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

621–630 of 665 posts

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

#621

Post by ash_091 »

thunky wrote: post #412
eitally wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.

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.

Absolutely- even as a lifelong leftie, I find the rhetoric on CNBC just as sickening as that on Fox.

I've (somewhat sardonically) wondered if they're both false flag operations. Imagine CNBC started with the idea "we'll parody the left to make them seem radical and unreasonable" but accidentally developed a huge following who didn't get the joke.

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

#622

Post by smallmancontrov »

thunky wrote: post #576
smallmancontrov wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carlson's texts were wild, they proved that he knew he was spreading lies and did it anyway for views. That's why Fox settled with Dominion for $787 million dollars. Meanwhile, OAN sued Maddow for calling them Russian propaganda and her lawyers responded by flexing, doubling down with receipts under oath. Signing up for consequences if they were wrong, and receiving none because they were correct. So no, these are no…

From https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-backs-dismissal... [Judge Smith] found OAN and its parent company were unlikely to prevail on the defamation claim because the challenged speech was not a statement of fact and the context of Maddow’s show made it likely her audience would expect her to make political opinions. Putting the details of the court case aside, the judge is clearly saying that he does not b…

Nope. You paid very selective attention to that article:

> the context provided by Maddow’s commentary before and after she made the statement disclosed all relevant facts and contained colorful language.

If you listen to the clip in question, you'll observe that Maddow explains the facts, makes an exclamation, and then explains the facts. The complaint here only works if you clip chimp the exclamation. Contrast this with the complaint against Carlson, where he engages in what was by his own admission sustained deception.

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

#624

Post by panzi »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #441
panzi wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not from the UK, but wasn't there also a cake Vs biscuits thing for tax reasons?

Yes, Jaffa Cakes - minature sponge cakes flavoured with Jaffa oranges. Cakes aren't subject to Value Added Tax in the UK, which allows them to be sold more cheaply to the consumer or have a greater profit margin. A tribunal confirmed that they are true, real and genuine cakes, so you may feel entitled to enjoy your tax-free treat! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandco...

It's wild to me that anything you can buy in a store, especially something frivolous like cake, might be tax free.

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

#625

Post by FireBeyond »

rickdeckard wrote: post #309

"Yeah, we equipped your car with heated seats prior to transferring its ownership to you, but heating your seat is a license-protected comfort which requires a subscription" https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/7/23863258/bmw-cancel-heated... Many of those "features" were walked back on backlash, just to then be bundled "free" for the initial buyer only...

> Many of those "features" were walked back on backlash, just to then be bundled "free" for the initial buyer only...

Like Tesla... buy FSD? It doesn't transfer with you OR the vehicle, just ... vanishes.

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

#626

Post by FireBeyond »

yapyap wrote: post #583

> Admittedly, it did not cost me the $6300 from the article's title, much closer to $900 I am confused, I assume the 900 dollars is the cost of his camera but where did the 6300 figure come from?

MSRP for the EOS R1, the flagship camera - but apropos of anything, that's not a camera ANYONE would use for a webcam (its focus area is event/sports, and high shooting rates. For anyone else, generally, the R5II is effectively the high end.

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

#627

Post by s1artibartfast »

Spivak wrote: post #434
15155 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think if it's working as intended and as designed then it's hard to call it a loophole. This assumes everyone acts in good faith. A popular one these days is the "gun show 'loophole.'" Rather than calling it "renegging on an explicitly-legislated compromise", it's a "loophole" that needs "closing."

You're assigning a single mind to a group of uncoordinated actors to create a hypocrisy that probably doesn't exist in any specific individual. It looks like a loophole, it could be in the textbook describing them. You have a law that establishes a rule, then creates a small exception that in effect opts out of the rule entirely. The people who want this provision eliminated don't know it was intended. That's pretty…

It is a textbook example of ex-post-facto re-contracting [1]. Durable agreements and enforcement are a pre-requisite for society.

If we negotiate and make a binding deal, I need to believe you will hold your end of the agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

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

#628

Post by josephg »

entropie wrote: post #383
josephg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What camera do you have? Why can't it autofocus when its not recording? I believe you, but thats very silly.

I can force my (canon) camera to autofocus while not recording but usually you want to avoid that. It really hits the battery because the lens is permanentely adjusting. Most mirrorless cameras a hybrids and you usually do not need this feature while takting stills.

Makes sense. On my sony camera (a7iv), it does continuous autofocus in video mode. You don't need to hit the record button - just set the focus mode to AFC (autofocus continuous) and it does its thing.

I also just tried connecting it as a webcam over USB, and it does continuous autofocus when set up like that too. I'm sure it uses more power, but the camera can power itself over the USB port while connected, so thats not a problem.

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

#629

Post by josephg »

adrian_b wrote: post #181
strogonoff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding products from China being cheaper: remember that Japanese, Korean, and Western companies are the ones mostly innovating and absorbing the R&D costs. Remember how modern OLEDs were made feasible basically by LG and Samsung? Having stolen that IP[0][1][2], without any R&D costs but with dirt cheap manufacturing due to direct and indirect subsidies like relatively almost nonexistent labour protection laws, PRC…

What you say about innovation has been true mostly in the distant past and mostly for technologies that are used in business-to-business products. For consumer products from recent years, like smartphones or computers, the vast majority of innovative products are Chinese, even if the quality or documentation is frequently subpar. Now I see very frequently cases when US companies or Japanese companies should better st…

I think it goes both ways for sure. My Sony mirrorless camera is incredible - and there's been lots of R&D work over decades that have made my camera possible.

But I got a DJI Ronin (handheld gimbal) the other day. Its a gamechanger. With the camera mounted on the gimbal, I can do handheld shots that you could easily use in a blockbuster movie.

The only downside is that the whole thing (camera + gimbal) is a very awkward package. The weight is in the wrong place. And that means the gimbal needs to be bigger and bulkier to compensate - which in turn makes it even more awkward to use. You could make a much better product by integrating the gimbal and camera. Put just the lens and sensor on the gimbal, but move the screen, battery and CPU to the "outside" package. Then you could shrink the gimbal itself and remove all the mounting hardware and manual weight adjustment sliders.

Apparently DJI has started making $10k cinema cameras along exactly these lines. I really hope the Japanese camera brands take notice. From a product standpoint, its a big deal - and I'm sure it won't be long before DJI makes much cheaper video cameras that start seriously eating Sony & Canon's market share.

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

#630

Post by kalleboo »

paradox460 wrote: post #521
reaperducer wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-for. Apple had a similar situation once. I was among the thousands of people who paid Apple something like $10 to get a CD-ROM in the mail containing a single CODEC for something video-related. Sorry for being vague, it was way back in the early days of OS X, so I can't remember exactly what the situation was. But I do know I still have the file in my arc…

Apple used to sell prorec and Sorenson stuff. Usually you could get them with a QuickTime pro license, final cut license, or similar

The MPEG2 codec was also a paid download (I think it was also included with DVD Studio Pro)
Post reply on HN