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

601–610 of 665 posts

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

#601

Post by mrkstu »

treis wrote: post #497
bloomingkales wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t seem like that should be possible. He sold his identity for life? Hollywood really does ask for your soul huh. It would make sense why he’s never even jokingly gone back into that character on his new show.

It's not his identity, though. It's a character that he plays.

Yep- if Pee-wee Herman’s character were instead named after the actor, Paul Reubens, that character could still be licensed/sold. Paul Ruebens could still do interviews, and take jobs under that name, without permission, but he’d better not show up in the Pee-wee outfit.

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

#603

Post by mixmastamyk »

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.

> music and movie piracy only being rampant from 1990s-2000s

Huh? It may have dipped at the time Netflix had everything streamable, but there's been a resurgence in the now years since it hasn't.

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

#604

Post by ngcc_hk »

Y_Y wrote: post #558
throwaway48476 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it can run a desktop linux environment it's a PC. That said it probably should only count if the preinstalled software is Linux and not some games OS.

I would say that a PC should be compatible with the software and hardware of the IBM 5150.

Apple mac not a personal computer ?

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

#605

Post by ComputerGuru »

bayindirh wrote: post #557
ComputerGuru wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not exactly watermarking; each encoder works in a different way and it’s readily possible to determine (for one versed in such matters) which encoder was used to generate a video by inspecting the structure of the raw (eg h264) bitstream. This might not work reliably enough for simpler codecs like JPEG but for something as complicated as modern video codec where there are a million ways to generate a compatible…

That’s true, but I thought of embedding a serial number and a date into the video, periodically, for example, which can be quantized as noise, but not very visible unless you filter the frame a very specific way, or pass through a tool.

It’s fairly useless since raw footage isn’t typically distributed; it would be re-encoded first which would definitely destroy that watermark. So it would be a scandal that doesn’t necessarily accomplish much.

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

#606

Post by FireBeyond »

walthamstow wrote: post #316
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...

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.

I had a friend that argued that Marshall Mathers (Eminem) could never actually be sued for defamation because most of the defamatory things "he" said wasn't actually him saying it, but Slim Shady.

Hah.

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

#607

Post by FireBeyond »

snaily wrote: post #201
amelius wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can I read more about this? What poison were they using?

Methanol has been used, as has rubbing alcohol and methyl ethyl ketone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol for further reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatonium is used to make it unpalatable. Fun fact: the same chemical is also coated onto Nintendo Switch cartridges to discourage children from putting them in their mouths.

We used to use denatonium (Bitrex) in firefighting to test the efficacy of your face mask seal - you'd put on your mask, a filter, and a hood - Bitrex would be aerosolized into the hood and if you could taste it, there was not a good seal.

Nowadays we just measure pressure differentials.

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

#608

Post by FireBeyond »

josephg wrote: post #137
michaelt wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They -can-, they just don't, unless you specifically enable it for power reasons.

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

#609

Post by jauntywundrkind »

jccalhoun wrote: post #481
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

It's the same thing, one is just the out of box locked down Sony app-store controlled version, and this is the somewhat liberated side loading & build chain. It's some kind of Android layer running atop the base camera.

> It is possible to develop custom Android apps for supported cameras. Keep in mind that they should be compatible with Android 2.3.7.

https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE?tab=readme-ov-file#wha...

I wish Samsung had had better success with their Android native powered cameras (as opposed to the thin shell Sony grafted atop), had decided to stay around. Cellphones have amazing & fantastic photo apps available, where-as the professional systems baked into cameras emphasizes post-production tools for computational photography. Being able to have app devs everywhere making your digital camera better & more usable should be such an obvious priority.

And the earlier Alpha cameras with their Android based shim they could run kind of got this. Sony did announce a new SDK 3 years ago for some of their highest end cameras, but it's a simpler remote-control only SDK. https://alphauniverse.com/stories/sony-announces-new-camera-...

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

#610

Post by Eavolution »

chongli wrote: post #265
amelius wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Chinese cooking wines avoid alcohol taxes by adding salt. The salt is useful as a seasoning for food but makes the wine undrinkable!

That doesn't seem like a good idea as a lot of people would try to reduce salt intake due to blood pressure concerns, where the alcohol in this wouldn't be a concern for that as it would likely be cooked off
Post reply on HN