If you want to you could always take a photo, pan it either left or right, take a second photo. Print them both out and tape the backside and voila instant 4" x 6" photo for you, since you seem to be so fickle on the issue.
IMHO, this is sort of 'ehhh...maybe' I like the concept, but it will never be the same as it used to be. And the way people want everything smaller, faster and better I don't see much chance of a digital camera implementing a device like this into the camera itself; therefore, making a true snap and print camera combo. /rant
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why 2x3? I guess just for portability, but really, a 2x3 print seems almost pointless doesn't it?
If you want to you could always take a photo, pan it either left or right, take a second photo. Print them both out and tape the backside and voila instant 4" x 6" photo for you, since you seem to be so fickle on the issue.
IMHO, this is sort of 'ehhh...maybe' I like the concept, but it will never be the same as it used to be. And the way people want everything smaller, faster and better I don't see much chance of a digital camera implementing a device like this into the camera itself; therefore, making a true snap and print camera combo. /rant
Two 3x2 photos wouldn't make a 6x4 print. It'd be a 6x2 or 3x4. You'd need four to make it the same size.