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

631–640 of 665 posts

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

#631

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #590
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what's called a slippery slope. A capture card and HDMI cable together cost less than $100. Hiring someone will be at least an order of magnitude more expensive—and more so the more people you hire.

Whoosh. That was the entire point of the comment, to point out the slippery slope in the HDMI/cable card argument in the first place.

Eh? There's no slippery slope. A capture card is standard equipment for any broadcaster.

There is an absolutely massive gulf between a one-time supplementary purchase of $100 versus a multi-million dollar studio, film crew, actors. The comment was ludicrous, sorry.

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

#632

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #595
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Without loss of generality, the USB spec doesn't matter. The overwhelming majority of dedicated cameras are not set up to supply high-quality video output through their USB ports. Mass storage definitely and MTP, maybe, but video out? No, and even if you get it, it is badly nerfed. The industry standard is HDMI capture, or writing to disks in slots—whether SD, CF Express, or even M.2 NVMe.

This entire comment section is a massive storm in a teacup by photography and AV amateurs who don't know the ins and outs of AV work flows and assume that stuff should just work the way they want it to.

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

#633

Post by Terretta »

ash_091 wrote: post #621
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.

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.

Do you mean MSNBC?

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

#634

Post by Terretta »

1659447091 wrote: post #594
dingnuts wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

News Entertainment?

Like WWE is Sports Entertainment.

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

#636

Post by toofy »

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…

> why don't we have cameras with full fledged modern OS-es running custom androids for example with installable apps…

because then you end up something that is mediocre at a bunch of random stuff rather than great at something specific.

a multitool is rarely as good at hammering as an actual hammer. a multitool is almost never as good at screwing as an actual screwdriver.

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

#637

Post by jwr »

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

Oh, good to know! I didn't manage to find this one. But this one is $100 in the US, and $120 in some other places. Which is quite a bit of additional money to pay on top of your camera, which already has USB and should just provide a video stream there…

(this dongle is also USB-A, unfortunately)

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

#638

Post by seabass-labrax »

panzi wrote: post #624
seabass-labrax wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a way it's not completely tax-free; the embodied costs of producing and selling the cake are still taxed with employee income tax, National Insurance, import duties and so on.

The UK's exemption from VAT covers lots of things, but not an entirely logical selection: cakes are considered staples and are exempt, but drinks (including soft drinks, beer and mineral water) are taxed at the full 20% rate.

In general, I would personally prefer that the UK not have VAT, as it's a regressive tax (people with lower incomes pay a greater percentage of their income on it than high earners do).

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

#639

Post by strogonoff »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #575
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…

> Personally, as a happy owner of a Japanese-made under-$2k camera that works perfectly well for all purposes and even has official CAD files published for accessory 3D printing enthusiasts, Which camera is that?

Sigma fp.

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

#640

Post by strogonoff »

Dalewyn wrote: post #377
strogonoff wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what you are saying. LG and Samsung are both Korean… They had the original OLED tech that was leaked to China. LG recently had to shut down a factory due to reduced demand IIRC. Hard to compete with fully state-controlled command economy.

>I am not sure what you are saying. Japanese companies spent time and money investing in new technologies and then proceeded to waste them because they were far more interested in keeping trade secrets to themselves and dragging each other down, rather than coming together and acting as one national industry like Korean and Chinese companies. The Japanese companies did come together eventually (Japan Display, et al.)…

Okay. Just confusing because my example was about Korean companies. They were very much open to trade and less focused on secrets, which I suppose led to exactly the situation described. Once Apple switched to BOE for cheaper OLED panels (allegedly resulting in a higher rate of defects in iPad screens), LG was forced to shut down an entire plant IIRC.
Post reply on HN