Complaints against Prestige Camera are cropping up all over the internet at sites such as the Better Business Bureau, Digital Photography Review, and RipOff.com. Customers allege shady practices such as trying to up-sell substandard warranties, chargers and camera cases for more than their standard market price. A UV filter, for example, was offered to one customer for $29 when it is available at BHPhotoVideo.com for just $8.95. The company has also allegedly removed included parts from cameras and tried to sell them to customers. Consumer advocate Mike Adams placed an order with Prestige Camera, and said that when he tried to cancel the order, the staff hung up on him.
According to one review by Matt Knowles, a Prestige Camera customer reporting at Aesthetic Design and Photography, the company has a host of techniques they use to squeeze money out of consumers. Knowles himself came across Prestige Camera while looking for a Pentax Optio W10 digital camera. He ordered the model from a seemingly unattached site called DigitalSaver.com, and soon received an email asking him to call them and verify his address.
When Knowles called the number, he quickly realized that it was just a technique for the company to up-sell when the man on the other end of the line offered him an extra battery. The man claimed it was a Pentex brand battery with twice the life of the battery that came standard with the camera, at a seemingly bargain price.
The camera arrived with a non-Pentex battery that was rated with less life than the battery included with his camera, and cost more than three times for what it should have retailed. Knowles contacted Prestige Camera and discovered he could only return the battery for a fee that totaled slightly less than what he had paid for the battery in the first place.
For all the complaints against Prestige Camera, their ratings at consumer sites such as ePinions, Shopper.com and DigitalSaver.com are stellar. Their entry at Reseller Ratings, however, suggests that the company is padding their reputation through false positive reviews. A note on the site says that reviews for Prestige Camera have been disabled because more than 50 false positive reviews from the company had been detected and repeatedly submitted.
Knowles noted that DigitalSaver.com gave the company a five star rating, but further research revealed no way to actually participate in the rating system, nor any explanation as to how they were compiled. Additionally, all the listed businesses were owned by the same company, suggesting the web site is not an independent reseller.
Adams and Knowles agree that it pays to be skeptical of a company's ratings and search the internet for real-world experiences with a company before purchasing consumer electronics. If you feel you have been the victim of fraudulent practices of Prestige Camera or any other business, contact the FTC and the Better Business Bureau to register a complaint.
Be aware that Prestige Camera may also does business under the following names:
A&M Photo World
Broadway Photo
Cameratopia
Digital Liquidators LLC
Ghu, LLC
Preferred Photo
Regal Camera
Tronicity
Adams recommends consumers consider J & R electronics at www.JandR.com and www.BHPhotoVideo.com as reputable and safe sources for consumer electronics.
http://www.newstarget.com/020780.html
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Police using helmet cameras to record, reduce violent crime
Police in the British city of Plymouth have announced that affixing small digital cameras to the side of officers' helmets has drastically increased officers' ability to arrest and prosecute perpetrators of violent crime.
During the first 10 weeks of the pilot project, arrests for violent crime in the test area increased by 85 percent. This includes a 40 percent increase in the detection of such crimes and a 20 percent increase in the arrest and prosecution of suspects. Police also noted an 8 percent drop in the incidence of violent crime in the test area.
According to detective superintendent Richard Wood, head of a similar pilot program in London, the cameras' primary value is in making it easier for officers to prosecute those they observe committing crimes.
"Should anyone commit any offenses," he said, "the officers will instantly have the evidence to ... pursue criminal charges."
The small color cameras, similar in size to an AA battery are attached to the side of officers' helmets and record both audio and video footage of what is going on around them. The cameras being used in the London program, including a special utility belt to store the data, cost about £1,800 ($3,500) per officer.
The Plymouth trial involves approximately 250 officers wearing the cameras for six months and is scheduled to finish in March. Some of the video footage gathered in the first 10 weeks has been released to the public and is available online.
Both the Plymouth and London police departments hope to determine if the cameras would prove useful in other parts of the country.
These new surveillance programs are part of a wider effort in the United Kingdom to monitor citizens more effectively. London police are also experimenting with automated license plate recognition software, increased patrol visibility and airport-style weapons searches.
http://www.newstarget.com/021563.html
During the first 10 weeks of the pilot project, arrests for violent crime in the test area increased by 85 percent. This includes a 40 percent increase in the detection of such crimes and a 20 percent increase in the arrest and prosecution of suspects. Police also noted an 8 percent drop in the incidence of violent crime in the test area.
