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

591–600 of 665 posts

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

#591

Post by sombragris »

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…

There's the well-known case of Spain in 1985, that would impose a tariff on computers with 64 KB RAM or less. At that time, Amstrad launched the CPC 464 with 64KB worldwide, but for Spain launched the special model CPC 472, wich had a daughter board with an additional 8Kb chip not connected to the main RAM and thus unusable, but enough for circumventing the tariff. That tariff was short-lived.

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

#592

Post by TeMPOraL »

tempaccount420 wrote: post #282
jampekka wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tariffs aren't to protect you. They are to protect domestic industry. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/eu-to-hit-some-di...

And "domestic industry" in EU means German :)

Don't be too jealous. Your industry won't win with German anyway, but at least German industry won't lose to China like the rest of the world, so as long as you're in the EU, you're still ahead :).

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

#593

Post by jandrese »

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 tariff difference between "video" and "stills" cameras having a 30 minute cutoff is funny. If you think about the vast majority of the time when shooting moving video with a handheld or tripod mounted camera it does not involve 30+ minute long continuous takes. You could have a professional movie camera with that restriction and it wouldn't be a problem in the vast majority of cases.

So the restriction ends up being between things like security cameras, vtc cameras, and traffic cameras vs all other times of cameras. The relatively shitty camera in a doorbell or on your dashboard end up being more expensive to import than the fancy DSLR just because it is used in a different application.

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

#594

Post by 1659447091 »

dingnuts wrote: post #510
thunky wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true though. All cable news is "entertainment news", not "news". Nobody should have been getting their "news" from Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, or Rachel Maddow. IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front.

Thank you for pointing this out. Carlson and Maddow made nearly identical arguments in court and if both are not mentioned in the same breath, the speakers bias is instantly displayed to anyone who is educated on this topic. > IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front. Agreed but the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News.…

> the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News

I think the 'average' person thinks of 'Entertainment News' as celebrity gossip, e.g., E! News[0] etc. Telling them the entertainment news/opinion/commentary they watch is not actually 'News' but is entertainment "news" doesn't compute

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E!_News

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

#595

Post by mynameisvlad »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #149
morsch wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> these cameras are capable of exporting high quality video via USB No, they are not. The USB port is (usually) USB 2.0 and the video output, even though the application might claim 1080p 30 FPS, is a 'digital upscale'[1] from XGA or 720p. That in my view is decidedly not 'high quality'. My monitor has eight times that resolution and more than four times the framerate, totalling more than a 32× increase in bandwidth,…

Did you bother to look up literally any part of your comment?

The Canon G5 X II has USB 3.1 over a USB-C port. All of what you said does not in any way shape or form apply to the topic at hand.

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

#596

Post by radicality »

rmoriz wrote: post #273
jwr wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable Are there any USB-connectable capture devices that can process 4K? Everything I see tries really hard to hide the fact that while they can input 4K, they can only produce 1920x1080.

Elgato Cam Link 4K

I’ve been using this with a Fuji XT4 for last 2 years as webcam, working great. Though for stuff like google meet, I usually set it to 1080p 60fps since that’s the max res most meeting software will accept anyways, and frame rate is more important for live meeting than res.

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

#597

Post by TeMPOraL »

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote: post #213
ErneX wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same in France where the money goes to the local RIAA. Even if it’s a hard drive meant for Linux, or to store public domain stuff. It’s basically a mafia that gets our money despite copying for backup purposes being completely legal.

Taxation has overhead. If they were to actually track everyone's use and intention on a case-by-case basis, everything would get massively more expensive, just to offset the amount of extra bureaucracy needed to handle this.

It's the same idea as to why reducing the amount of means-testing and other hoops to jump to get social benefits would save taxpayers money - sure, more people who don't need benefits would get them, but that's more than offset by what would be saved by eliminating the workload of (and government jobs dedicated to) gate-keeping those benefits.

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

#598

Post by nojokes2 »

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?

If you're serious, it's called rent-seeking behavior, and it is an extractive component of modern financialism.

One solution is to make a law that says it's illegal, and then enforce that law, ideally with harsh penalties so executives and companies can't get away with it.

I hope this helps!

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

#599

Post by nojokes2 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #530
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?

The reason for subscriptions is because we've applied a debt based financial model to everything. And for whatever reason customers do not understand the model and how bad they're getting screwed. $100 of one time purchase software is approximately $5-10 per year of recurring revenue. And so if they can convince you that $5 a month is "not bad" then you're effectively outlaying $1000 for the software. In return you d…

Don't forget the fact that, uh, you can't get away from it. Please stop blaming customers for this. Literally nobody wants it this way, we just have no power to change it. What are we supposed to do, just never buy cameras or cars or software or computers ever again?

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

#600

Post by smft9 »

uniq7 wrote: post #364
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?

Because people pay them. If we refused to pay them and bought similar or even worse alternatives out of spite, they wouldn't exist.

This wasn't true the first time America was ruled by monopolies, and it isn't true now.
Post reply on HN