Talk:Camera phone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Henderson references look out of place and mischaracterized[edit]

'The first wireless picturephone prototype known as intellect, developed in 1993 by inventor Daniel A. Henderson ...' This is a non-functioning mockup not a prototype. 'This pioneering system and device was designed to receive pictures and video data sent from a message originator to a message center for transmission and display on a wireless device such as a cellular telephone' even with reference to patent US 7349532 this is off topic. The device does not need a camera included in the phone. Pioneering needs to be cited to remain. I will research this topic and make edits but before I do I will read your comments. Shadesofgrey (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Camera-Phone is unique. It has very little in common with other devices such as classic video-phones[edit]

It is important to know that 650 million camera-phones will be sold in 2006. Video-Phones have been availableBold text for decades without success. That's because they are peer-to-peer devices. the immense success of the camera-phone is that it comes with a server-based sharing infrastructure that allows to share with anyone/everyone instantly. As such it is a new medium for sharing. As opposed to a way to do telephone while seeing "the other talking head". Useful but different. It is important to keep the entry for camera-phones about camera-phones and expand on video-phones as an entry if needed.

Over 1000 patents can be cited covering various portions of the camera phone[edit]

HuskyMoon 17:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Dear contributors, obviously there are diverging opinions about the value of patents and their importance to the broader user community. Please be sensitive to the fact that the Open Source community generally see patents and in particular software patents as tremendous challenge to innovation. The community in general believes that wihout patents technology would evolve at a faster pace and progress for all would accelerate. Wikipedia of course wants to strike a fair and objective balance. There are numerous patent servers and sites around the world that serve as catalog of patents. Wikipedia is not a patent catalog or a mouthpiece for holders of patents ( people such as Kahn, Hashimoto etc...) or patent management or litigation firms to try to promote their wares and their interests. For one, please be civil, fair and do not undo peple's edits. Most technology advances are the result of converging efforts. Filing a patent is not an act of invention or progress. Should someone have patented differential calculus? Would it be Leibniz, Newton? Would one of them be the soul inventor of differential calculus? Should someone have patented the chord progressions to the Blues? (That is a software system in many ways and not artisic expression...) The article is evolving nicely as it shows now the progress of the ides over time that led to these technologies. Edits should happen on a consensus basis and first discussed on this page. The goal is to get every one's input and do the right thing. Thank you.

See detailed edited comments underneath 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Dear person posting from Phonetel a US Texas patent licensing company specialized in telecom, the IP records show that you are issuing these "anonymous" comments, repeat, dos and undos. Please make your intent clear in these comments , and other Wikipedia comments. Wikipedia is an open source community. Here are the details of your records as stored: Record Type: IP Address

CBEYOND COMMUNICATIONS, LLC NET-64-207-0-0-1 (NET-69-15-0-0-1)


Phonetel Patent Services CBEY-69-15-144-144 (NET-69-15-144-144-1)


Implementation is key. Like most technology, science fiction writers, comic books and many patents on portions of the system precede the successful practical implementation. There was more to the light bulb than a patent. There was a light bulb. Else everything would have been invented/discovered by writers and people filing patents. Cooper would not be the inventor of the cell phone etc....

        • NOTE: Unfortunately, the writer of the above knows very little about history or the importance of patents. Martin Cooper actually built the first portable cell phone and demonstrated it when he called rival Joel Engels at Bell Labs to announce his success from the phone he built. Obviously the person above does not have any patents and is probably an "open source" code person that does not realize that without Thomas Edison, there would be no General Electric. Patents play a pivotal role in society and in who actually developed a technology not someone who later thought of the idea and "built" it. 10:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Wiki is an *OPEN* encyclopedia and not a catalog of patents. Someone inserted patent numbers related to a 1989 "personal Security system..." As to "Open Source" code person, I would venture that that is a deep belief in this community. That is why we are building an open encyclopedia and you have a chance to express your views. I find your comments insulting. There is a widespread view that patents do stiffel invention and allow established players to keep new and innovative creators out of business. General Electric may be a great company without patents. I suspect that you may be the person inserting over and over your patent reference. Please refrain from doing this. That patent is for a "Personal Security System" that allows to take pictures and send them to a centralized location. In any case, science fiction writers described such systems as you patented. Think about George Orwell who decades before had a more complete system than you "patented" in his book: "1984". That whole book is "prior art" by decades!

