Hacking Canon Point-and-Shoot Cameras

Pig Hogger writes "If you're stuck with a cheap Canon point-and-shoot camera and have feature envy over the neighbor's sophisticated latest model, fret not! According to this LifeHacker article, the CHDK project allows nearly complete programmatic control of cheap Canon point-and-shoot cameras, enabling users to add features, up to and including games and BASIC scripting."

Comments

The most important question

[Thelasko]

What's the cheapest camera on the list?

Re:The most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new. The real question is "does it run linux"

Re:The most important question

[jimicus]

Take a look at the list. There's a lot of cameras it supports past and present; I'd suggest you look around ebay.

Re:The most important question

[Aggrajag]

I am currently porting CHDK to A430 which cost me around $100 when I bought it about a year ago.

Re:The most important question

[Xabraxas]

Nope. It runs VxWorks, at least that is what the firmware dump from my Canon indicates.

Re:The most important question

[apt-get moo]

A good firmware won't help you in any way if you are limited by the specs of your camera. You should go for the best combination of a good (i.e. not too small) CCD and the zoom coverage you need. The G7 and the SD870/ Ixus860 would be some good picks.

Re:The most important question

[sdnoob]

A good firmware won't help you in any way if you are limited by the specs of your camera. or if the camera is limited by the 'specs' of the person wielding it. P&S digital camera owners, for the most part, are among the WORST photographers ever!

Re:The most important question

[dgbrownnt]

I'm just sad my PowerShot SD950IS isn't on the list [yet] :-(

(my EOS 10D is laughing at it from the other room)

Re:The most important question

[harry666t]

These days everything runs Linux.

The REAL question is: "Does it run OS X?"

Re:The most important question

[jimicus]

I did install it to see if it would do anything funky like give me faster shutter speeds. It didn't, but I've got an A610 which is probably just about high enough in the range that the default Canon firmware is pushing the hardware about as far as it will sensibly go anyway.

I would like tethered shooting re-enabled, though. I used to have a Canon A80 which did support that, but Canon (in their infinite wisdom) later decided to disable that for any model that wasn't absolute top of the line.

Re:The most important question

[encoderer]

Eat shit and die, troll. ...oh, wait...

Re:The most important question

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

Well, P&S digital camera owners, for the most part, didn't buy their cameras to practice the art of photography. They bought them to take simple snapshots of their friends and family.

Re:The most important question

[Theoboley]

...and this was posted why...?

Re:The most important question

[Oktober Sunset]

Because he was too slow to get a first post. Can't get into GNAA unless it's a fist post silly troll.

Re:The most important question

[Hognoxious]

Tethered shooting? Is that some really strande way of saying that you use a cable release?

Re:The most important question

[jimicus]

Tethered shooting? Is that some really strande way of saying that you use a cable release? Tethered to a PC. Most earlier Canon point & shoots could be told to take a shot by a PC connected to the USB port, but somewhere along the line Canon decided this feature should be reserved for the absolute top of the range model. I can't believe maintaining the feature in the cheaper models would have cost them any money - I think it's far more likely that they wanted to make sure that anyone who was that bothered about what Canon perceived as being a relatively advanced feature went out and bought the expensive camera, even if there was little or no photographic benefit over a cheaper model.

Shame, really. Software-controlled shooting via a USB port allows all sorts of fun timelapse things without messing around with (usually extremely expensive) specialist hardware.

Re:The most important question

[exhilaration]

The Canon 570IS as of a few months ago. I bought my 570IS from Amazon for $152 after reading about CHDK and verifying that it was compatible. My favorite feature is the exposure bracketing. Using it, I've created some great HDR shots.

Pointless

[Uncle Focker]

enabling users to add features, up to and including games and BASIC scripting." Just what everyone in the world was clamoring for: games for their camera.

Re:Pointless

[Intron]

I need games on my camera. I'm running out of room on my cell phone.

Re:Pointless

[Bastard of Subhumani]

My cellphone IS my camera, you insensitive clod!!!!

Re:Pointless

[J-1000]

It's for more than that of course. It allows you to enable certain camera functions that do not exist in the shipping firmware, like RAW mode.

Re:Pointless

[CRCulver]

Just what everyone in the world was clamoring for: games for their camera.