According to detective superintendent Richard Wood, head of a similar pilot program in London, the cameras' primary value is in making it easier for officers to prosecute those they observe committing crimes.
"Should anyone commit any offenses," he said, "the officers will instantly have the evidence to ... pursue criminal charges."
The small color cameras, similar in size to an AA battery are attached to the side of officers' helmets and record both audio and video footage of what is going on around them. The cameras being used in the London program, including a special utility belt to store the data, cost about £1,800 ($3,500) per officer.
The Plymouth trial involves approximately 250 officers wearing the cameras for six months and is scheduled to finish in March. Some of the video footage gathered in the first 10 weeks has been released to the public and is available online.
Both the Plymouth and London police departments hope to determine if the cameras would prove useful in other parts of the country.
These new surveillance programs are part of a wider effort in the United Kingdom to monitor citizens more effectively. London police are also experimenting with automated license plate recognition software, increased patrol visibility and airport-style weapons searches.
http://www.newstarget.com/021563.html
Digital cameras are good for the environment
As we consider the digital camera revolution that has taken place over the last decade, most people think about it in terms of enhanced benefits for consumers. We can take a lot more pictures at much lower cost with digital cameras versus film cameras. We can also more easily manipulate and share those photos since they're all in the digital realm.
But one thing many people don't think about actually deserves mention as potentially the most profound effect of the digital camera revolution: how digital cameras greatly reduce the destructive impact on the environment compared to film cameras.
At first, you might think, "How can that be? My film camera didn't harm the environment!" Even though it wasn't your camera that harmed the environment, your film processing did indeed harm it. Any time you take your pictures to a photo processing center, that film is run through batches of chemicals. These chemicals are environmental hazards, and once they are used to process film, those chemicals must be discarded. These chemicals include both developer solutions and fixer solutions.
All film photo processing centers use these chemicals. The question is, what do they do with these chemicals after they use them? According to environmental protection standards, they have to dispose of these chemicals in an environmentally sound way. That can mean trapping them in absorbent materials designed to render the chemicals inert and then disposing of those materials in a landfill. But more often than not, because of the increased expense involved in such endeavors, many film processing companies just pour the chemicals down the drain.
Don't believe me? Just ask anyone who has worked in a film processing company. While certainly the bigger and better known companies probably adhere to the environmental laws, many of the smaller, locally-owned companies don't. As an experiment, one day I went to a local film processing company and asked what they did with their chemicals after they were done using them. The answer? "We pour them down the drain!" And that means these chemicals enter the water supply and go downstream.
Quiz time: what do you get when you have 1,000 film developing companies and industrial chemical producers all breaking the rules and dumping chemicals into the river? You get the lower Mississippi river, which is of course a horrifying stream of man-made pollution that no one would want to swim in or drink... but yet provides the water for many of the cities downstream along the river (not to mention that the whole mess empties into the Gulf of Mexico, which is probably why the fish in the Gulf are too loaded with heavy metals to even consider eating...)
Another interesting angle on all of this is what happens in international waters, because cruise ships don't have to adhere to U.S. environmental protection standards. We already know that cruise ships dump raw sewage into the open ocean on a regular basis, but that's not even the worst part of it. They also dump film developing chemicals into the open ocean. This is done routinely: it's part of the regular process on world famous cruise lines. They develop your film for all the pictures you took on Aruba or the Cayman Islands or the Virgin Islands and then they pump the polluting chemicals to the ocean water. And we wonder why our oceans are dying and our coral reefs are dying at a rate faster than rainforest clear-cutting...
Back to digital cameras: it is pure coincidence, I think, that the upsurge in digital camera use is having a positive environmental impact. With digital photography, we no longer need to use all of those chemical solutions for developing photographs.
This is just one of many positive impacts of the digital camera revolution. But skeptical consumers might say "What about the environmental impact of all of the ink used in inkjet printers that people are printing their photos with?" And that's a reasonable question. The first part of that answer is that most of the photos taken with digital cameras stay in the digital domain (people don't print out all those photos).