Here is the abstract of the patent that you are referring to: "The personal security system transmits a picture of an object, such as a criminal suspect, and the identification of a portable transmitter, such as the social security number of the user, to a receiver at a remote location. Time of transmission is recorded. If a crime occurs, the time, picture of the suspect, and identification of the victim are obtained from a recorder at the receiver. A potential victim of a crime points his portable personal security unit at a criminal suspect and presses an activating switch. The unit senses available light on the object and provides a flash if required. At the same time focusing an aperture control is performed and an image of the object is admitted to an image recorder which is a focal plane sensor array. Image data from the focal plane sensor array is processed in an image data processor and the processed image data is fed to a cellular communication transmitter for transmitting to the remote receiving station. An audio pickup at the..." It really sounds like Orwell's 1984 doesn't it, not a very pleasant world?

Most would think of the camera phone as a liberating tool, allowing for Citizen Journalism and giving the power of media creation to Mr and Ms Everyone. That's far-fetched from a glorified surveillance device.

        • Please Stay Civil and Professional: There are diverging opinions on the value of patents and on Open Source. This is not a place for argumentation. Patents and invention have little to do with each other. For example the European Community does not like software patents. If Wikipedia was centered around software patents, then it's value would be non-existent. Legislation changes. Many predict that technology patents will be short-lived and that it will be essential for the progress of technology to look beyond patents. Certainly the Open Source community, which is well represented here (no kidding!)would like to see software patents abolished. In any case, please remain civil and professional. 08:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

HuskyMoon 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia project is an "Open Project" and not a patent catalog. Invention, "first-of-a-kind" and patents have little to do with each other. In fact patents have the most negative effects on improving technology "for the rest of us". They are there to prevent others from entering a space. There is a tremendous financial lobby focused on patents. The job that we have at Wikipedia is to sort through this and document "What really happened first" and who are the engineers "that made it work".

Sharp's camera phone running on J-phone's Sha-Mail infrastructure is the first commercial picture-messaging system[edit]

Kyocera VP 210 is a video-conferencing system. Well, at least that's what THG is arguing

AOZORA1BAN : Kyocera VP 210 is a video conferencing telephone, and the function with the camera is not provided. Therefore, it is distinguished.

It is now well documented worldwide that Philippe Kahn is the inventor of the camera-phone as he had a functional picture-messaging system working in June 1997, as documented by Wired Magazine in 2000. Clearly Kahn had been working on it before the date of the birth of his daughter, so that may prove even earlier. Apparently Sharp, J-Phone and many others got detailed descriptions of Kahn's system. A patent was written up but never filed for some reason.

I totally disagree with the statement that Kahn invented the camera-phone. In a 1995 Business Week article (March 6, 1995, page 55) in a discussion of the application of CMOS image sensors, the portable video phone was discussed among others. By 1996 the idea of a portable video phone was widespread among technologists. Perhaps Kahn can be credited with an early realization of camera-phone, but that is all. -Eric Fossum (inventor, active pixel CMOS image sensor)

Eric, the camera-phone is not a video phone and not there because of a CMOS sensor. Is there because of the fact that it is an end-to-end solution of which probably the most important part is the sharing infrastructure. The idea of a sensor in a phone is not the camera-phone. Your invention is important. You invented a part, but not the camera-phone. The entry in BusinessWeek is about "possible video-phone" applications. Again, that is not a camera-phone. It doesn't take away from your invention.