While games are a nice gimmick that gets the project attention, it looks like there are real features here. Me, after I lost my old Powershot I bought in 2004, I got a new Powershot A550. I was unhappy, however, to see that it had even less features than the old Powershot. Instead of trickling whizbang features down into cheaper cameras over time, Canon has been getting rid of them altogether. Now, one missing feature is hardware, the swivel viewfinder, and I can't do anything to remedy that. Similarly, I cannot use the camera as a webcam with a few hacks like I could the old one. However, this open firmware project will restore my precious RAW capabilities. It will also give me longer exposure times that I've long craved.

Re:Pointless

[Pope]

The first big hack I heard about years ago was getting MAME on some early Kodaks. Now THAT is silly & fun!

Re:Pointless

[Chris Burke]

Well I'm assuming that's just some initial hacks they got working.

What I really want to know is if you can disable the software that prevents the camera from stealing the souls of those photographed. Digital cameras are amazingly convenient and powerful compared to their non-digital ancestors, but they're useless to me unless I can steal souls.

Re:Pointless

[vought]

which is mostly useless on a camera with a sensor that small.


You don't understand what RAW is for, do you?

RAW allows post-capture editing of exposure, white balance and possibly other parameters. Sensor size matters not - the 4MP Canon 1Ds generated RAW mode files from an APS-C-sized sensor...would you have pooh-poohed that capability?

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

The scripting is actually the one that interested me, as you could theoretically use it to create a time-lapse mode or maybe even a motion-sensing mode. Or better yet, a motion-sensing, time lapse mode.

A $150 Powershot A550 could make a handy, portable, inexpensive, high resolution, and highly portable security camera. Assuming the camera can handle the amount of scripting necessary, it could be pretty versatile. 2 MP jpg's in basic mode run about 300 kB each, so at 1 fps, you could fit almost an hour of coverage per GB of memory.

Also, none of the SD cameras have real manual modes. If this hack can add that. That would be a sweet addition. I'm guessing a useful video compression would be beyond the capabilities of this hack. Canon P&S cameras make huge files in movie mode.

Last time I checked out this project, they weren't claiming Digic III support yet, so I wasn't ready to try it out on my SD800. Might be time to look the mod over again.

Re:Pointless

[actionbastard]

These 'hacks' are not going to make this camera take better pictures.
They are not going to improve the quality of the optical system in the camera.
The CCD is not going to magically get more pixels.
So all it does is give you more knobs to twiddle so you lose that
'Kodak Moment' because you were screwing with the knobs instead of taking pictures.

Re:Pointless

[xtracto]

It is really cool. I just read this and installed it on my PowerShot A530. I ran some tests with a DOFStacker + CombineZM and shoot some RAW pics.

IMHO it has some really nice features so that we casual photographers can get more from the cameras.

Of course I won't be taking all my pictures in RAW but it is nice to have some of those features. Oh! and the optical-zoom while in video is a really useful and simple feature.

There are tons of other functions that *really* make CHDK shine...

Re:Pointless

[kcbanner]

I don't think you own a camera.

Re:Pointless

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Sensor size in that case is not measured in megapixels. APS-C is something like 28mm sensor. A typical point and shoot might have something like an 8mm sensor, and the smaller the sensor, the more likely it seems to be able to pick up noise. I think it stands to reason that if you want RAW, you might want to get a unit that's got a bigger / better sensor and lens anyway.

Re:Pointless

[mungmaster2000]

Everyone's got a camera-phone these days. Fuck that. I want to know when I can get a phone in my camera.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

but they're useless to me unless I can steal souls. I think Leica holds the patent for that.

Re:Pointless

[dgatwood]

Au contraire. Adding RAW support to a camera in which it has been disabled actually gives you fewer knobs to twiddle while shooting. Instead of having to get the dynamic range perfect to avoid clipping when the camera converts the image to JPEG, you get the full dynamic range of the sensor shoved straight to disk. This means that photos that might have been hopelessly washed out before are now salvageable, at least partially freeing you to focus on what matters---the picture itself---instead of having to get the aperture exactly right. You still need to be in the ballpark, but that can make the difference between having to use full manual (or worse, having to completely change the orientation of all participants and the photographer to avoid backlighting) and being able to get away with just shooting the shot in Program AE mode....

Re:Pointless

[goatpunch]

RAW gives you more image information, as you haven't gone through a lossy RAW->JPEG conversion. Whether this is to correct an under/over-exposed picture (or both*), or to compensate for an incorrect (or impossible**) white balance setting.

