Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29 • Hacker News Board

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#51

Post by ShinyLeftPad » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 9:41 AM UTC

circuit10 wrote: post #10

mikestew wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is that the display kinda represents the shot, but not well, but if you cared you wouldn’t be shooting with a $29 camera. I mean, it takes 1920x1080 pics, don’t get too picky there, Ansley Adams. :-) But I agree with you, I don’t see how the “viewfinder” is all that useful, other than “nifty!”.

But if it’s giving you no information about what will actually be in frame you might as well just look in front of you and guess

Most people (even pros) even with expensive cameras and great viewfinders still take mostly garbage shots and only some are good by luck. Same will be true here

Often switching from using your eye to looking through the viewfinder and fiddle with composition is how you ruin a genuine shot and miss the moment.

Also I used a camera without a viewfinder for some years, I guarantee if it's a fixed lens you learn what you get quickly.

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#52

Post by fc417fc802 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 10:41 AM UTC

jerlam wrote: post #46

fc417fc802 wrote: post #45

> Godox has apparently omitted Wi-Fi and Bluetooth for cost reasons. Seem like a questionable claim given that many microcontrollers support both of those.

It's not just the cost of the antennas. This device barely has a screen and has like four buttons total. How are you going to type in a wifi password?

Put it in the file wpa_supplicant.conf on the root of the sd card of course.

Point taken, although I suspect the sibling comment about the cost of certification might be the correct answer.

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#53

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 1:51 PM UTC

zerobees wrote: post #6

I don't understand how this works. If it's a transparent display that just passes through light and adds some overlay information (like a viewfinder on d/SLR cameras of the old), then doesn't the frame change completely depending on the distance you're holding the device at in relation to your face? It can't be meant to be used with your arm fully outstretched, because that would be an impractically narrow field of v…

[deleted]

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#54

Post by mikestew » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:04 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #14

mikestew wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is that the display kinda represents the shot, but not well, but if you cared you wouldn’t be shooting with a $29 camera. I mean, it takes 1920x1080 pics, don’t get too picky there, Ansley Adams. :-) But I agree with you, I don’t see how the “viewfinder” is all that useful, other than “nifty!”.

Is Ansley Adams this generations David Bailey?

I blame autocorrect, though it could have just been my fat fingers. Sibling has it right: “Ansel Adams”.

(“Ansely Adam’s”, WTF, autocorrect?)

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#55

Post by perilunar » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

It seems that you hold the camera vertically to take a landscape photo, and horizontally to take a portrait photo. That’s going to confuse people.

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#56

Post by sandspar » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 6:36 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #54

benj111 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Ansley Adams this generations David Bailey?

I blame autocorrect, though it could have just been my fat fingers. Sibling has it right: “Ansel Adams”. (“Ansely Adam’s”, WTF, autocorrect?)

Let me guess, you have an iPhone?

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#57

Post by mikestew » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 9:00 PM UTC

sandspar wrote: post #56

mikestew wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I blame autocorrect, though it could have just been my fat fingers. Sibling has it right: “Ansel Adams”. (“Ansely Adam’s”, WTF, autocorrect?)

Let me guess, you have an iPhone?

Check out Nostradamus over here. ;-) You have guessed correctly, as I add to the cries of “this used to work, Apple!”

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#58

Post by LocalH » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 12:08 AM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #36

LocalH wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the same way cheap point-and-shoot film cameras did.

Those had a viewfinder that restricted your viewing angles and location to enough of a degree that it mostly didn't matter.

Maybe they're using an accelerometer to detect the angle (and possibly even distance from the user, if they can, like if you turn the camera on close to you then move it away) to crop into a sensor that's otherwise exactly like a point and shoot. The image in the site appears to show a transparent classic reflective LCD panel as the viewfinder (like the type you'd see in a basic calculator, without the reflective background), and the camera is ever so slightly above the panel. The math probably isn't that hard for someone trained in how all this works.