Closed Digital Cameras - Does Anyone Care?

Karamchand asks: "Free Software and open standards are ubiquitous in the server and even desktop area. But why does nobody seem to care about openness in digital cameras? I couldn't find a single hint as to what main processor my camera uses (I guess many use ARMs and others use TI DSPs), and while searching for information about (re-)programming digital cameras, I had to give up (apart from the scriptable Digita OS which was used by some discontinued cameras by Kodak, HP et al). Do you know of any efforts in this direction, whether they are actual disassembling/programming of cameras or asking vendors to get more open?" I still have my Kodak DIGITA-based camera from several years ago and I loved the flexibility, even though the performance is poor by today's standards (long cycle times, poor battery life, etc). Why are digital camera manufacturers keeping the lid on the capabilities of their products, when digital cameras could be so much more than their film-based counterparts?

Comments

you know it's true...

[Thud457]

Linux schminux, we all know what he wants to do!

Re:Obvious reason

[pchan-]

Well, firmware updating does take care of dissemination of new software once it is created. However, have you ever tried writing new code and debugging it via flash updates? I have (while testing the in-system programming feature of one of our boards). Let me tell you, it is painful. And every time you screw something up that causes the software to fail, you have to wipe and rewrite the flash through a debugging interface. Otherwise, one typo and your camera is toast and you will have to desolder the flash and find a flash programmer, or you're back to your jtag/debugger interface. Is it possible? Yes. Is it a good idea? No. Not exactly the ideal solution to open-sourcing their firmware.

Re:Obvious reason

[jimfrost]

An exposure is based on a combination of three things, that's it: aperture, shutter speed, and sensitivity (ISO speed).

While this is true, the image is more than just the exposure. You get color and intensity sensitivity variations between different kinds of films, for instance. And grain, of course.

If your camera offers a raw format (again, the two I've owned do), these raw files will contain the EXACT values that came off the sensor. If you have a better processing algorithm, you can implement it on your computer, no need to try to shove it into the camera

There's some truth to this, too, but what if you don't want to post-process to get a particular effect (eg emulate T-Max film)? Some people really hate photoshopping every image. This is why there are so many parameters to tune in pro-level digicams.

Besides, the general consensus is that for every application that mere photographic mortals care about, digital cameras CAN take the place of film.

That may be the general consensus amongst laymen, but not amongst photographers. Not yet, anyway. Amongst the two serious limitations of digital versus film today are limited gamut and severely limited exposure lattitude.

It's technically possible to correct both of those, of course, for a price.

But for the majority of photographic situations it's true that there's really no need for film anymore, and a lot of economies in digital.