You're right, a bigger sensor and lens will give you a better picture. But for a given maximum camera size, RAW will give you the potential*** for better images than JPEG. Perfect for an undercover paparazzo who needs to blow up that discreet underexposed celebrity shot to sell to US Magazine.

A decent analogy is that with JPEG you've thrown away the 'negative', and are left with only a print of the image, throwing away the rest of the information contained in the negative. If you really care about the image, or are going to spend hours working with it in photoshop, wouldn't you rather be working with an image taken from the negative, rather than the print?

* example of an under- and over- exposed picture: a person wearing a hat on a sunny day. The outside of the cap can be overexposed, while their face is underexposed. As RAW stores the image with a higher colour bit depth, you've got a chance of recovering the over and under exposed area.

** example of 'impossible' white balance: a room lit by candlelight, which has a window with an overcast sky outside. Either the room will look orange, or the window will look blue, or both- there's no way to make both areas of the picture look correct with one white balance setting. Changing the white balance of one area of the JPEG that radically will throw away masses of information, and look terrible. With RAW, you can render the picture twice with two different white balance values, one for the overcast sky, and one for the candle, and merge the two images together.

*** With a perfectly exposed picture that has the correct colour depth, the only real advantage of RAW is that you avoid the JPEG compression, but with these small sensors you're probably only going to see noise there instead of the compression, so it won't make a lot of difference.

Re:Pointless

[gparent]

Or perhaps you can record your nightly kodak moment even better because of the longer exposure times available?

Re:Pointless

[WNight]

Or, that if you already have the camera and want more quality, that raw could provide it.

Re:Pointless

[MrCrassic]

To add to all of the information above, the purpose of a point-and-shoot is to make acceptable pictures that cover most common lighting situations. This means that a lot of JPEG compression/on-board editing has to be done to make that happen. For these kinds of cameras, the RAW exports are going to be much worse than that of an SLR because of the size of these sensors (those on SLR cameras are several millimeters larger). However, this is correctable on Adobe Camera RAW or similar software.

Re:Pointless

[commodoresloat]

they're useless to me unless I can steal souls. Give it some time; they're trying to get Windows installed on these cameras.

Re:Pointless

[i.of.the.storm]

How early? I've got a Kodak DX6490 from 2003/4, can I do that?

Ahh, nvm, here it is for anyone else that's interested: http://digita.mame.net/ The DX6490 has a nice thumbstick-like thing and a 2" screen so the first thing I thought of when we got it was OMG this should have games on it. Alas, no...

Re:Pointless

[LinuxOnEveryDesktop]

Now, one missing feature is hardware, the swivel viewfinder, and I can't do anything to remedy that.

You should have bought a Nikon Coolpix S10 :)

Re:Pointless

[ShakaUVM]

>>Just what everyone in the world was clamoring for: games for their camera.

I have had CHDK installed on my A620 for a while now, mainly so that I can use it to do exposure bracketing so that I can take HDR photos automatically (using Photomatix Pro to piece them together).

But -- while hanging out at Tahoe with some buddies of mine -- we started talking about Nethack. Without saying another word, I clicked on my camera, turned on CHDK Sokoban, and handed it to a friend of mine, who was duly impressed.

That's what hardware hacking is all about, kids - impressing your nerdy friends.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither do you, apparently.

Avoiding the lossy compression of JPEG lets you record the image more accurately, it's true, but the problem with these small sensors is that unless you're shooting in absolutely ideal conditions, they're recording well into the noise floor already. So having RAW means you'll just have more accurately rendered noise, which means very little.

Almost everything about this post is wrong, which makes a (Score:5 Insightful) mystifying. The 1Ds uses a 11MP, full 35mm sensor. Perhaps you are referring to the original 1D, which did have a 4MP sensor, but it was APS-H sized (1.3x crop factor from 35mm), not APS-C (1.6 crop factor from 35mm). This is still many many times larger than the sensors on these tiny digicams. So each pixel on the 4MP 1D gets many times the light that a pixel on a 12MP point and shoot gets, and so has much less noise, even though it's almost 8 years old now.

This makes RAW data exceptionally useful on the 1D, and near useless on your garden-variety digicam.

Re:Pointless

[shellbeach]

which is mostly useless on a camera with a sensor that small.


You don't understand what RAW is for, do you? Actually, he/she does. I use CHDK, and I can tell you that there's very little extra info in those 10-bit raw files (that's all you get from the Canon P&S line). Remember that a lot of that extra room already goes in whitebalance correction.