As far as the inkjet ink chemistry goes, I'm willing to take an educated guess that there are solvents in those inks and those solvents should not be touched in their liquid form because they will absorbed through the skin and are probably carcinogenic. But once they dry, they're fairly safe to handle.
Regardless of the inkjet ink chemicals, the net effect of digital photography is undoubtedly positive from an environmental standpoint. Of course, most consumers don't even think about this. For most consumers, the digital camera argument is not about saving the planet, it's about getting the latest cool technology, or taking photos without the expense of physical film development. But whether or not the public really gives a hoot about the environment is beside the point in this particular case -- people are buying digital cameras in record numbers, the digital camera market continues to grow and film cameras are finally becoming obsolete. In my view, it couldn't be a moment too soon because a world without film cameras is, of course, a healthier world with fewer chemical contaminants.
One final thought: I do realize there's a potential negative impact to the environment related to the use of batteries in digital cameras. But most such batteries are rechargeable, so we're not talking about consumers chucking alkaline batteries into the landfill every week.
There's also the question of the environmental impact of manufacturing digital cameras. I'm sure that's not inconsequential, but it's probably similar to the impact of manufacturing film cameras anyway. And even high-end estimates of this manufacturing impact are relatively tame compared to the repeated destruction to the environment caused by film developer chemicals.
That's why I say the digital camera revolution is a net positive for the environment.
http://www.newstarget.com/001464.html
But one thing many people don't think about actually deserves mention as potentially the most profound effect of the digital camera revolution: how digital cameras greatly reduce the destructive impact on the environment compared to film cameras.
At first, you might think, "How can that be? My film camera didn't harm the environment!" Even though it wasn't your camera that harmed the environment, your film processing did indeed harm it. Any time you take your pictures to a photo processing center, that film is run through batches of chemicals. These chemicals are environmental hazards, and once they are used to process film, those chemicals must be discarded. These chemicals include both developer solutions and fixer solutions.
All film photo processing centers use these chemicals. The question is, what do they do with these chemicals after they use them? According to environmental protection standards, they have to dispose of these chemicals in an environmentally sound way. That can mean trapping them in absorbent materials designed to render the chemicals inert and then disposing of those materials in a landfill. But more often than not, because of the increased expense involved in such endeavors, many film processing companies just pour the chemicals down the drain.
Don't believe me? Just ask anyone who has worked in a film processing company. While certainly the bigger and better known companies probably adhere to the environmental laws, many of the smaller, locally-owned companies don't. As an experiment, one day I went to a local film processing company and asked what they did with their chemicals after they were done using them. The answer? "We pour them down the drain!" And that means these chemicals enter the water supply and go downstream.
Quiz time: what do you get when you have 1,000 film developing companies and industrial chemical producers all breaking the rules and dumping chemicals into the river? You get the lower Mississippi river, which is of course a horrifying stream of man-made pollution that no one would want to swim in or drink... but yet provides the water for many of the cities downstream along the river (not to mention that the whole mess empties into the Gulf of Mexico, which is probably why the fish in the Gulf are too loaded with heavy metals to even consider eating...)
Another interesting angle on all of this is what happens in international waters, because cruise ships don't have to adhere to U.S. environmental protection standards. We already know that cruise ships dump raw sewage into the open ocean on a regular basis, but that's not even the worst part of it. They also dump film developing chemicals into the open ocean. This is done routinely: it's part of the regular process on world famous cruise lines. They develop your film for all the pictures you took on Aruba or the Cayman Islands or the Virgin Islands and then they pump the polluting chemicals to the ocean water. And we wonder why our oceans are dying and our coral reefs are dying at a rate faster than rainforest clear-cutting...
Back to digital cameras: it is pure coincidence, I think, that the upsurge in digital camera use is having a positive environmental impact. With digital photography, we no longer need to use all of those chemical solutions for developing photographs.
This is just one of many positive impacts of the digital camera revolution. But skeptical consumers might say "What about the environmental impact of all of the ink used in inkjet printers that people are printing their photos with?" And that's a reasonable question. The first part of that answer is that most of the photos taken with digital cameras stay in the digital domain (people don't print out all those photos).
As far as the inkjet ink chemistry goes, I'm willing to take an educated guess that there are solvents in those inks and those solvents should not be touched in their liquid form because they will absorbed through the skin and are probably carcinogenic. But once they dry, they're fairly safe to handle.
