Registered: Nov 1999
Location: bright side of the moon.
Posts: 996

So we bought a Kodak PalmPix for a family member that recently got a PalmVIIx (those of you who have read old posts of mine will know who this is and how he got the PalmVIIx) and I am AMAZED at the quality of the pictures that this thing takes!!!

i pulled up the 2 websites...

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/...almPix/samples/ (click on each image to get a thumbnail then click again for a full size sample)

http://www.eyemodule.com/gallery/gallery.htm


kodak and eyemodule and compared their galleries (thinking this would be the best pictures each company could produce with their product) and the difference is staggering!!

ugh!

and the fact that we bought the PalmPix for $89 + shipping (while the eyemodule sells for $149 + shipping) makes it even more unbelievable!!

double ugh!

__________________
Ever feel like the train left while you were busy reading the paper?

Stealth-Mod.

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

I agree that the Palm Pix has superior image quality, but if you compare them based on compactness, you can't beat the Eyemodul. As good of a picture that the Palm Pix takes, it makes the Palm unwieldy. I'd rather just get a $100 digital camera and use that.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Metro Station, Hollywood and Highland
Posts: 1018

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoser_in_USA
kodak and eyemodule and compared their galleries (thinking this would be the best pictures each company could produce with their product) and the difference is staggering!!

---

Registered: Jan 2000
Location:
Posts: 434

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gameboy70
[QUOTE]But the Prism might change things. While the eyemodule doesn't cut the mustard you creating images good enough to email or post on the web, it does seem like it would be ideal for 160 x 160 color pics on the Prism's photo album.

---

You'll get superior results if you take the picture at a higher resolution, crop, adjust color, etc.; and then reduce to the desired resolution and color depth. Even low end consumer software does a decent job of this, and they make it so very easy. So I guess that I'm suggesting that the eyemodule still sucks . . . even for use on the Prism.

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

I practically begged the Kodak rep at Comdex to make a module. Hopefully Kodak will listen to our pleas.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 334

I have the eyemodule and yes, the resolution sucks. Neat toy, but not very useful in everyday life.

Rick

__________________
Rick

www.visorsolutions.com

Registered: Jun 2000
Location:
Posts: 594

EyeModule's the only SB I currently own, so you can imagine I've felt the same as all the postings here watching the developments (sorry, bad pun) unfold as outlined above.

E.M. = lower res. / higher price
P.P. = higher res. / lower price

What's wrong w/this picture? (sorry, bad pun)

Whenever P.P. owners "complain" of it's "lack of quality," I try to tell 'em they ain't seen NOTHIN' yet!

James, thanks for putting in your $.02 to the Kodak guy. I think we've waited long and patiently enough for Ideo / Block to improve the E.M., or its software, or SOMETHING.

For the time being, it seems they belong in the same "Hall of Shame" as Innogear.

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Metro Station, Hollywood and Highland
Posts: 1018

quote:

---

Originally posted by yucca
You'll get superior results if you take the picture at a higher resolution, crop, adjust color, etc.; and then reduce to the desired resolution and color depth. Even low end consumer software does a decent job of this, and they make it so very easy. So I guess that I'm suggesting that the eyemodule still sucks . . . even for use on the Prism.

---

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Posts: 116

I would jump at the chance to buy a KODAK springboard. Or an improved eyemodule with more resolution. I will not waste my money on the current eyemodule. Currently I am downloading my photos via Club photos "Album To GO"

__________________
Dave B (Grandpa Geek)"If it ain't broke, don't fix it yet!
BUT IF IT IS PLEEZ FIX"

Registered: Feb 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 165

Well...

The eyemodule is definitely an expensive gadget, and yes, picture quality can leave a lot to be desired. I'd love something the size of an eyemodule that could take pictures with the quality of the Kodak Palm camera.

But there isn't, so a few weeks ago I bought an Eyemodule, and I love it - for what it is. Does it suck if you're expecting it to take images like your megapixel stand-alone digicam? Sure. Does it suck if you just like to have a low-profile, highly portable camera with you all the time to snap small pictures of whatever catches your eye? No!

I take my Visor with my just about every time I leave the house, and thanks to the small form factor of the Eyemodule it's no extra hassle to bring a camera with me. Taking quick pictures is easy, and once you figure out what works best (dark = bad, bright + high contrast = bad, bright + evenly lit = good, overcast = great) you can get decent results. Yes, they're only 320x240, and yes, the lens is fixed-focus and has a tendency to vignette around the edges of the image. But I've taken upwards of 300 pictures with it around my neighborhood and while out running errands, and long after we've moved away from here I'll be glad to have them. High quality? No... but they'll enough in the years to come to help me remember the rest myself.

I would hardly say that Blocks/Ideo 'belong in the same "Hall of Shame" as Innogear', though... an improvement would be nice, but business is business; right now there's no competition in the Springboard camera market, so there's no real motivation for them to improve on it unless sales take a sudden downturn or somebody like Kodak comes out with a similarly sized, similarly priced camera that kicks the Eyemodule's ass. I'd probably be one of the first to buy in if that happened, but in the meantime I'm happy with the Eyemodule; I researched it thoroughly before buying and I was well-acquainted with its limitations when I bought it.

BTW, if anyone's interested, my Eyemodule photos are currently living at http://sundown-media.com/images.php4 - They're all in there, no weeding out of the blurry/underexposed, so you can get a sense of the best and the worst the Eyemodule is capable of.

-Andy

__________________
<br>"Form follows function - that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union" -Frank Lloyd Wright

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 80

Re: Well...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Usonian
BTW, if anyone's interested, my Eyemodule photos are currently living at http://sundown-media.com/images.php4 - They're all in there, no weeding out of the blurry/underexposed, so you can get a sense of the best and the worst the Eyemodule is capable of.

---

Gee, 323 photos! You've been a busy little boy haven't you. I bet the people around you thought you were just looking at your PDA.

Thank you for the "real life" photos. It can be somewhat difficult to tell the quality of manufacturer samples since the shots are set up to optimize the ability of the device (akin to the miles-per-gallon of vehicles).

=Dave=

__________________
I do NOT look wierd! I just look ... "different".

Registered: May 2000
Location: Phoenix, Az, USA
Posts: 25

Re: pix quality

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gameboy70

quote:

---

Originally posted by yucca
You'll get superior results if you take the picture at a higher resolution, crop, adjust color, etc.; and then reduce to the desired resolution and color depth. Even low end consumer software does a decent job of this, and they make it so very easy. So I guess that I'm suggesting that the eyemodule still sucks . . . even for use on the Prism.

---

I don't quite understand this. Assuming we're talking strictly about images to be displayed directly on the Prism, and not elsewhere, at 160 x 160, why would reducing a higher-resolution image give superior results? Since the Prism's display is low-resolution to begin with, I would think there would be nothing lost by shooting at the same resolution, unless the color depth on the eyemodule is 8-bit. Has anyone tried this?

---

Registered: Jun 2000
Location:
Posts: 594

"I would hardly say that Blocks/Ideo 'belong in the same "Hall of Shame" as Innogear', though... an improvement would be nice, but business is business; right now there's no competition in the Springboard camera market, so there's no real motivation for them to improve on it unless sales take a sudden downturn or somebody like Kodak comes out with a similarly sized, similarly priced camera that kicks the Eyemodule's ass."

Ah, yer probably right ... it's not like they faked a prototype on their home page, and suckered us w/false release date after false release date... (In fact, if I remember, I gobbled up the E.M. so fast because they got it out the door so fast.)

So, maybe not the same "Hall of Shame," but perhaps another bldg. down the way, still on the same campus...