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

541–550 of 665 posts

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

#541

Post by ComputerGuru »

crashingintoyou wrote: post #479
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…

I wonder if 3rd party camera firmware will become more of a thing - e.g. https://www.magiclantern.fm/ or https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/CHDK

Do you know of anything equivalent for Nikon?

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

#542

Post by camtarn »

Etheryte wrote: post #130
camtarn wrote: post #111

So, uh, has anybody noticed that the headline is false? You can use your Canon camera as a webcam without having to pay for it. It even says so in the last image in the article! You plug it in via USB and you get a webcam. It's just that you can't use any feature other than reading the video feed. But you can get other software for that. I guess "You can't use Canon's webcam software to adjust your video feed, or rem…

This is misleading. You don't get a proper video feed, you get 720p at 30 fps out of a camera that shoots 4K at 60 fps. On top of that, no white balance, no color correction, no etc. My laptop's built in webcam does better than that.

You're arguing past me. What I'm saying is that without paying, the Canon is a webcam: it's a camera that plugs in and gives your computer a video input. It may not be the best possible webcam that it can be, for sure. And paying a subscription for the extra capabilities does suck! But nonetheless, the central point of the headline - "you cannot use it as a webcam" is false.

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

#543

Post by ComputerGuru »

petecooper wrote: post #345
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…

>I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. My (now ancient) Canon 5D mk2 is limited to ~28 minutes of video due to file system limitations.

Is the limitation the same regardless of quality, format, frame rate, etc? That would make me suspicious.

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

#544

Post by ryao »

seanhunter wrote: post #527
walthamstow wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was also the famous decision in the Jaffa Cake case where the VAT treatment depended on whether or not a Jaffa cake was a cake or a biscuit https://standrewseconomist.com/2023/12/31/let-them-eat-cake-... The tribunal decided that Jaffa Cakes were cakes because when they go stale they go hard like a cake whereas a biscuit tends to go soft when it goes stale.

I remember hearing about this because the one who wanted it classified as a biscuit proposed the test that determined it was a cake. That is the sole reason I remember this story.

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

#545

Post by pinkmuffinere »

wbl wrote: post #496
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...

There is a musical I saw at the fringe about this.

I love strange musicals! Link in case anyone else is curious: https://playbill.com/article/is-it-a-cake-or-a-biscuit-a-jaf...

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

#546

Post by ComputerGuru »

raverbashing wrote: post #88
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…

Silly restrictions aside, I feel that most use cases don't have takes longer than 30min anyway (I mean, on cameras that you actually start and stop recording manually) But yeah technology evolves and the taxes remain. (Though don't complain too much or they will just pick the higher taxes for the newer cameras)

I can’t see why you think there’s a usecase for 25 minute videos but not 35 minute ones.

Speaking as an amateur photographer with multiple DSLRs: I’ve certainly needed longer than that for a number of gigs.

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

#547

Post by pbasista »

theodorc wrote: post #432
pbasista wrote: post #403

This is another case in point that people should research the software capabilities of the devices they purchase. Typically, that can be reduced to one simple question: Can it run custom firmware or custom operating system? If it cannot, you have to make do with whatever restrictions the manufacturer has imposed in their software. Be it a subscription for webcam mode. Or even completely disabling your device if they…

Well, is there any camera that allow you do just that?

I am not sure. I am unfamiliar with the consumer camera segment.

I have heard about some "firmware enhancements" like Magic Lantern or CHDK for Canon which, if I understand correctly, are some kind of extensions that could be loaded by the camera's main firmware on startup and then provide additional functionality.

It is not a custom firmware. But it offers similar functionality.

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

#548

Post by JBiserkov »

marcosdumay wrote: post #430
tommica wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fucking hilarious when you think that a lot of xmen storyline is about them wanting to be perceived as humans

And also, they are an "on your face" depiction of the dehumanization of the Holocaust victims...

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute! I can't have POLITICS in my comics, my comics are apolitical, there's good guys and bad guys, and it's always clear who the bad guys are - those that are not [like] me! /s

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

#549

Post by recursive »

tommica wrote: post #154
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...

Which is fucking hilarious when you think that a lot of xmen storyline is about them wanting to be perceived as humans

Pretty much fits. It probably wouldn't be such an issue if they were just human.

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

#550

Post by ComputerGuru »

ryao wrote: post #538

Don’t most of these cameras have an hdmi output? During the pandemic, I assisted a local church with streaming after their plea for help reached me. We initially used a fairly cheap video camera’s hdmi output with a cheap HDMI to USB dongle to get a feed to OBS. It worked extremely well, although it was later replaced with a professional camera that had actuators to allow it to be moved via a remote during their serv…

Some foresaw this and add an OSD showing time/battery/etc to the HDMI output so you can’t get a clean feed.
Post reply on HN