Regardless of the inkjet ink chemicals, the net effect of digital photography is undoubtedly positive from an environmental standpoint. Of course, most consumers don't even think about this. For most consumers, the digital camera argument is not about saving the planet, it's about getting the latest cool technology, or taking photos without the expense of physical film development. But whether or not the public really gives a hoot about the environment is beside the point in this particular case -- people are buying digital cameras in record numbers, the digital camera market continues to grow and film cameras are finally becoming obsolete. In my view, it couldn't be a moment too soon because a world without film cameras is, of course, a healthier world with fewer chemical contaminants.
One final thought: I do realize there's a potential negative impact to the environment related to the use of batteries in digital cameras. But most such batteries are rechargeable, so we're not talking about consumers chucking alkaline batteries into the landfill every week.
There's also the question of the environmental impact of manufacturing digital cameras. I'm sure that's not inconsequential, but it's probably similar to the impact of manufacturing film cameras anyway. And even high-end estimates of this manufacturing impact are relatively tame compared to the repeated destruction to the environment caused by film developer chemicals.
That's why I say the digital camera revolution is a net positive for the environment.
http://www.newstarget.com/001464.html
Digital camera eye implant helps the blind see
If researchers at Glasgow University continue success in developing their prosthetic retina, blindness could become a thing of the past.
While more research and development is still needed, millions of people who have lost their sight may have hope of regaining it through a tiny eye implant that uses technology similar to that of a digital camera.
The 5mm device would work by translating light into electrical impulses and stimulating the retina, tricking the brain into believing it was receiving input from a working eye. Researchers say they are still five to 10 years away from a model that could be fitted to a human eye.
Dr. Keith Mathieson, leader of the Glasgow team, says, "The device would contain an imaging detector with hundreds of pixels coupled to an array of microscopic stimulating electrodes. If light forms an image on the detector, then the result will be electrical stimulation of the retina in the shape of this image. The stimulated cells then send the information via the optic nerve to the brain."
The prototype implant has 100 pixels, but the researchers hope that they will be able to increase this number over time. Mathieson said that 500 pixels would be sufficient for people to see where they are going and to recognize faces.
"We are trying to get to the point where someone would no longer need a guide dog, rather than replicate perfect vision," he said. He added that features such as action replay and slow motion could be included in the technology in the far future.
http://www.newstarget.com/019636.html
While more research and development is still needed, millions of people who have lost their sight may have hope of regaining it through a tiny eye implant that uses technology similar to that of a digital camera.
The 5mm device would work by translating light into electrical impulses and stimulating the retina, tricking the brain into believing it was receiving input from a working eye. Researchers say they are still five to 10 years away from a model that could be fitted to a human eye.
Dr. Keith Mathieson, leader of the Glasgow team, says, "The device would contain an imaging detector with hundreds of pixels coupled to an array of microscopic stimulating electrodes. If light forms an image on the detector, then the result will be electrical stimulation of the retina in the shape of this image. The stimulated cells then send the information via the optic nerve to the brain."
The prototype implant has 100 pixels, but the researchers hope that they will be able to increase this number over time. Mathieson said that 500 pixels would be sufficient for people to see where they are going and to recognize faces.
"We are trying to get to the point where someone would no longer need a guide dog, rather than replicate perfect vision," he said. He added that features such as action replay and slow motion could be included in the technology in the far future.
http://www.newstarget.com/019636.html
Too fat to be photographed? New HP digital camera slims photo subjects on the fly
Hewlett-Packard's Photosmart M and R series digital cameras include a "Slimming Mode" that makes any object or person centered in the photo look thinner, creating the illusion that a person is 10 - 20 pounds lighter. The feature was reportedly inspired by the number of people who told an HP survey that they hated having their picture taken. The Photosmart models can even take the compensation a step further with a mode that will virtually eliminate oversized pores and facial lines.
"We had a personal trainer wanting to use the camera as a motivational tactic for her clients," said Linda Kennedy, a product manager for digital photography at HP. She added that "putting a good photo of the person on their refrigerator so they can say, 'I do want to look like this,' as opposed to the fat picture in a bathing suit," can be inspiring.
