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

Obvious reason

[fembots]

Why are digital camera manufacturers keeping the lid on the capabilities of their products

I'm guessing any for-profit companies will be keeping the lid on the capabilities of their products, so that they can slowly roll out "new" features every quarter, and consumers will be attracted to upgrading.

when digital cameras could be so much more than their film-based counterparts?

Seriously? I would rather digital cameras function like, and only like a camera. I'm already having hard time finding a standard mobile phone that makes calls, and that's all it does.

Re:Obvious reason

[Dashing Leech]

It is a massive pain to have to leave my cell phone at the front desk.

I'd find it odd that a "secure" facility would not confiscate cell phones in addition to cameras. I've been to a few secure military places and they required cell phones to be left at security.

After all, if a picture is worth a thousand words you could always transmit the same info as the camera in a few minutes (or a few seconds if you are from Newfoundland).

Re:Obvious reason

[pchan-]

As an embedded systems engineer, I'll tell you why:

1) The firmware is highly hardware dependant. You will not be porting this to any other hardware, you won't use it anywhere else. It is of little use to anyone not using your same PCB.
2) There is proprietary, licensed software included, that cannot be redistributed. Particularly the following:
(a) The focus control software (this is the DSP software that figures out when the image is in focus).
(b) The CCD filtering software.
(c) The OS, if any, may be licensed from a third party.
3) There is no way to interface to these devices without a proprietary hardware device costing possibly thousands of Dollars. For example, a common camera chip is the TI DSC24, which can be reprogrammed via a specific JTAG emulator, and requires TI's Code Composer Studio compiler to develop for the DSP part of it. Even if you had this stuff, you won't find a JTAG header on the production boards. This is not a Tivo hack, the number of people that would be able to actually apply a hack to this device is limited to the people who can solder a JTAG interface, or desolder the flash and reprogram it on a flash programmer. This means that even if one guy in Norway can do something cool with this camera, he can't share it with the world.

Re:Obvious reason

[phsdv]

As an electronics engineer with a few years of embedded engineering experience, I do not agree with your statement about JTAG. What you are telling is correct, however most modern cameras can be programmed by putting a special named file on your flash card and by selecting the right commands in the menu you can reprogram your OS or firmware in the camera.

On the Nikon D70 for example there are even 2 different firmwares you can update. Does anyone know which 2 processors are used in the D70? I understand one is used for the user interface and the other for the signal processing(DSP)

So no technical reason to stop us disassembling the code (lateste update for example) and make some changes or extensions and reprogram your camera.

With an JTAG connection debugging would be way easier. Although, we might be able to use the USB port for feeding debuging data back to a PC.

The only real problem I see, is if you really mess up the firmware, you might block the possibility to reprogram the firmware and you end up with a non functional camera...

In the case of the D70 we could start with the DSP only, assuming the other processor can still reprogram the firmware in case of an 'accident'.

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.

because

[spac3manspiff]

They dont want you to port mario 3 to it. I guess

Camera hardware

[chris09876]

Are you planning on writing some custom software to run on your camera? Heh, I'll never stop to be amazed by the creativity of some people! Digital cameras are like Macs - they 'just work'. I haven't heard of any efforts to customize them, or build an open one.

Re:Camera hardware

[jdcook]

The Canon Digital Rebel (a/k/a 300D) is in many ways a crippled version of the Canon 10D. A Russian hacker developed a version of the firmware that unlocks much of the hidden potential of this camera.

A bigger problem ...

[slagdogg]

Ummm, good luck with that. I'm still trying to figure out how to get pictures off of my cell phone without paying @#$%ing Verizon $0.25 every time. Weak.

Re:A bigger problem ...

[Rude Turnip]

Unfortunately, Verizon neuters the Bluetooth capabilities of their phones to force you into using their for-pay services to send pictures and get programs/ringtones, etc.

Many Reasons

[gbulmash]

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?

