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

111–120 of 665 posts

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

#111

Post by camtarn »

So, uh, has anybody noticed that the headline is false?

You can use your Canon camera as a webcam without having to pay for it. It even says so in the last image in the article! You plug it in via USB and you get a webcam. It's just that you can't use any feature other than reading the video feed. But you can get other software for that.

I guess "You can't use Canon's webcam software to adjust your video feed, or remote control the camera, or get 60fps video; that will be $5/month" would make a less catchy headline.

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

#112

Post by nicbou »

franga2000 wrote: post #14
tobyhinloopen wrote: post #5

Canon truly is the HP of cameras. Good thing there's Sony and Nikon.

The latest firmware update for the Sony A7S III has introduced unlockable licenses and a website where you can buy them. The first one (for DCI 4K) is free, but it looks like they'll be chraging for unlocking more "professional" firmware features in the future.

Yep. This is a sign that the meetings have already happened, and that the course has already been set. The idea was already sold, has picked some momentum, and possibly defines a few people's bonuses.

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

#113

Post by frognumber »

I firmly believe this is the branch digital cameras are dying on, and at this point, probably must die on.

If these opened up, at least to the level iPhone did in 2007, they'd have an ecosystem as people still used them. As-is, for most purposes, my Android phone is a better camera than my full frame interchangeable lens camera.

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

#114

Post by romanzipp »

martinbaun wrote: post #24

Great article, yeah it is quite sad with these things. Louis Rossman talked extensively on these issues. By the way, your images go to a weird url for me, maybe it is because it is Brave browser. For example https://romanzipp.com/blog/[%7B%22id%22:%22assets::blog//no-...

Yep, I'm on it. Thanks!!

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

#115

Post by ErneX »

c120 wrote: post #75
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.

This levy is not meant for piracy, but for legal access - like copying the CDs you already bought to your phone. Compared to what we used to pay on blank media it's not so bad. If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep private copies of anything...

In Spain every device you buy that has some kind of storage is taxed for piracy, the money goes to the local equivalent of the RIIA or book editors associations.

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

#116

Post by liontwist »

Pawka wrote: post #103
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...

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.

This. It’s a pretty reasonable answer to a stupid question. Dolls depict people.

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

#117

Post by Dwedit »

nudgeee wrote: post #102
bayindirh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nowadays, MP3 is an open audio codec. The patents have expired.

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

#118

Post by stavros »

c120 wrote: post #75
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.

This levy is not meant for piracy, but for legal access - like copying the CDs you already bought to your phone. Compared to what we used to pay on blank media it's not so bad. If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep private copies of anything...

The alternative should be that you can backup the stuff you own for free.

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

#119

Post by michaelt »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #28

Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed from the HDMI-out in the camera? Most decent capture cards also expose themselves as cameras to almost all applications. This is my setup, and it works perfectly. Nikon D7500 as a webcam. More professional setups use Atomos monitors with built-in NVMe drives mounted directly to the camera. I generall…

How easy and slick this setup will be depends on the camera.

For example, my camera can't operate and charge over USB at the same time, so you need a supplemental power supply. And it won't autofocus continuously or keep the exposure and white balance stable unless you're recording a video. And videos can only be so long.

So I've got a HDMI-to-USB converter, a special HDMI cable, a special power brick and adaptor, a special tripod so all those cables don't pull the whole setup over, and I've got to restart video recording every 30 minutes or so, and wipe the microsd card regularly.

Your camera's probably better suited to this than mine :)

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

#120

Post by morsch »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #85
elaus wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean why invest $70 (and a lot of ressources) in hardware when, in theory, you have everything you need, the software is just locked behind a paywall?

But you generally don't have everything you need. As I've mentioned most cameras' USB webcam output (if at all present) is quite bad, even via the official programs or gphoto. The 'correct' way to access video output is through their, well, video-out port (usually HDMI), which almost necessitates a capture card or monitor.

Evidently these cameras are capable of exporting high quality video via USB, if you pay 5 bucks a month. This doesn't sound like a hardware problem. It also has a control channel, unlike HDMI.
Post reply on HN