You *can* get a bit more non-colour information out of the highlights if you really push it, but really ... I've just gone back to shooting jpegs, mostly. 10-bit RAW files aren't pretty.

That said, it's still nice to have the capability, but in the real world it's just not that useful most of the time. What *is* really nice about CHDK are the live histogram capabilities -- the live merged RGB histo is outstanding in getting the exposure right (and I don't know of any other P&S camera that provides this capability).

Re:Pointless

[twokay]

The A640 i bought recently has the swivel viewfinder which is indeed very handy. Especially if you like taking pictures of stuff from mad angles. I found that for £169 new, so prolly not a great deal more than a 550. Prices seem to be much higher now for some reason tho. Id like to enable RAW mode on mine, but without loosing the functionality of the official firmware... guess i better RTFA.

Re:Pointless

[Harold Halloway]

Best game for a camera: Snap.

Re:Pointless

[aliquis]

So the sensor data doesn't cover information "outside" the dynamic range of one exposure setting?
Some with color (dynamic) range, it doesn't contain more color information than what would exist in the JPEG?

I had the impression that the sensor just delivers it's data (RAW) and that your exposure and white balance settings among other things decide what parts are used of that data and how it are handled in the final image which are then encoded in JPEG.

But from your post it sounds more like it's just that you are losing some quality due to the lossy nature of JPEG if you want to do something with the image afterward.

I can see how that may be the case with exposure settings, because I guess then you may change aperture and shutter times thru the exposure setting, so maybe the RAW image don't contain data for many different exposures but just for the one you used (thought still more data which makes it a better candidate for adjusting the levels of each tone.)
Does the sensor eventually use a bigger color space than what will show in the JPEG and kind of strips off some data depending on the choosen white balance? Or are the only difference here say 8 vs 14 bit / color and therefor a "smoother range" if you start to tweak/change the white balance? (Or well, if the white balance are wrong I can see how reducing that say 14 bit 0-x range into say 8 bit 20-x will result to a quality loss, because if you try to stretch out that 20-x into 0-x again you will get "gaps" in tones, which wouldn't happen if the image data was 14 bit and the environment which showed the image rendered it in 8 bit. But like, does changing the white balance in a photo taken in RAW do any different at all in the sensor settings / RAW image or don't it count as all except as some information for the renderer of the image data to have something to go from? Like, if I shoot the same image at say 5000k and then at 8000k, then open the image in an application for RAW images and set the while balance to 6500k in both, will they contain the same data? Because with JPEG they would ofcourse not.)

I don't own a DSLR so I don't know that much about it. And I kind of blown my money on other crap (Fleshlight inserts for instance, seriously!) and I would want a MIDI controller so DSLR may have to wait. The Pentax k100ds are very cheap now thought =P, but I'd prefer the k20d anyway ;)

Re:Pointless

[aliquis]

It's all a blur anyway ;)

Re:Pointless

[junglee_iitk]

BS. RAW images taken from CHDK don't contain high colorspace, there is no dynamic range - ergo RAW with point and shoot camera is of no use if you want to create HDR, or play with white-balance without fudging it in reality.

I can give that JPEG artifacts are not there - but most of times such an option is already present in the camera. RAW with CHDK is a toy to play with, and no body can use it for any serious purpose.

Re:Pointless

[LordVader717]

How about this one?

Re:Pointless

[4D6963]

they're useless to me unless I can steal souls. Give it some time; they're trying to get Windows installed on these cameras.

He wants to steal other people's souls, not lose his own, you insensitive clod!

Re:Pointless

[electrosoccertux]

Does it enable focus while in video mode? That's a shortcoming to the Canons-- the starting focus is the focal point that the rest of the movie is going to be at. Presumably because the gears moving would feed back into the mic too much. You would think they'd get with Bose to noise-cancel the grinding out. Oh well.

Re:Pointless

[commanderfoxtrot]

RAW gives you more image information, as you haven't gone through a lossy RAW->JPEG conversion. Whether this is to correct an under/over-exposed picture (or both*), or to compensate for an incorrect (or impossible**) white balance setting. You're correct, but people may, reading it, be under the impression the problem is the JPEG compression.

RAW gives you the full bits per pixel available. This can be up to 14 in the recent DSLRs. Let's assume a P&S can give you 10 bits/pixel.

