VenJuvo gives users only prepaid shipping labels to print out and stick on a box that the customer must supply.

One notable difference between the sites is Gazelle’s broader range of products. In the case of digital cameras, for example, Gazelle accepts 80 brands while VenJuvo takes only Canon (CAJ), Sony (SNE), Olympus and Kodak (EK). Unlike with Gazelle, if you send VenJuvo a product that isn’t worth what you said it was, the company won’t return the product free-of-charge; instead, it will charge you for shipping.

If users choose to receive a gift card, they get a 10% added value. While VenJuvo doesn’t let people donate a product’s value to a cause, it will add this feature next week and will include different causes (like Ronald McDonald House and Big Brothers Big Sisters) than those found on Gazelle.

Unlike Gazelle, VenJuvo will always take items for recycling and will pay for the shipping, regardless of whether you traded something in for a value.

A useful resource for general electronics recycling is the Consumer Electronics Association Web site, www.MyGreenElectronics.org, which locates nearby electronics-recycling centers according to ZIP Code. And almost every computer manufacturer has a recycling program in place; some will even recycle computers that aren’t their own brand.

One way or another, it’s time to clean out the old junk drawer. Just be sure to do some comparison shopping if you want money for your old products.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Write to Katherine Boehret at mossbergsolution@wsj.com

Downloading Pictures Wirelessly

Walt Mossberg — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:01:00 +0000

Here are a few questions I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability.

Has anyone come up with a method that allows people to take pictures with a regular digital camera and then download them wirelessly to a computer, and/or perhaps to the Internet?

There have been a few digital cameras with built-in Wi-Fi wireless capability, but the best and simplest method I know is a $100 product called Eye-Fi. This tiny gadget looks and works like a regular, garden-variety SD memory card, but it packs a Wi-Fi transmitter inside. It fits into a standard SD memory-card slot and is compatible with a wide range of camera models from Canon (CAJ), Kodak (EK), Nikon (NINOF.PK) and others.

Coupled with clever software, and a clever Web site, the Eye-Fi card automatically zips your pictures wirelessly to your PC or Mac, and/or to your choice of over 20 online photo-sharing services.

For more information, see www.eye.fi. For a list of compatible cameras, see support.eye.fi/compatibility/. For a full review of the product, see: solution.allthingsd.com/20071121/.

You mentioned last week that SugarSync might be a good solution for backups, so if one computer dies your files still exist on another system. But what if the doomed computer doesn’t actually die but its files are corrupted by malicious software? Do those newly corrupted files overwrite the good copies on your SugarSync network?

They could do so, depending on which folders you had chosen to replicate on your other computers. Automatic-synchronization services like SugarSync have a tough time telling whether changes to a file are deliberate, accidental or the result of some sort of corruption. Though the last is rare, it could look to SugarSync like you had changed the file on purpose.

One way to guard against that is for a service to offer “versioning” — the practice of maintaining multiple past copies of a file. That way, if a change isn’t intentional, you can go back to the prior, pristine version. Sharpcast, the company that makes SugarSync, says it is planning to add versioning to the service, but offers no specific date. In the meantime, one way to back up a file without fear of its being overwritten by a corrupted version is to upload it to SugarSync’s special “Web Archive” folder, whose contents are never automatically updated.

Have you ever reviewed and suggested a media player for connecting to a home theater to play all songs, videos and photos that exist on your home computers?

Yes, I have reviewed several over the years. The one I find simplest and best designed is Apple TV, which, despite its name, can work fine in a household with no other Apple (AAPL) hardware. It costs $229 and is a small, thin, unobtrusive box that fetches music, photos and videos from your home network using either a wired or a wireless connection. It can connect to your TV set or home theater via a variety of analog and digital ports, including component-video, HDMI, and optical and analog audio. It supports high-definition video and works with any computer, Windows or Mac, that has Apple’s free iTunes software installed and running.

Apple TV handles many standard photo, music and video formats, but it is limited to music and video files that iTunes can handle. That excludes copy-protected files in Microsoft’s formats, and certain open Microsoft formats, but includes common files like MP3s. Apple TV also allows you to access YouTube and to purchase music and TV shows from Apple, and rent movies from Apple, without the use of a computer.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online for free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

How to Buy Your Next Digital Camera

Katherine Boehret — Wed, 09 May 2007 00:01:00 +0000

Digital cameras have evolved much in the past few years to include more capabilities, sharper, larger viewing screens and slimmer builds. So while some people may still be shopping for their first digicam, many others are looking to buy a second, improved version of their current camera.

It’s a good time to be in the market for such a camera. According to research from Olympus, unit sales for these gizmos has grown about 30% in the past two years, while dollar sales grew at about half that rate, indicating declining prices and improved technology. In fact, digital-camera prices have dropped an average of $30 over the past 12 months.

This guide offers an overview of the basics that you’ll need to know when buying a digital camera. It also explains many of the fancy features that are popping up on these devices, such as facial recognition — a camera’s ability to detect when faces are being captured in photos, thus appropriately adjusting exposure, focus and flash. This guide isn’t geared toward hobbyists, but rather toward average users who want good quality photos but don’t want to struggle with confusing product specs and promotions.

