Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

romanzipp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 665 posts

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#101

Post by tobyhinloopen »

the-grump wrote: post #56
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is not the reason. If the camera records video for more than 30min, then it is a video camera, see the question answered here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34640107 In short, there is no good reason anymore, but originally this was because of EU import tarifs.

GP didn’t claim that’s not the reason. They’re making a joke that if the camera kept recording past 30min, it would overheat. It’s a joke.

It's a joke, but it's also the truth. Many cameras won't even get to 30 minutes before overheating.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#102

Post by nudgeee »

bayindirh wrote: post #83
alibarber wrote: post #20

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…

That requirement is reversed in the last five years IIRC. My Sony A7-III doesn't have that, for example. Neither modern Canons, AFAIK. The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the box. So if you are going to use your camera for production which you'll earn money, you need to pay c…

Hilarious. Reminds me of Pioneer CDJs as well, even on the flagship CDJ-3000 models. If you read the user manual it says:

> About using MP3 files

> This product has been licensed for nonprofit use. This product has not been licensed for commercial purposes (for profit-making use), […]. You need to acquire the corresponding licenses for such uses. For details, see […]

Best use an open audio codec instead.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#103

Post by Pawka »

halgir wrote: post #68
alibarber wrote: post #20

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…

Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

Sounds insane. But what is more surprising to me - is why dolls were taxed differently than other toys. At first glance, it looks like stupid rules force to play silly games.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#104

Post by tobyhinloopen »

matwood wrote: post #38
tobyhinloopen wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern Sony cameras can be used as webcam without any software. Just plug in, select usb streaming, and done.

Sonys are some of the better cameras for software, but that's a low bar. I love my Nikons for picture taking though.

Nikon has been killing it lately. Z8, Z9, Z6iii, lots of cool lenses! If you're in the market for a full frame body and "the holy trinity" (16-35, 24-70, 70-200 F/2.8), you can't go wrong with any of the major 3. They're all very competitive.

(but I would go with the Sony because I like their designs the most, Nikon would be my 2nd choice)

Nikon users are missing out on a 16-35 2.8 though, but I'm sure Nikon is working on it.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#105

Post by VBprogrammer »

mrweasel wrote: post #48
xmprt wrote: post #6

I wonder when we'll reach a tipping point for the subscription hell that the world is moving towards. On the other hand, with the amount of consolidation and difficulty competing (especially with Lina Khan out) I'm not sure if that will ever happen.

At some point I feel like it just has to collapse. The thing I don't really understand is subscriptions like the one in the article, how many of those types of subscriptions are effectively dead, in the sense that yes the customer keeps paying, but aren't actually using the "service" anymore.

The gym revenue model.

The indie / startup space has been so all in on subscription revenue that I guess it's not a huge surprise that the big companies eventually tried to get in on the act.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#106

Post by quixoticelixer- »

jjcob wrote: post #27

In case you are considering Nikon as an alternative, their Webcam Utility might be free, but it doesn't work on the latest version of macOS. There are 3rd party utilities (paid), but I had trouble with autofocus when I tried them. I wish camera manufacturers put half as much effort into usability as smartphone companies. Why does a camera need drivers to be recognized as a webcam at all? Why doesn't my 2000€ camera c…

It does work there is just a bit more effort involved in setting it up

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#108

Post by alibarber »

fmbb wrote: post #97
jorvi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a relic left over from a bygone era. Like the digital storage levy we still pay despite music and movie piracy only being rampant from 1990s-2000s :) I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.

> I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies. This issue does not appear weird. There is some legally technical difference between a video camera and a still photo camera. Probably different tariffs or something. Not weird at all and it is not uncommon anywhere in the world for different classes och products to be classified differently, infallibly because of industry lobbyism to reduce their costs or to r…

So American and Asian consumers can pay the same price for the same device that can do more, but to protect me, the European, my device must do less?

It is I the customer who will pay the tariffs (they are always paid by the importer) - the manufacturer gets the same amount per unit.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#109

Post by Y_Y »

huhtenberg wrote: post #76
halgir wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

There's also Converse that adds a piece of cloth to the soles of their sneakers to be able to classify them as slippers for "taxation purposes". https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-is-why-your-c...

Snuggies are "used" and not "worn" in their promotional materials, because it's better to be taxed as a blanket than a garment.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/02/snuggies-ar...

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#110

Post by swiftcoder »

ta1243 wrote: post #72
h1fra wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the software has already been built so the budget was still found somehow. My gut feeling is that it's mostly useful for streamers, and some of them have big budgets so they went for a high price

The development was presumably funded off the back of expected revenue. For your "streamer" stuff, I'd expect them to use something appropiate to the job - something connecting direct to a network outputting NDI, or something with SDI output.

> For your "streamer" stuff, I'd expect them to use something appropiate to the job

They mostly don't, though. The standard "high-end" streaming setup is whatever second-hand mirrorless camera has a clear HDMI output, and an HDMI capture card.

Post reply on HN