That's two more stops than a standard 8-bit JPEG, even at "maximum quality".

JPEG compression artifacts aren't the real problem - it's the colour depth available in RAW.

So shooting RAW allows you to rescue the highlights and shadows. JPEG compression artifacts are a red herring.

Of course, if we used PNG or 16-bit capable JPEG (with full EXIF), then there wouldn't really be this problem...

Re:Pointless

[goatpunch]

What's BS about a 10-bit per channel RAW image having more information than an 8-bit per channel jpeg? Also, the RAW information is linear, and JPEG is logarithmic- so darker areas will have far more information in RAW than in JPEG, before the tone curve has been applied.

The RAW image has literally no concept of white balance- it's just the data from the sensor. The white balance conversion is 'fudging it' so that the picture looks correct for our eyes. By fudging it at home on your PC, rather than in the first split second after the photo is taken, you avoid losing unnecessary image information.

One other point about RAW is that with some of these cameras, the RAW image is also bigger- the JPEG crops off the edges of the sensor!

With RAW you're going to get the best picture possible from a given sensor, rather than developing your image and throwing away the negative in the first tenth of a second.

Re:Pointless

[Fumus]

1. Install linux on it.
2. apt-get soul-stealer
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:Pointless

[goatpunch]

RAW gives you more image information, as you haven't gone through a lossy RAW->JPEG conversion. Whether this is to correct an under/over-exposed picture (or both*), or to compensate for an incorrect (or impossible**) white balance setting.

You're correct, but people may, reading it, be under the impression the problem is the JPEG compression.

Only if they read that sentence alone, and ignored the rest of the post where I go on about white balance and over/under exposure. As I mentioned at the end of the post, JPEG artifacts aren't really much of an issue with a sensor like this- you're just exchanging one type of noise for another. With a DSLR however, JPEG artifacts are a huge issue- in good lighting conditions detail is resolvable down to individual pixels. This gives a significant improvment over JPEG if you are enlarging or performing a lot of processing on the image. Even with a DSLR though, if you take a perfect image, and print it out as-is, RAW gives no real advantage over 8-bit JPEG.

Re:Pointless

[goatpunch]

When you take a RAW image, the only camera settings that you have to worry about are the aperture, the shutter speed, and the ISO setting (of course you still need to focus/autofocus and point the camera in the right direction, etc.).

The RAW image is just the data that is coming off the sensor, without any processing. The image sensor, and therefore the RAW data saved from it, can have no concept of 'white balance' - this is a shifting of the colours in the image that takes place in the image processing software, to make the finished image look more acceptable to us in most lighing conditions. A white balance setting is often stored in the EXIF data for the RAW image, but this is just used as a default setting when you open the image in your processing software, it doesn't affect the actual data.

Like, if I shoot the same image at say 5000k and then at 8000k, then open the image in an application for RAW images and set the while balance to 6500k in both, will they contain the same data? (Because with JPEG they would of course not.)

Yes, you're exactly right, the data on the sensor in both cases will be the same- the white balance shift that occurs during processing will not have taken place.

Re:Pointless

[cthulhu11]

And YOU don't understand that "raw" is a word not an acronym, and shouldn't be uppercased.

Re:Pointless

[RedShoeRider]

"The 4MP Canon 1DS generated RAW mode files from an APC-C"....WTF?

The 1DS is an 11.1MP camera, generating RAW mode files from a full-frame 35mm sensor, the first one of its kind to go into mass production. (cue the bitching about the DCS14n being first, but Kodak was late to the game with it even though it was announced first, and it still sucked when it did come out)

What? You want sources, too? Ok....http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/

There ya go.

Re:Pointless

[aliquis]

And the bracketing or whatever it's called for exposure, like "ev +1" or whatever the camera may say, that just change aperture and shutter time on top of what the automatic settings want? It doesn't change the processing of sensor data to jpeg at all?

Regarding the ISO, does it really boost the sensetivity or does say iso 200 over iso 100 just exposure with half the light, get the pixels 0 to 0.5 saturated so to speak instead of 0 to 1 and then just stretch the catched light into 0-1 saturation?
That is, would an image of (same aperture setting) say shutter speed 1/200 and iso 200 look the same as an image of say shutter speed 1/200 and iso 100 but with all the values multiplied by 2?
Or is the boost of the sensor better somehow? (I guess one could make like iso 128.000 in software by just expose for way to short time and then raise the brightness of the image a lot, of course it would look as shit, but that is to be expected.)

