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

311–320 of 665 posts

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

#311

Post by panosfilianos »

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...

I wonder if there is any place where one can look up all these sort of creative legal-tax shenanigan stories. They are so fun and such an interesting lens to see what _is_ via this interlinked, case-specific web of events.

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

#312

Post by brushfoot »

tjoff wrote: post #279
brushfoot wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On these cameras, HDMI is the right tool for the job. USB video quality is often poor where it's supported, and HDMI is there for video output. These cameras are not made to be webcams. OP is using theirs as one, and that's fine; I do too. But device-side compression for USB video out, a webcam app, etc. are webcam features. They come at a cost, and many camera buyers don't need them. For those of us using these came…

The camera already have high-quality compression since it needs that to store video. If maybe latency is poor or other reasons exist not to use that then fine. HDMI can be a workaround , it still is an insanely bad tool for the job.

It's a workaround for the camera not bundling all the features that it needs to be a webcam, absolutely.

The standalone cameras I've used haven't included free webcam functionality and I don't think that's outrageous, but apparently many people here who've been downvoting me disagree.

Personally, I think HDMI is great for A/V tasks that a camera doesn't support out of the box since it's a widely supported standard.

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

#313

Post by SSLy »

mjevans wrote: post #229
SSLy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP wants to just use the USB cable, which makes sense for me.

USB 2.0, that bog standard version from 2000 that is assumed to be the lowest common denominator possible for any new hardware... Edit: 4am math correction... 480Mbit/sec transfer; Uncompressed, that's ~333333 pixels per frame for 60FPS. Not even considering overhead, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class 1.1 support from 2005 includes Motion JPEG (low compression, all patents probably expired give…

the camera indeed has USB-C port, 3.2 gen1

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

#315

Post by bhickey »

brushfoot wrote: post #277
palijer wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I do. I'm also confused by this article...

It's rage bait. People hate subscriptions, understandably so, and people without A/V experience might expect a camera not sold as a webcam to easily double as a webcam since they both can capture video. It's just a really poor reason to be outraged at Canon (or Sony or any of the other companies whose non-webcam cameras don't seamlessly turn into webcams without some standard A/V adapters).

Canon's webcam software was until recently free. It was the sole reason I bought a Cabin camera. This is a rug pull.

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

#316

Post by walthamstow »

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...

Hoo boy we have some classics in that category in the UK.

My personal fave is when morning TV host Lorraine Kelly successfully argued she wasn’t hosting as herself but acting a character called Lorraine Kelly, with very favourable tax consequences.

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

#317

Post by matt-p »

bayindirh wrote: post #199
mongol wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need to sign an agreement to this effect before starting filming? I don't see how it can legally hold.

Nominally, yes. These are checked before your movie is being distributed, and you'll most probably face legal consequences if you don't pay for your licenses. Not getting caught for some time doesn't count either. You'll pay retroactively, with some interest, probably. Licensing page is at [0]. Considering the previous shenanigans they pulled against open video and audio formats in the past [1], these guys are not sl…

Presumably there's no way of fingerprinting the footage itself as 'unlicenced' so the closest they get is asking the studio what camera serials they used to film.

What about if you're a YouTuber, surely they don't pay?

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

#318

Post by ssijak »

PetitPrince wrote: post #242
ssijak wrote: post #134

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 androi…

> 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. A little more than 10 years ago Samsung tried that with their Galaxy NX (a bona fide DSLR running Android). It flopped and most reviewer noted that i…

I agree on what the main purpose is and that must be executed well, but it is 2025 and for a 5 000 usd camera we should be able to get both, great working camera with amazing and fast software.

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

#319

Post by bhickey »

brushfoot wrote: post #221
baxtr wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP expects the camera comes with some decent convenience at that price.

OP is using a camera as a webcam that's not sold as a webcam. That's fine, I do the same with mine, but it's also fine of the manufacturer to allow for that by simply providing A/V interfaces instead of trying to account for every use case.

Canon advertises their cameras as webcams.

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

#320

Post by ssijak »

jpc0 wrote: post #152
ssijak wrote: post #134

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 androi…

No professional wants to deal with wifi, maybe ethernet. So it's at most a prosumer feature for which the wifi they have is fine. For professional use we want SDI which can transmit uncompressed video at whatever frame rate the camera supports, and we pay for that... Maybe HDMI but that has it's own headaches... And the moment you want Android with apps on it you run into all the problems that comes with Android with…

Realistically, a better wifi chip would add almost nothing to production cost, but there are a lot of professionals doing product photography that would like fast wifi tethering.

Well, that would prevent them from selling overpriced grips with integrated better wifis which is 999 usd from Cannon...

Post reply on HN