Dear Anon, I see you have redefined the camera phone to better fit the Kahn contribution. This is an interesting way to rewrite history. Not to be too sarcastic, but what is a phone with a camera attachment that sends pictures as data? These phones were investigated, for example, by Benefon around the same time period. What is a mobile phone that records both still pictures and videos? what is a mobile phone that DOES let you down load the pictures by direct interface? Are these not all camera phones too? And now you also want to distinguish between video phones and camera phones? This is why your definition is too narrow, yet carefully massaged to permit Kahn to obtain more than his fair share of credit for what I believe is an invention with many fathers (or mothers). By the way, I believe the phrase "camera phone" was first used by the Japanese. And, I believe this article is highly misleading. I take only partial credit for this invention as one of the fathers. -Eric Fossum

Really not at all. The camera-phone that became a commercial success is about instantly sharing media. That's what they do. Else its a simple camera attached to a phone. You see most camera-phones have no connecting cable or removable meda: They are designed to me wireless Internet visual communications tools. It's like saying that the inventor of the engine invented the automobile. The engine made the automobile possible. However the automobile is about having a personal travelling machine, not about and engine. This does not take away anything from your invention or the engine. In fact due credit should surely be given in the history of CMOS sensors. Also note that only some camera-phones use CMOS sensors. In fact most of the early ones didn't. Again this does not take away anything from your invention. Again congratulations on a great invention. 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Mr Fossum, maybe you should turn your argument around: Trying to say that a camera-phone is a phone with a cmos sensor seems incredibly self serving. Like the old Finish saying: "When the only tool that you have is a hammer, your mind tries to make everything look like a nail"! Nobody would know what kind of zensor is in a camera-fone. But everyone wants to instatly share the picture. That is what is compelling in the camera-phone. Not the color of it, the parts in it, the shape of it. It is its "Total Concept Model". What is called the end-to-end solution.

I am not arguing that the invention of a sensor itself makes a camera phone. However, for sure, when the CMOS active pixel image sensor was invented, we knew it would enable a camera phone or video phone. This is documented in 1995. So, it is hard to say that the camera phone was invented in 1997 as this article orginally implied. It was then argued that a camera phone is a totally different concept than a videophone. Well, this is what I take objection to as a very silly statement. Now, about automobiles and would have difficulty getting a patent on an automobile without having a box called an engine. Where else does the power come from, esp. since horse buggies were fine personal travelling machines? For any patent you must show how the invention can be reduced to practice, even if has not been reduced yet. For a camera phone, you could have put in a vidicon camera (and an extension cord) so one could not claim that only CMOS image sensors made a videophone (or cameraphone) possible. But, we knew that low power was important for not only interplanetary spacecraft but also Dick Tracy -style watches. And, in the March 1995 Business Week article, pointed out that mobile video phones, now known as camera phones, were possible. Find a published reference to a mobile video phone or camera phone before that, please.

In reading this it is clear that there are key enabling technologies to make the camera-phone happen. What made J-phone successful in Japan is their infrastructure, Sha-Mail. In many ways that is why DoCoMo couldn't catch up quickly. They had plenty of handset vendors by 2001 offering cameras embedded in phones, but they didn't have the carrier-grade server infrastructure for instantly sharing media. So the camera-phone is really and end-to-end solution that is complex and includes many components. Putting them together and integrating them to deliver the point, shoot and share experience was the key to unleashing what is now a social phenomena. The cmos sensor was surely essential and imprtant over time and you all do deserve credit. Let's remember that if describing future technology was inventing it, then our high-tech world was invented for the most part by science fiction wirters decades ago. "Making Things Work in a Practical Way" is the challenging part. Nice work on the cmost sensor. 09:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The First integrated camera cell phone is Samsung SCH-V200 model(CDMA,Flip type,for SKTelecom) released April, 2000 in Korea. It introduced April, 2000 at KIECO 2000 (one kind of ITs Exhibition in Korea.) V200 sell started July, 2000 via SKT(SKTelelcom). (cf. Sharp SH04 was sell November, 2000 via J-Phone in Japan .) SCH-V200 is CDMA, Flip, 350KPixel(0.35MP) Camera, Macroshot, 1.5inches 64KColor LCD, up to 26 shots picture, edit/sync with phone manager program(Anycall PCManager 2000 within Anycall Image Manager) etc.