Oh, and thanks for your answer :)

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, exposure compensation == manually overriding the automatic metering.

When you change the ISO setting, you generally change the sensitivity of the sensor itself (like a volume control). Some cameras have a so-called expanded ISO range (some times in both ends, e.g. ISO 50 at the lower end and ISO 3200-6400 at the top end). When you select these expanded ISO settings the camera will adjust the captured data mathematically. One example is the new Nikon D3, where you can select an expanded ISO value of 25 600. What happens then is that the camera boosts captured data from its highest native ISO setting (I think for the D3 the highest native ISO is 3200 or 6400). And yeah, boosting image data like that will increase noise, but some times you need a correct exposure there and then and don't have time to fiddle with post-processing on a computer (think photo-journalists).

Re:Pointless

[vought]

Sorry; I meant to type "Canon 1D" instead of 1DS. The 1D was in fact an APS-sensor sized camera with a 4.1MP resolution, introduced in late 2001.

There have been several 1-D models: 1D, 1D Mark II, 1Ds, 1Ds Mark II, 1D Mark III, 1Ds Mark III, etc.

Re:Pointless

[junglee_iitk]

I am not against RAW images. I just think it is not very useful to have RAW images when you have a crappy camera in the first place, a camera which was not designed for RAW images.

Re:Pointless

[junglee_iitk]

Anyway, I have reinstalled CHDK again. Video compression is good enough reason :)

Re:Pointless

[AmericanInKiev]

I agree,
This short coming of video on digital cameras should be loudly proclaimed from the dumb-as-turd consumer review sites (yes dpreview).

I mean who cares more about the millisecond it takes from camera to boot, or whether the camera can zoom in on your child when she's soloing in the school concert?

And don't tell me the video is a second-class citizen on my still camera -

As for motor noise, so it slowly, hell do it slowly anyway; who wants jumpy zoom?

If dpreview had been beating up on cameras makers for this feature, they wouldn't be so far behind.

My experience with overseas engineers is that the products don't match customers needs very well UNLESS consumers are particularly squeky.

We build these products ourselves of course, but they a fiddling with currency - so its tricky at best.

ramble ramble...

Re:Pointless

[ewanm89]

Onboard camera processing gets faster but not as good algorithms being used for the processing. With RAW you don't have any of this processing, leaving it to the more powerful desktop you use later.

Re:Pointless

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Personally, if I'm going to get another point and shoot, I'm going to buy a G9 or similar model. It has a fairly large sensor for the type of camera, has a good lens and it supports RAW. The larger sensor size usually helps allow high ISO shooting anyway.

It's questionable whether you can get more than 8 bits effective dynamic range on a small sensor, especially if it's really high in megapixels.

Re:Pointless

[authortitle]

My Casio EX-Z750 does live RGB histogram, and very useful it is too. Fantastic camera :)

Re:Pointless

[shellbeach]

My Casio EX-Z750 does live RGB histogram, and very useful it is too. Fantastic camera :) Yeah, it's funny about Casios -- I seem to recall that they used Canon lenses, and had an astonishing array of features in their UIs. I just looked up the review on dpreview, and I see you're right -- you do get a merged histo of sorts. Not quite as nice as CHDK's implementation (e.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Zebra_diagonal.gif) but still better than any other P&S I've seen.

Nice little camera :)

How long before...

[Thelasko]

they cripple the cameras like Linksys did with the WRT54G?

Re:How long before...

[kidgenius]

How did Linksys cripple the 54G? IIRC, they came out with the 54GL variant to keep the hacker crowd happy.

Re:How long before...

[Ford Prefect]

If it's anything like the 300D versus the 350D, they'll notice that people are hacking features back into the camera, and enable them by default on the newer model.

(Is there any alternative firmware for the 350D onwards, or have the hackers simply not bothered?)

Re:How long before...

[Anonymous Coward]

As others noted, WRT54G wasn't so much limited, as it wasn't fully utilized. Hackers, of the coding variety (not script kiddies) made a lot of really interesting improvements on variants of the WRT54G series, many included in this list of third-party firmware

Re:How long before...

[mog007]

Later revisions of 54G routers had less memory, and slower processors. Such a gimped amount of memory it took a long time to get a build of Linux that would fit.