Two words: "Unintended uses"

The camera manufacturers want to control how their cameras are used, within the realm of what control they can have. Imagine camera hackers adding functionality with the new software, creating software that uses the hardware more efficiently, adding new compression formats... People wouldn't upgrade nearly as soon as they otherwise would.

There are probably some bad examples too: a virus that detects when a camera is connected, updates the firmware, and then without a complete reflash of the ROMs, every time you turn on your camera it starts zooming in and out and you can't stop it. Who wants the bad publicity of being the first camera to be virus infected?

Last, and probably most importantly, the trouble of publishing the specs and documenting the hardware so that programmers could actually really dig into the system... well, it's an expensive proposition. Convince them that enough people who wouldn't have bought the camera would change their minds if there was a programming interface - make it make financial sense - and they might do it.

- Greg

Other option

[CypherXero]

Instead of trying to fuck up your camera, why not just give it to me? I'm sure I could use it. :)

Closed Digital Cameras - Does Anyone Care?

[supersuckers]

Answer: no. Where's my open source cell phone, playstation 2, ipod, microwave oven, roomba, etc? Most people are only concerned that the product they use functions as it was intended.

Re:Closed Digital Cameras - Does Anyone Care?

[N0decam]

More important than functioning as it was intended is functioning as it's expected.

My digital camera lets me take pictures, and lets me do whatever I want with my pictures. That's why you don't see people getting up in arms about the lack of openness of digital cameras, but you do see active communities built up around "hacking" cell phones to remove artificial restrictions.

Sure it's possible that some hardware hacking could result in some new whiz bang feature in my camera, but honestly, I (and I assume many others) don't use 99% of the whiz bang features that are already enabled on my camera, so why do I need more?

On the other hand, I'd never buy a cameraphone that didn't let me download my pictures to my computer and use them myself without paying a fee to the service provider. That's just insane, and wrong.

Why??

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it you want access to change? The camera really has 2 or 3 base functions that can only be improved within the confines of the hardware. Why does everything have to be open? Just because it's there and you like to hack?
I'm not flaming/trolling, I just don't see the point of your question...

Sorry if this sounds like a troll, but

[Lord Kano]

I don't care how my digicam does it, as long as the files are available to me in a format that I can use.

My visioneer camera gives me .jpgs and .avis that I can get via a USB cable. It makes no difference to me how they end up on the flash memory device.

LK

Why?

[ucblockhead]

Because the vast majority of people just want to take pictures, and the last thing camera companies want to do is spend lots of time documenting stuff and answering support questions from the ten or so people who might want to do this.

I would imagine...

[harrkev]

I would imagine because nobody cares...

If you are starting from scratch, there is a lot to screw up. First of all, you need to get the metering right, which is far from trivial. You also need to be able to auto-focus, which is also far from trivial. And this is AFTER you figure out the interface to the CCD, LCD, and buttons. Plus, you have to know how to control the zoom motor, auto-focus motor, and flash.

If you DID re-invent the wheel (and did a good job of it), what do you gain at the end? Sure, you might be able to improve metering a little. You might be able to improve the user interface. But if a camera has a raw file format, you are already getting all of the quality that the hardware can deliver. And JPEG already has pretty good compression, so it is hard to improve on that.

I saved the best part for last. You go through all of this work on a 5MP camera, which is discontinued after one year and replaced by a 7MP model with a different architecture. So, you decide to upgrade, and throw all of your work in the trash.

If you want to, feel free. But include me out.

phone cameras

[raygundan]

What phone are you using? I went through a couple of them, and had good luck with third-party cables and software. I had an LG-VX6000 before i moved to Sprint, if i remember right. A $25 cable and the freeware bitpim software allowed me to pull the pics off without paying verizon. I believe it supports quite a few brands and types of phones.

Software = product differentiation

[terminal.dk]

The difference between digital cameras are often the software. The same camera can be sold in different packges (Canon IXUS/Elph vs their S-series vs G-series), and they are basicly the same camera with different sensors and packaging.

The cheap cameras has very bad image processing algorithms, so they would gain from open software. They would still use an old plastic bottle for molding the lens though.

