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

131–140 of 665 posts

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

#131

Post by Springtime »

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…

> 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.

Do you have a link? Could only find a 2010 article[1] that appears to have been debunked by MPEG-LA themselves (per the updates in the blog post).

[1] https://www.osnews.com/story/23236/why-our-civilizations-vid...

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

#132

Post by liontwist »

helboi4 wrote: post #95

The fact that its a subscription is what really rubs me up the wrong way. Not everything deserves to be a subscription. Why is everything a subscription these days?

Last cycle everyone thought adding an App Store to their product would bring developers out of the wood work to make them money.

Just envy at the big players and hope for that sweet recurring revenue.

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

#133

Post by josephg »

tobyhinloopen wrote: post #35
franga2000 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? The article talks about using it as a webcam and none of the Sony gear I've used supports that (A6500, A7 I/RI/II/SII/III/RIII/SIII). They did make the "Imaging Edge Webcam" program, I think some time during the pandemic, but AFAIK it's just a PTP preview to webcam driver, so the quality is pretty terrible and you can do that with OBS+gphoto2.

A7RV + A6700 here. If you plug in a USB cable, it shows the usual "usb selection screen", but it includes a "USB streaming" option. It works immediately, flawlessly, on windows and macOS. For remote shooting, there's still the "PC remote" option. My older Sony cameras (A6300 is my newest "old" Sony camera) don't have the feature (unless you use that terrible software you mentioned) Im surprised to read that even the…

Fellow Sony a7iv owner here. I can confirm this works on my camera too.

For older cameras, probably the easiest way to do it (if you don't want to install anything) is to pick up a ~$20 usb HDMI capture card from amazon. Connect the HDMI output on the camera to the capture card. And then set your camera up to output a "clean" video source via the HDMI port.

As I understand it, modern capture cards work without drivers on every OS, just like the modern sony cameras do.

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

#134

Post by ssijak »

I have cannon r5 and previously had sony cameras. I'm bamboozeled how in this day and age software connecting cameras with PCs is so bad, not to mention tethered shooting. And the fact that 5+k camera have slow wifi chips for no reason so you cant tether via wifi just angers me.

Software on the actual camera is yet another question for me, why don't we have cameras with full fledged modern OS-es running custom androids for example with installable apps so you can finish a lot of stuff on the camera itself or make sharing to wherever a breeze.

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

#135

Post by dingdingdang »

jorvi wrote: post #66
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 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.

That is an acceptable position and you will likely nor require further investigation as long as the criticism remains vague and is offset by positive sentiment. I too love the EU.

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

#137

Post by josephg »

michaelt wrote: post #119
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…

What camera do you have? Why can't it autofocus when its not recording?

I believe you, but thats very silly.

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

#138

Post by shortrounddev2 »

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.

Probably lobbying from a local doll maker

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

#139

Post by ted_bunny »

School-Cotton wrote: post #99
amelius wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't they just make it taste bad, for safety's sake?

In some countries that is allowed, but in others it has to actually be poisonous.

And in some, it's a tourist attraction. Don't drink "White Elephant" in Vietnam unless you want to wake up blind and pissing blood, at least according to a friend!

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

#140

Post by Certhas »

alibarber wrote: post #108
fmbb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

All countries have tariffs. All tariff systems classify goods in some way. On top of the fact that this is by necessity not ever absolutely accurate even initially, these classifications also lag technological development and consumer behaviour.

If there is one thing the EU has absolutely achieved it is to massively reduce and harmonize tariffs and trade rules, and make the rules less susceptible to the whims of political favor and lobbying of local industry.

Post reply on HN