Talk:Smart camera

Robotics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

I am not

I am not yet familiar enough with categories so I haven't been able to remove this article from category "Potography", where I think it does NOT belong; I did succeed in adding a couple of more relevant categories, but I can't find where the Photography category is referenced. If you know how to remove from the "photography" category, please do so!

--Zava 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As another machine vision engineer I can confirm that this article does not belong to the photography category. Could someone help us out? - Rethunk 08:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links: commercial vs. independent

No nonsense organization of links (linking vs. advertizing)

Let us admit that self-linking is human. I still feel that a WikipediA should ideally provide independent and non-commercial information. On the other hand, commercial links are indeed a useful resource for users, who do seek a definition but may also want to find suppliers and solutions. So I propose that links are re-organized according to a "no-nonsens" and self regulated policy, such as regrouping them in "Institutional and didactic", "Non profit and public domain resources", "Commercial solution providers" (Or similar categories).

--Zava 10:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Cameras blog

There is a blog on smart cameras that covers this technology very well. It can be found at http://www.rajivshah.com/camera/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.110.106 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Excellent blog, but it's about a different topic. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:VC40XX.jpg

Image:VC40XX.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that nobody has responded to the robot for 2 1/2 years, but the post by the robot was ambiguous. If it is alluding to whether or not use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use, I'm sure that such is clearly the case. If by "fair use" the robot is referring to the more recent bad behavior of Wikipedia robots to coerce those who own images to release image for nearly unrestricted for-profit use by everybody rather than specific use in Wikipedia, only the persons who control the Wikipedia robots can answer for such bad behavior. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new definition being created

http://stupiddope.com/2012/09/03/samsung-galaxy-smart-camera/ is reporting a camera has a new concept. Smart camera would be defined as a camera which has the capability of installing new applications. What do you think? --Cheol (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning in this article is the machine vision one. If the name catches on in the area that you are bringing up, that would be a new different meaning from a different field and we'd need something like two articles with dis-ambiguaiton type titles. But I'm not so sure the new meaning will catch on as "smart phone" did. I think that it's now taken for granted (and nothing special) that everyday devices (e.g. thermostats, cameras, coffeemakers) have computers in them and have become "smart" without renaming them due to that feature. But who knows, we'll see. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverted edits / misunderstanding of the topic of this article

Two sets of recent changes (one set reverted by someone else, one reverted by me) reflect a complete misunderstanding of the topic of this article. It is not about cameras that happen to be smart (nowadays, nearly all cameras are "smart" so that would be a topic for those) it is about a type of machine vision system. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That other smart camera topic might deserve its own article, and we can talk about how to disambiguate them, but it is not appropriate to hijack this article for different topic. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was reverted 3 times on this, but nobody bothered to say anything to him on his talk page, so he's probably just wondering why his changes didn't stick. I notified him of this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "new" definition of a smart camera is not significant enough for its own article. I brought it up in the Digital camera article instead. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)ui[reply]

I added a distinguish hatnote and also created a new page Smart digital camera that redirects to the relevant section on digital camera. If someone wants to create a new article then they can just edit this- [1] Bhny (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]