The famous example of camera hacking is the Russian hack for the low-end Canon EOS 300D. 2 bytes changed enabled the custom functions menu of the big brother, the 10D. Then there were a few more mods. Think the best firmware had 20 bytes changed, and closed the gap between the 2 products.

The is also lots of things that are the same between the Canon 20D and the Canon 1D Mk II. If the extra features were enabled in the 20D, there would be even less reason to pay 3 times as much for the 1D Mk II. (It also has more buffer RAM + weather sealing).

So it is there in the hope they can sell the same product as 3 different ones.

MAME; Re:One reason for open cameras

[jdunlevy]

The only reason I can think of for having an open-source camera OS is so someone could port MAME to it.

You mean like this?

Digital Rebel Hacked Firmware

[`Sean]

Here's the main info page that gives an English overview of all the hacked features: http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital -rebel-tricks.html

Re:Some People...

[cbiffle]

Personally, I like to have a nice, working, manufacturer supported camera more than I like having a 1337 LEENOOKS-2000 fuzzy image device. But then, I also stopped using Gimp and Linux in favor of Mac and Photoshop, so flame on.

I really hope the parent was tongue-in-cheek. In terms of a modern digital camera, my DiMAGE A2:

1. Turn it into a temporary USB data storage device if it has a USB port on it

Check.

2. If it has audio capability, turn it into a digital audio recorder that works kind of like a mini-cassette recorder (ie. shitty quality, but lots of record time)

Check. The video function works fine for this, and if you leave the lens cap on, the black-frame video takes up almost no space.

3. Make it into a "cam" that can be attached to your PC for live web cam stuff

Check.

4. Turn it into a video recorder for short clips in a format like MJPEG

Check. You have, y'know, used a digital camera, right? MJPEG's been the main video capture format for years, only now being supplanted with MPEG4.

7. Set it up for motion sensitive mode. It will span a picture only when something in the field of view moves
8. Or similar to above, in motion sensitive mode with USB, it could just dump the image straight to your PC whenever there is motion. Imagine combining this with a laptop to work as a spycam...


Check, check.

That said:

5. Make it into an e-book reader that can read PDF or Postscript docs (after all many digital cameras have scroll wheels and multiple menu buttons, etc...)
6. Play some old school video games on them: Space Invaders, Pac Man, maybe even Doom. Doom's been done before...
9. MP3 or Ogg Vobis player the works from CD or Flash media (again if your camera has audio capability)
10. A USB video monitor. Combine your camera with a Mac Mini and a foldup KB and mouse and you have a pretty compact but powerful system for travelling. (Yes, I don't mind squinting at small screens)

The fascination people have with putting Ogg/DOOM/eBooks on random objects amuses the hell out of me. I have a Vorbis player on my iPaq, and an eBook reader on my iPod, and never use either of them. As for porting games...oi. I recommend a GameBoy.

In response to the original poster, my camera's a MIPS, according to my firmware disassembly. Here's something I'm amazed nobody has mentioned:

My camera's firmware contains a TCP stack, PPP implementation, SMTP implementation, and dinky FTP server. It's pretty clear that the manufacturer intends (or intended) to release a modem of some sort. Yet, nobody seems to have mentioned network connectivity!

you know it's true...

[Thud457]

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

Brief overview of digital camera chipsets

[Anonymous Coward]

- Canon D30/D60/10D/20D: 8086 microcontroller running ROM-DOS

- Canon 1D/1Ds: PowerPC running VxWorks

- Canon 1D/1Ds Mark II: ARM running VxWorks

- Canon Powershot Sxxx/Axxx cameras: MIPS, some may use ARM.

- Nikon D-SLRs (D2X, D2H, D100, D70): Fujitsu FR-V, running FR/OS (some FR-V chips run Linux too!)

- Nikon Coolpix cameras: SPARC, uses Sierra OEM toolkit

- Sigma/Foveon SD10/SD20: ARM, running Foveon toolkit on custom FPGA