One diffenent point with SH04 on J-phone is that SKT have not picture-Messaging system. so SCH-V200 on SKT was haven't a PMS. but it is not changed fact that Samsung SCH-V200 is the first integrated cell phone.

link : (in Korean, one person's Blog)

link : (in Korean. IT benchmark site KBench. April,2000, the article about KIECO 2000. 3rd line right photo from last is the SCH-V200 in a dispay box. (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Decline in intrest in cameras and other add-ons to cell phones[edit]

Can anybody verify\peruse that?

Almost every handset sold worldwide has an embedded camera and is a camera-phone. The trend is increasing, rather than decreasing, noting the profound effect of camera-phones.

Not amongst my cohort. We use our phones to talk to people. We aren't allowed to have cameras on them, due to industrial espionage rules, so we have a simple choice, turn the camera-phone in at the security gate, or disable the camera, by sandblasting the lens. This is applied fairly widely in the auto industry, so even our suppliers tend to use boring phones. I imagine there will be a market for dumb phones with long battery lives and robust construction fairly soon. Greglocock 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Today I tried a Verizon, a Sprint, a T-mobile and a Cingular store and asked for a phone that wasn't a camera-phone. There were none. The only exception were some Blackberry high end email models and special orders on the Treo. The sales people told me that "everyone wants the camera" and that without the camera, people just won't buy the phone. We all understand the security implications. But I look at the "law" part of this article and surely your employer should trust its team members and have them even sign additional confidentiality agreements that they won't take pictures. This is the 21st century and we just can't tell how people use technology in the workplace. So you can't take a digital camera either. then you can't take photocopies in and out? Then you can't have a thub-drive. I think that the way to address all these concernes is trust. I hope that for the sake of the US car industry there is still some trust between management the people who do the hard work! I had to say this. 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to correct ”A camera phone in use”[edit]

It is thought that the logo of Nokia in an opening photograph corresponds to the advertisement. It is necessary to correct it.-- 19:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

that logic makes no sense. how on earth does this constitute an advertisment? the paragraph lists the manufacturers of cameraphones, thus any cameraphone would amount to an advertisement in your eyes, as all cameraphones are manufactured. you really do not make any sense. the article does not praise or favor nokia, and the logo is hardly visible. you're a terrible case of wiki-paranoia. Joeyramoney 01:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact there are two totally redundant pictures here. One should be reomoved clearly. 09:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

About the External links[edit]

I did not remove any links, but when looking at the ones here I would say most of them are posted only to promote those web sites. They have nothing or very little about camera phones.

P.S. Camera phones make history


This seems inappropriate, doesn't add much to the article and seems to be based on simply what someone was told. Any objections if I deletion? - Samgra 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As an Anecdote, I think it should be removed, but if someone can confirm the story, it might be good to keep as "History of the Idea" or something similar.--tonsofpcs (Talk) 13:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
To me, the anecdote seems to be trivial, obvious and fairly irrelevant... ozzmosis 08:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact the anectdote seems to be more about cracking address books than picture-messages. There have been much more direct anectdotes, like taking the mugh shot of an attacker, pictures of the London bombings in 2005 etc....

It is necessary to correct ”Video call on a camera phone”[edit]

It is thought that the logo of Sony Ericson in an opening photograph corresponds to the advertisement. It is necessary to correct it.-- 13:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's innocuous. Linkspam is a far bigger problem. I don't think we need to be that paranoid about advertising. You have had your 3 revisions for today, so I would like to draw your attention to the three revert rule. --GraemeL (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's your logic, and doesn't have the change in the violation of the rule. Well, the company name of the photograph should scold the correction the extent that cannot be read. I think that you may personally put the respect and admit if the logo is SHARP. However, it is not possible to permit with Sony Ericson. -- 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you ignored the friendly warning. Have an official one.Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --GraemeL (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I also disregarded you because you previously broke the rule by lightly thinking and it disregarded my comment.-- 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