Re:How long before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Later revisions of 54G routers had less memory, and slower processors. Such a gimped amount of memory it took a long time to get a build of Linux that would fit.

Or, they decided to reduce their manufacturing costs by only using the amount of memory & processor power needed to run their firmware.

Saving a buck per router adds up when you're making thousands (millions?) of them.

Re:How long before...

[jimicus]

(Is there any alternative firmware for the 350D onwards, or have the hackers simply not bothered?) Not that I'm aware of, and I've got a 400D so I'd be interested to know as well.

The main reason there were hardware hacks for the 350D is because it was basically a higher-end camera (can't remember exactly which model - 30D?) in a cheap plastic shell with a crippled firmware. I suspect the differences between the product lines are a touch more pronounced these days - either that or they're checking the firmware at boot to ensure it is correct for the model.

Re:How long before...

[ColaMan]

It was hardly done just to spite the hackers.

If your product still runs adequately with :
- less RAM (cheaper!)
- a slower processor (cheaper!)

Then you go ahead and make the change to:
- increase profit margins
- keep up with your competitors so they don't price you out of the market.

Pretty clear-cut business case. In their case, they went out of their way to provide the original model again, pretty much just for hackers. They could've just dropped the old version, y'know.

Re:How long before...

[mrchaotica]

How did Linksys cripple the 54G? IIRC, they came out with the 54GL variant to keep the hacker crowd happy.

No, they renamed the original G to GL, jacked the price up $20, then came out with a new, shitty router that they named G for the same price that the better hardware had been before. And all this while hardware costs should have been going down anyway (as is the general trend in technology).

(Have you got a hint abut why people are pissed off yet?)

Re:How long before...

[mrchaotica]

Pretty clear-cut business case. In their case, they went out of their way to provide the original model again, pretty much just for hackers. They could've just dropped the old version, y'know.

For every hacker they retained by keeping the GL, they pissed off two others (like me) who resented being asked to pay $20 more than we had been for the same hardware (or the same price for inferior hardware). Prices on technology are supposed to go down, not up, as the product gets older!

Because of that bullshit, I'm specifically avoiding Linksys for my future router purchases.

Re:How long before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linksysy saw that earlier models (the first 4m IIRC) were popular with hackers, so they cut the memory in half and came out with a more expensive version (the GL) with... the exact same specs as the original. The 54G is still a really nice router, but it's crappy behavior from the company that ticks me off.

Re:How long before...

[MrCrassic]

I own and frequently use the 300D, and it's pretty obvious to any previous or current owner of this camera that this camera was Canon's experiment into consumer-priced SLRs, as it was nearly feature equivalent to the 10D (the only difference was the buffer size and 0.5 second shutter speed difference). The separation between the Rebels and the double-digit cameras has been widening ever since.

A great example is the Canon 400D and 450D. While they do take stunning pictures and are great SLR cameras in their own right, they are by far not on the same level of operation as the 30D and 40D, respectively. The feature and hardware gap are too great to upgrade those cameras to the higher-priced ones.

Regardless of which, I believe that Canon's offerings on the low-end have consistently been better than that of Nikon's, as their lowest end doesn't even come with a separate info screen (it's all software). On top of that, it's more expensive anyway.

Re:How long before...

[tsu doh nimh]

I would tell anyone who'd listen that if you own one of these cheapish but otherwise excellent point-and-shoot cameras (mine is a Canon Powershot A510), if you're looking for a great use for it, consider putting it to use as a Web cam, or a motion detector.

I spent quite a bit of time researching this project, and am not affiliated with either company I mention here, nor do I stand to gain from mentioning them. I only cite their names here b/c I was looking for a cheap way to get good quality, auto-recorded video and photo shots of hummingbirds and other birds visiting our feeder, and was amazed at how easy and cheap this was given the alternatives (crappy webcams, etc).

First step up was downloading PSremote, which works with most brands of point and shoots, but most particularly Cannon. It lets you control the camera entirely, from the zoom to the shutter speed and exposure -- from the computer, assuming it's connected to the PC using the supplied cable.

Add to that setup Webcam Zone Trigger, which interacts with that software to let you define "hotspots" and the level of motion detection that should trigger recording in those spots, and you now have a new life for that old camera you don't use anymore. Total cost: $100.

Re:How long before...

[MobileC]

The only thing the 350D is crying out for is ISO expansion.
It's got the Dig!c II chip, I want ISO3200 dammit!