Anthony Spina, an adjunct professor of sociology at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey feels that the slimming and skin tone tools are inspired by society's desire for physical perfection. He noted that they could also make for some interesting encounters were people to use them in online profiles.
"It almost does contribute to people changing their identities, for whatever reasons they are motivated to do that," Spina said. "Particularly, I can see it being used on a dating service. Now you can say the picture is current and still lie. But what I want to know is: What's going to finally happen when you meet that person? Even if you are not using it for that, its only interest is to make you look better. But why would you take a picture of yourself and give it to people who know you if it doesn't really look like you?
"This feature is a classic demonstration of American culture today, where illusion is deemed more important than reality," explained Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and author of a popular weight loss book titled, Natural Appetite Suppressants for Safe, Effective Weight Loss. "Western culture is increasingly about the use of tricks, shortcuts and illusion to achieve an apparent outcome rather than the use of personal responsibility, healthy eating habits and good decision making," he said. "Too many consumers want to create the illusion of being physically fit without having to earn it."
Peter Southwick, associate professor and director of the photojournalism program at Boston University, worries that people's confidence in photographs will be shaken by these tools, having massive ramifications on both the legal and photojournalism worlds.
"People in the legal world are now concerned about whether photos can be accepted as evidence anymore, especially when you can alter the scene as you click the shutter," Southwick said. "And in the old days, there was an original, now there is no original. Photography as a tool for providing evidence, or as proof, may not exist anymore."
Southwick added that, while he was giving lectures in the past, he would ask how many people had heard of Photoshop, and 10 to 12 people would raise their hands. Now, he claims, everybody does. Southwick said that effect Photoshop has on the way people feel about photography's integrity will pale in comparison to the impact of in-camera photo-editing features.
"The consumer products and all these changes in photography, to me, are going to cause an undermining of people's ability to believe a photograph, which is the foundation of photojournalism," he said. "Now that it is at the consumer level and people are going to see this, I am not sure on a fundamental level that they are ever going to believe a photo when they see it."
http://www.newstarget.com/020246.html
"We had a personal trainer wanting to use the camera as a motivational tactic for her clients," said Linda Kennedy, a product manager for digital photography at HP. She added that "putting a good photo of the person on their refrigerator so they can say, 'I do want to look like this,' as opposed to the fat picture in a bathing suit," can be inspiring.
Anthony Spina, an adjunct professor of sociology at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey feels that the slimming and skin tone tools are inspired by society's desire for physical perfection. He noted that they could also make for some interesting encounters were people to use them in online profiles.
"It almost does contribute to people changing their identities, for whatever reasons they are motivated to do that," Spina said. "Particularly, I can see it being used on a dating service. Now you can say the picture is current and still lie. But what I want to know is: What's going to finally happen when you meet that person? Even if you are not using it for that, its only interest is to make you look better. But why would you take a picture of yourself and give it to people who know you if it doesn't really look like you?
"This feature is a classic demonstration of American culture today, where illusion is deemed more important than reality," explained Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and author of a popular weight loss book titled, Natural Appetite Suppressants for Safe, Effective Weight Loss. "Western culture is increasingly about the use of tricks, shortcuts and illusion to achieve an apparent outcome rather than the use of personal responsibility, healthy eating habits and good decision making," he said. "Too many consumers want to create the illusion of being physically fit without having to earn it."
Peter Southwick, associate professor and director of the photojournalism program at Boston University, worries that people's confidence in photographs will be shaken by these tools, having massive ramifications on both the legal and photojournalism worlds.
"People in the legal world are now concerned about whether photos can be accepted as evidence anymore, especially when you can alter the scene as you click the shutter," Southwick said. "And in the old days, there was an original, now there is no original. Photography as a tool for providing evidence, or as proof, may not exist anymore."
Southwick added that, while he was giving lectures in the past, he would ask how many people had heard of Photoshop, and 10 to 12 people would raise their hands. Now, he claims, everybody does. Southwick said that effect Photoshop has on the way people feel about photography's integrity will pale in comparison to the impact of in-camera photo-editing features.
"The consumer products and all these changes in photography, to me, are going to cause an undermining of people's ability to believe a photograph, which is the foundation of photojournalism," he said. "Now that it is at the consumer level and people are going to see this, I am not sure on a fundamental level that they are ever going to believe a photo when they see it."
http://www.newstarget.com/020246.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)