This article needs expansion due to the fact that there has been a lot of controversy with the camera phone, such a cell phone bullying, etc... Please expand --Fr3nZi3 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"It can only function with a server-based infrastructure that allows the user to share pictures with anyone instantly."[edit]

What is this supposed to mean? It creates a feeling that a CMOS matrix combined with microoptics can't work without some underlying "server-based infastructure", which is absolute nonsense. And even if we're talking about the working of the phone's user interface itself, you should be able to hook the phone to a computer and download your pictures. There are no "infrastructures" that a camera phone can't do without. Unless of course I misunderstood something. Anyway, I find this confusing and think it should be changed. Utsutsu 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Darek, that is an essential part of the success of the Camera-Phone. It's because through the "sharing infrastructure" you can instantly share the picture. That's why Camera-Phones are successful. Otherwise you are back to a digital camera that's glued to a phone. There had been plenty of those before and nobody used them. 99% of camera-phones do not have a cable to connect to a Mac or a PC and 97% do not have removable media. It is the wireless-centric sharing infrastructure that makes the camera phone able to "Point, Shoot and Share, Instantly". It doesn't take away anything from imagers, CMOS and other sensors. It is just what defines a camera phone as opposed to a digital camera.

Okay, I can see your point, but I still believe this should be expressed more clearly in the article so as to avoid people thinking a 'server-based infrastructure' is a vital part of a phone's camera module (hardcoded in the firmware perhaps? ;) ). Thanks. Utsutsu 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to remedy this by snipping that "only", which I find as the source of the confusion. Hope this satisfies both of us. Utsutsu 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 12:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) The concern about the cmos bit should be that if you followed that logic, the inventor of the cell phone would not be Cooper... But Dick Tracy etc.... We have to be cautious as there is something fundamentally new about the Camera-Phone. What makes a socially and society defining tool. The instant sharing of information. The parts in the hardware don't seem to be critical as there are many ways to "cook the goose".


how many megapixels are they up to now

There are 3+ Mega Pixel camera-phones. You'll see it all. The carriers actually like it because it allows them to charge for their bandwidth.

that was so 2yrs ago.,116229-page,1/article.html

Rights of people[edit]

I think people should be informed about their rights regarding camera phones. It is relatively common for guards to illegally confiscate them, and later sell on eBay. This is possible because many people falsely believe that guards have the right to do this, or can't deal with these situations (requiring identification, etc).

Cameraless phones[edit]

Cameras in phones are so common now days that it is actually difficult to find a phone without a camera. Many people work in places where they can not possess a camera at all (DoD, courthouses, top research, etc). Others may just not want one for whatever reason. I think it would be very helpful to have a page that listed and discussed cell phones WITHOUT cameras because they are so rare.

Camera phone image quality[edit]

Phone SLR comparison 1.jpg
Phone SLR comparison 2.jpg

As an experiment, I photographed the same scene with both a camera phone and a DSLR camera, both using automatic settings. Here is the result. I knew in advance there would be a visible difference in image quality, but I did not expect it to be so staggering. Could these be used in the article? JIP | Talk 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Remodeled Walmart.jpg
Yeerongpilly Station.jpg

A comparison limited to one particular camera of each type is not very relevant. Your comparison only shows that one phonecam has defaults that are too dark which would only be relevant to the article about that model. Fairness in a more general article would require also showing pictures that are not so dark, such as these. This would get into questions of which particular models make better pictures at their default automated settings and with adjustments, which would require many pictures. When you collect similar side by side comparisons among half a dozen each of phonecams, compacts, bridgecams and DSLR under various conditions, you'll have the makings of a whole article about picture quality comparisons between types. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thundercracker picture comparison 1.jpg
Thundercracker picture comparison 2.jpg

