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

481–490 of 665 posts

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

#481

Post by jccalhoun »

virtualritz wrote: post #224

That's reminds me when I was in South East Asia a few years back and wanted to do some time lapse or series photography with my Sony Alpha a7ii. A camera that I had paid close to 2k€ for (just body, no glass). It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-for. Which in term required the camera to be connected to a WiFi. Imagine discovering this while on a trip in the jungle or the desert or whatever…

Thankfully people have figured out how to add apps to some sony cameras https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE

https://github.com/jonasjuffinger/TimeLapse

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

#482

Post by Etheryte »

strange_aeons wrote: post #208

My Canon EOS R8 can be configured to connect via USB-C as a webcam and works perfectly.

The EOS R8 was released less than a year ago and that output is still capped at 2K and 30 fps. Meanwhile the camera itself shoots 4K at 60 fps (if you go Full HD, you can even shoot 180 fps). So saying it works perfectly is not quite accurate, you still need either extra hardware or extra software if you want to actually use it to the full capacity.

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

#484

Post by regularfry »

mrtksn wrote: post #23

It's just a business model like segmentation IMHO. BMWs or Tesla's having the hardware but require a payment for enabling it or CPU manufacturers disabling certain features to sell them at a lower price. IIRC the idea is that to let people pay what they can so you can have larger profits when allowing lower price points. In this case it appears to directly charge for a service(a software that needs to be created and…

With CPU manufacturers it at least makes sense for them to have a market for partially faulty chips. That's not what's going on here.

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

#485

Post by [deleted] »

Y_Y wrote: post #109
huhtenberg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

[deleted]

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

#486

Post by gol706 »

brushfoot wrote: post #174
jeswin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using a Sony mirrorless (anything above a5100 will work) for over 6 years now; it needed a "dummy battery", and an HDMI capture card (about $25 for noname brands, or $80+ for Elgato, BlackMagic etc). It auto-focuses, doesn't write to microsd, and works flawlessly. Even if you aren't buying Elgato, you can use Elgato's compatibility page to know which cameras work well: https://www.elgato.com/us/en/s/cam-lin…

A word of warning on capture cards: I first bought a no-name off Amazon, thinking to save money. The video quality was abysmal. Artifacts everywhere. I returned it and got an Elgato, which has worked great from day one.

Weirdly I had the exact opposite experience. Elgato always felt laggy. I bought a no-name USB Stick format card and it looked great (once I got my camera settings dialed in) but would disconnect when I bumped my desk. I cracked the case open and soldered a USB cable I cut in half to the pads, and 3d printed a new case and it's been rock solid for the last 4 years. Only problem is the once in a blue moon I need to use Teams my video get's horizontally squished and I can't seem to fix it.

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

#487

Post by _n_b_ »

skrebbel wrote: post #470
_n_b_ wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Fox News argued was a bit more nuanced than that all of Fox News isn't news. Rather, "Fox successfully argued that one particular segment on Tucker Carlson’s show could only be reasonably interpreted as making political arguments, not making factual assertions, and therefore couldn’t be defamation."[1] That feels like a fairly reasonable assertion for anybody watching Tucker Carlson. [1] https://popehat.substack…

I know nothing about the case but isn't that a little like saying "look, we weren't lying, cause we never said we were saying the truth"?

Well, context matters in looking at defamation claims.

Let's say you were involved in a freak hunting accident and shot somebody, but you were never charged with any crimes.

If the Fox News "hard news" program (if such a thing exists) said "skrebbel is a murderer" that is more likely to be understood to be a statement of fact, asserting something in a legalistic sense. [IANAL, but I think even this is unlikely to be defamation, although there is a somewhat similar case where ABC settled with Donald Trump over saying he was "liable for rape"]

If somebody on Tucker Carlson Tonight said "You can't trust anything that skrebbel guy says, he's a murderer!" that is more likely to be understood as an opinion based on disclosed facts, not a fact. That person isn't asserting that you committed or were convicted of a specific crime of murder, but rather that you killed somebody and it might be your fault. On a show were people are arguing and exchanging opinionated views, viewers should understand that these things are opinions. And therefore that's not defamation, because it's an opinion.

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

#488

Post by dnh44 »

throw94838211 wrote: post #476
dnh44 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a family member of retirement age who got into the habit of anonymously expressing their love of the EU in the comments section of a local newspaper. After a few months of this they received a phone call on their landline warning them that such public expressions are inappropriate and that there could be consequences should they not find a new hobby. I too love the EU but I loved it much more 15 years ago.

What is this load of BS, nobody from the EU called because of facebook comments, your family member lied.

I never said someone from the EU called, we think it was someone from the national government. Or it could just be someone from the newspaper who knows someone at the telecom company and they decided to have a laugh.

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

#489

Post by dspillett »

brushfoot wrote: post #256
dspillett wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. They can. But that doesn't mean everyone is forced to be happy about it, and doesn't mean it can't be talked about so other people who might not be happy about it can use the information to chose a different camera from a different manufacturer instead of discovering the issue post-purchase. > they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI Or the industry standa…

OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying to use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I've done the same. A standard way of doing that is to use a video cable to get video output and plug that into a capture card on your computer. OP doesn't want to do that and would prefer that the manufacturer included webcam functionality out of the box. Also fair enough! But if that's the requirement, buy a camera that meets…

> OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying to use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I've done the same. A standard way of doing that is…

And another standard way, supported by at least some cameras, without even single extra charge never mind a subscription⁰, is apparently video over USB.

> I get subscription fatigue, but this is not a good hill to die on.

No users are dying on this hill¹. OP is just stating, in an exasperated tone admittedly, what the state of affairs is with this camera. Some of us are agreeing with him that it seems off, and is part of the ongoing enshitification of the software and hardware worlds. Others can use this information to help guide their choice of camera (or supplier of other equipment), or not, their choice.

----

[0] Which implies they could decide to discontinue the feature at a whim later, no matter how much the user has paid between now and then.

[1] I'll refrain² from mentioning that you are putting up quite a determined fight for the “nah, this sort of thing is fine, really” hill.

[2] Oops, I tell a lie…

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

#490

Post by bhickey »

brushfoot wrote: post #473
bhickey wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, you're just making things up.

I resent that accusation. We should have a Zoom call on two Canon webcams to hash this out.

Pay my subscription for the next decade and we have a deal.
Post reply on HN