Point and Shoot, or Flaunt and Pocket

As you begin looking for a camera, selecting a preferred size and shape will help narrow your choices. Like iPods and cellphones, stylish pocket cameras are fashionable accessories; some come in shades like Precious Rose or Noble Blue. These pocket models, designed with emphasis on small size, are as easy to carry as they are to use for taking good photos: most offer seven or eight megapixels each, a 3x or better optical zoom lens and a stunning viewing screen. Good examples include Sony Corp.’s $400 Cyber-shot DSC-T100 or Nikon Inc.’s $300 Coolpix S50.

If you don’t mind sacrificing style for a camera that’s sturdier in your hand but bulkier in your purse, point-and-shoot models will be more your speed. On average, these cost less than their showy cousins. They’re more likely to have protruding zoom lenses that don’t collapse entirely into the camera body and often feature larger buttons. More point-and-shoots offer optical viewfinders, which have become practically extinct on pocket digicams where real estate is scarce. Examples of point-and-shoots with optical viewfinders include Eastman Kodak Co.’s EasyShare C653 and Canon Inc.’s PowerShot A460-both cost $130.

A third category of digital cameras, the single-lens reflex or SLR, continues to be marketed to regular consumers rather than to the photography enthusiasts for whom they were originally intended. SLR prices have dropped a couple of hundred dollars in the past year, but many models still start around $800 and come with detachable lenses and flashes. Average users can steer clear of SLR cameras.

Megapixels

Most cameras today offer anywhere between six and 10 megapixels; cameras with four megapixels or fewer are rather rare. But while higher megapixel counts are easy to find for less money, such as Hewlett-Packard Co.’s $300 PhotoSmart R967 with 10 megapixels, such intense resolution is really only necessary if you plan to heavily edit or blow up your photographs for jumbo prints, which most people won’t be doing.

Zoom Confusion

While most camera makers offer clearer marketing strategies now than a year or so ago, some still try to dupe consumers by listing only a camera’s total zoom — the optical and digital zoom multiplied together to create a larger, more impressive number. The truth lies in optical zoom, an enhancement made by a physically moving lens, not digital zoom, which instead magnifies a photo using the camera’s digital circuitry.

This year, companies also created a new category for cameras with 10x or 12x optical-zoom lenses — these are often referred to as high zoom digital cameras. In reality, a camera with about a 4x optical zoom is sufficient for most people.

Facial Recognition

This category is likely to become more popular. Facial recognition makes the camera smart enough to recognize that the subject contains a face and must be captured with the correct balance of color and lighting. Sony’s Cyber-shot G1 can detect up to eight faces in one image; Canon’s technology can detect up to nine per shot.

Image Stabilization

Image stabilization, or IS, was once only available in high-end SLR cameras. Now, almost all of the top-name consumer digicams offer this because without optical viewfinders, users must shakily hold cameras out to look through viewing screens. Referred to as antishake or vibration reduction by some manufacturers, there are three kinds of IS: optical and mechanical image stabilization, which physically steady a camera even when your hand is shaking, or digital image stabilization, which can improve a shot when the photographed subject is moving.

Some cameras, like the $250 Olympus Stylus 760, offer dual IS. This means the camera is equipped with both digital and mechanical or optical image stabilization, the best of both worlds. If you’ll be using a camera specifically for shots of moving objects, digital IS will work.

Storage — on Your Camera or on a Web Site

The cost of memory cards has dropped by half compared with last year: one-gigabyte memory cards now only cost about $30, and $50 two-gigabyte cards are even more popular thanks to people who want to record videos for uploading and sharing on Web sites. Data can be transferred from these cards by plugging them into a computer using an adapter or a card slot, or cameras can be connected to PCs with USB cords.

Now, Kodak, Nikon and Sony offer cameras with wireless Internet connection capabilities, or Wi-Fi. This allows you to take pictures and, when connected to a Wi-Fi hotspot, upload them directly to a Web site for sharing or storing, saving you the step of transferring the images to a computer first. These cameras are the $200 EasyShare One from Kodak, Nikon’s $350 Coolpix S50c and Sony’s $600 Cyber-shot DSC-G1.

Although using Wi-Fi in a digital camera is a smart idea, it could be a real drain on your camera’s battery. Wi-Fi is by no means a necessary feature, but some people will find it a useful add-on.

Battery Tips

Camera battery life can be affected by new features like extra-large screens — especially those that can play slide shows of your photographs — built-in Wi-Fi and even in-camera editing, which requires your camera and LCD screen to be on for longer periods. If you rarely take shots indoors, your flash will likely be used less, which might help your camera’s battery life. A spare battery is useful, and some cameras will work with drugstore batteries for the sake of convenience.

In-Camera Editing

The large, bright LCD viewing screens on cameras — some of which measure up to three inches or even three and a half inches diagonally — encourage everyday photogs to share their shots. To make even these images look better, camera manufacturers are incorporating in-camera editing for fixing mistakes on the spot, without a computer.

Cameras from all of the major manufacturers now enable red-eye fixes either as the photo is captured or after the fact. Companies such as Kodak offer zooming, cropping and panoramic shot stitching, while H-P cameras offer touch-ups like blemish-removing and ways to make a subject look slimmer.

* * *

The digital camera category is exciting right now, as these portable devices become more like computers thanks to in-camera editing, greater memory and built-in Wi-Fi. But remember that your photos come first, no matter how many bells and whistles are added to a camera.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Email: MossbergSolution@wsj.com