I see what you mean, so I did another comparison with the same devices, this time with a more controlled subject, so as to diminish the effect on the lightning. This is a Transformers Thundercracker Commemorative Edition toy. Both the lightning and the colours seem to be similar in both pictures, but the camera phone is very blurry compared to the DSLR camera. I guess that was to be expected. JIP | Talk 18:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the phone. These close-up photos are out of focus which, together with your previous low light failures, suggest to me that you are using a fixed focus lens, which indeed should be expected to fail to handle these situations. My own photographic work is mostly a kind for which this kind of camera phone is somewhat suitable, or anyway will work better than a DSLR, but in any work the best tool depends on the work to be done. Perhaps you should learn more precisely the capabilities of the particular camera phone you are using.
In a few months I intend to buy an expensive camera phone, hoping it will produce better results than my old Nikon Coolpix P6000, when conditions allow. Yesterday at dusk the P6000 worked well, taking pictures that a camera phone would have done poorly, as yours did for you, due to limited light. However, most of my photography uses direct sunlight or other favorable light where this won't be a problem, for example today's pictures of churches, schools and bridges in the middle of the day. Certainly I won't get a camera phone without autofocus, and would only recommend a fixed focus camera phone for people who will use it for those few jobs which it can perform well.
Some buyers look at the number of pixels and say, "This 5 megapixel camera phone must be better than that half megapixel phone." They don't understand that it depends on the purpose. When close-ups are out of focus and dusk photos are too dark because a fixed focus lens cannot handle these jobs, additional dark, unfocused pixels won't help.

Jim.henderson (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I understood the argument about additional pixels even before I took these pictures. Because of this, as the DSLR I used has 3.2 times as many pixels as the camera phone, I scaled its photographs down to fit those of the camera phone, to give a more fair comparison. JIP | Talk 07:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this gives comparisons that are fair in the matter of resolution, and if you compare pictures made in conditions that allow the fixed focus lens to work well, the comparisons will also be fair about those matters. Oof, I'm tired from taking a few hundred pictures with my compact camera during Open House New York, or more precisely from bicycling among the various places with the little camera. Many are good pictures made in conditions that were favorable to this particular tool. We must choose a tool for the job, and apply the tool to what it can do. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, one of your failed closeups would be an excellent illustration for Fixed focus lens which currently has no illustrations. The dark ones would serve less well for this purpose, since other factors contributed to those failures, while this camera phone's closeup pictures seem to have failed only because of the unsuitability of the lens for this type of work. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File transfer or the lack thereof...[edit]

"Many lack a USB connection, removable memory card, or other way of transferring their pictures more quickly than by the phone's inherent communication feature."

And what phones are these? I'm struggling to believe that there are any cameraphones with no means of file transfer besides the communication feature (presumably talking about MMS or something). I haven't heard of such a thing since 2003 or so, and it makes sense. What would be the point of a camera on a phone if you can't retrieve the images via reasonable methods? Kookas (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The passage has become old fashioned since smartphones became commonplace in the oughties. I've only used the kind with cards and USB, but I care about photography, which is merely a peripheral interest for most users, especially before the turn of the century. So, with perhaps as few as some tens of millions still in use, the word "many" no longer applies. Jim.henderson (talk)


Camera phones sales, by year:

  • 2010: 1.100 million units [1]
  • 2009: 920 million units - 74% of mobile phone shipments [2]
  • 2005: 320 million units [3]
  • 2004: 257 million units - 38 percent of handset sales [4] [5] (178 million units according to InfoTrends/CAP Ventures [6])
  • 2003: 84 million units - 16 percent of handset sales [7]

. —  Ark25  (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

can i dump the trash[edit]

i want to save pix i put in the trash - is there an edit on this camera for this? where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

First cameraphone shown - 1995[edit]

At the ITU Telecoms exhibition in the Fall of 1995 in Geneva, Switzerland, on the Matsushita (Panasonic today) booth, a prototype of a cameraphone was shown, combining a basic cellphone with a lens-camera device (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)