71–80 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're all bought out by price gougers. I've been trying to get one for two months but won't pay $400 for one.
Even before that they weren't cheap though. The RRP for the camlink 4k is USD129 I think - more expensive than a typical 1080p webcam.
I’ve entered that phase in my cycle where I’d rather buy separate pieces that are good quality and put them together.
Am I the only one with strong objections to using Zoom as a verb? Putting aside the fact that it's already a verb, which courses plenty of confusion, I can go along with using Photoshop as a verb, because it is objectively the most powerful and widely used tool with a very long legacy. But Zoom is a clunky insecure mess with impressive, but not nearly leading market share. Is this really who we want to be gifting the…
Until recently "to Skype" was the generic term for video calling among most of my friends and family. Given that nobody has actually used Skype for that purpose for 5 years, this crisis has accelerated it's decline and Zoom/WhatsApp/facetime is creeping into our vernacular. So one crappy clunky video conferencing verb being replaced by another.
Why not use Canon's own EOS Webcam Utility? https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/about/news...
I bought a elgato camlink 4K just recently because I wasn’t so happy with Camera Live but now I wish I hadn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the day, it's just a calculated risk and this is one opinion on one side. My DSLR was quite expensive and I love using it for photography, so if there is any risk of damaging the sensor I will not be taking it. YMMV.
>..if there is any risk of damaging the sensor I will not be taking it. YMMV. curious. what would it take for you to be convinced it does no harm? Just a psychological curiosity -- not trying to annoy you. The opinions seem fairly stacked, and the corporations seem to be fairly non-chalantly enabling video/high-volume sampling on these sensors. The only person in your linked SO thread said "it might wear out the sens…
In my dream scenario? I think I'd love to see a scientific analysis on the topic and some real data. A blog post with someone taking apart a DSLR, instrumenting the sensor and the surrounding electronics with a thermocouple to measure how hot it really gets over time, and proving it doesn't get to a point of damage would go a long way for me, and I would generally be interested in it. How hot does it actually get??
The wishy-washy "wear out" arguments I don't find particularly convincing (I did FPGA design for an endoscopic camera company for a couple years, so I am familiar with CMOS sensors in general). These DSLR sensors are quite large and I imagine can produce a significant amount of heat, and for all intents and purposes are built into systems that are intended for periodic use with photography. The manufacturing tolerances needed to build a system safe for continuous sampling/use don't particularly make sense when designing a photography camera ($$$). I'm dubious the manufacturers actually did the design optimizing for video use, and I presume this is why there are warnings in the manuals about continuous video use and limitations in the firmware. Maybe there's enough tolerance to handle some video, but not all the time.
I think I was a little careless in specifically calling out "sensor damage" — I'd actually be more concerned about the surrounding components than the sensor itself. Capacitors age and change tolerance in response to temperature cycling, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old wives tale. Even the stackoverflow answers say as much. Most of the thermal ramping occurs in the first five minutes and then stabilizes after cache is exhausted. As all these dslr’s allow you to record 29m50s videos back to back all day long it’s also indicative that it’s not a big enough issue in returns to warrant addressing in their firmware. As you’re not writing to the SD card, hdmi passthrough should yield…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 30m limit is due to some taxes or regulations on "video cameras", right? Edit: Yup. https://petapixel.com/2012/05/21/30-minute-video-limit-in-di... > At present [2012], digital cameras' video cuts off after 30 minutes to avoid them being classified as video cameras (which attract 5.4% duty because they are considered to be video recorders
https://lightroom.adobe.com/shares/088254b7439745b982784c0a4...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Am I the only one with strong objections to using Zoom as a verb? People will use it or not use it regardless of objections...
That is neither relevant or entirely true. I was not yelling "hey everyone, stop using this word!", I was asking whether anyone else sees the same problems in its use as I do. And even if I were, telling people why you object to something in hopes they agree and maybe do something about it is literally how discourse works.
> telling people why you object to something in hopes they agree and maybe do something about it
It's fine to object, but the "do something about it" part is not as simple – it's really hard to police discourse. Previous attempts for the most part have either completely failed or catastrophically backfired
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>..if there is any risk of damaging the sensor I will not be taking it. YMMV. curious. what would it take for you to be convinced it does no harm? Just a psychological curiosity -- not trying to annoy you. The opinions seem fairly stacked, and the corporations seem to be fairly non-chalantly enabling video/high-volume sampling on these sensors. The only person in your linked SO thread said "it might wear out the sens…
Not annoyed at all! I enjoy chatting about these things. In my dream scenario? I think I'd love to see a scientific analysis on the topic and some real data. A blog post with someone taking apart a DSLR, instrumenting the sensor and the surrounding electronics with a thermocouple to measure how hot it really gets over time, and proving it doesn't get to a point of damage would go a long way for me, and I would genera…
Here's a study from 2014: https://www.lmscope.com/en/warming_camera_sensor_en.html
You can see a sharp rise in the first 15 minutes and the camera asymptotically approach 43ºC after an hour.
Nikons are rated for 0-40ºC so there is some truth to them not wanting to warranty cameras used for more than half an hour.
But 43º??? Come on. These components are easily rated for 60º.
Anyone that's done any weather testing on consumer electronics can tell that it's the process of thermally cycling the DUT that will kill you (i.e. going from 20º to 30º hundreds of times, not holding it at 40º).
If you are worried about the heat, I may recommend you mill off the CCD and install one of these bad boys: http://instein.eu/d3000.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until recently "to Skype" was the generic term for video calling among most of my friends and family. Given that nobody has actually used Skype for that purpose for 5 years, this crisis has accelerated it's decline and Zoom/WhatsApp/facetime is creeping into our vernacular. So one crappy clunky video conferencing verb being replaced by another.
What's wrong with just"video call"?