Re: Digital camera with GPS capability

"Michael J Davis" <?.?@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:xQI1LDCjEfHHFwpm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John Blessing <nospam.lbe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> observed
>>"The Spider Formally Seated Next To Little Miss Muffet" 
>><muffet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote in message news:471d72e3$0$14081$742ec2ed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> You don't want GPS builtin. Why? Because it is going to be mediocre at
>>> best. It isn't an overly useful function if it takes 3 or 4 minutes
for 
>>> it
>>> to find the salellites, It also isn't very useful if it keeps loosing
>>> those satellites. You want something that is going to work and work
well
>>> you want to invest in a good GPS system one that connects fast and can
>>> remain connected even under trees, unvalleies, in cities with
buildings
>>> all around, etc. Just make sure that it can ex****t the waypoint data
and
>>> then you take that with one of the many free or for cost programs that
>>> will take that data compare the information to your photos and then 
>>> embedd
>>> the data in to the images.
>>
>>
>>e.g. http://code.google.com/p/gpicsync/
>>
>>Of course, I doubt any add-on GPS/software can tell what you are
focussing
>>on in relation to the camera position.
>
> Yes! Quick - patent it!!
>
> GPS position + direction of camera orientation + focussing distance, all

> in EXIF. How did we manage without?
>
> Mike
>
> [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
> -- 
>  Michael J Davis
> <><
> Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
> the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
> <><


More im****tant what the **** do you do with the other data beyond the 
latitude and longitude? Nothing is what.

The Spider

-- 
Ignorance really is bliss, just look how happy President Bush is.