Re:How long before...

[ColaMan]

....resented being asked to pay $20 more than we had been for the same hardware....

Without being privy to Linksys's internal discussions on this, again I would suggest that economies of scale come into it.

Eg.

  - You, the manufacturer, introduce another model with equivalent performance that supersedes the old model.
  - You recognise that there's a market for the old type , thus you want to keep the old model about for the hackers.
    - You figure that you'll only sell 1/10th of previous volume you were selling, considering that the usual plebs that buy your routers don't give a damn about modding them.
  - You need to make a profit on whatever you sell (you don't care about hackers *that* much).
  - Your manufacturing plant in China says that it will cost x percent more per unit to do a smaller production run of the old model, what with warehousing, having to stock different parts,etc.
  - You add x percent to cover the costs of this.
  - You add y percent simply because you know you're now selling a specialty product and hackers will pay a premium for them.

This last percentage takes quite a bit of economic theory and experience to work out. I don't begrudge Linksys this premium. You do, and fair enough - everyone is different. It's the fine line between number of sales / total profit that they walk, and every manufacturer walks it.

Re:How long before...

[nguy]

That's because they factor the decrease in hardware cost over the lifetime of the product into their profit calculations. In different words, they had to move to the cheaper hardware for the mass market product.

The GL, having smaller sales volume, ended up being more expensive. It's still a good deal for what it is.

Sorry, but this isn't some evil master plan, it's simple economics and product life cycle.

Re:How long before...

[Hal_Porter]

You don't understand marketing. The vast majority of people that buy routers want something cheap and don't care what OS it runs. They worked a way to make the WRT54G cheaper by switching from Linux to VxWorks. vxWorks has a license fee but that was offset by using a smaller flash chip. Actually later on they seemed to change to a cheaper chipset too, but that doesn't matter for people that don't want to run third party code on it. Essentially it's a disposable product and that must have reduced the build price.

A small minority want a customisable Linux based router. So they reintroduced the old design with the larger flash chip and charged an extra $20 for it for them. So the majority get a cheap router, Linksys probably charges a higher margin and the hackers get a product which supports them. Everyone's happy.

Re:How long before...

[moosesocks]

This is due to Economies of scale. If you're producing less, the cost per unit is going to be greater.

$20 also isn't a terribly high cost to pay for the added functionality that the Linux units offered.

Re:How long before...

[Anonymous Coward]

someone call a whaaambulance for mr chaotica.... boo hoo hooo.....the extra $20 is to cover the cost of keeping an additional assembly process running you stupid fucking prick. there's no reason to build those GL routers except for hobbyists who want to mod them. there's no point reducing overheads on the main model, only to piss those savings away keeping the other manufacturing process running in tandem. so if the hobbyinst want the GL routers, they'll have to cover the extra cost. if they didnt want to pay an extra $20, the routers wouldnt sell, and linksys would discontinue them. the only bullshit involved here is your pathetic adolescent notions that linksys owe you something. you give them money, they give you stuff. everyone is even. no one owes anyone anything.

Re:How long before...

[BobMcD]

- less RAM (cheaper!)
- a slower processor (cheaper!) Assuming new product and not after-market stuff, it is more likely the OPPOSITE is true.

Compare the price of a new PC133 1GB stick to a DDR2...

The 'cheaper' item, over time, is what the market is buying - not necessarily the less capable one.

Re:How long before...

[mrchaotica]

So you're claiming that Linksys took a loss on the WRT54G versions 1 through 4? And moreover, that they took that loss for years before hoping to recoup their investment after the market was already mostly saturated? I'm sorry, because I usually try to be polite here on Slashdot, but that's just flat-out stupid.

Re:How long before...

[mrchaotica]

You don't understand marketing.

Do you see me going around and telling you what you do and do not understand, asshole? I damn well do understand marketing; I just don't like it!

Re:How long before...

[nguy]

So you're claiming that Linksys took a loss on the WRT54G versions 1 through 4?

No.

I usually try to be polite here on Slashdot, but that's just flat-out stupid.

Yup, you're right: your statement and conclusion are incredibly stupid.

Re:How long before...

[joshv]

I have a 20D, which does support ISO 3200, but the thing is, it's not a "real" ISO 3200 mode. It's just ISO 1600 shot under exposed and then level adjusted in camera to correct for the underexposure.

You can do the same thing yourself, set the camera at ISO 1600, dial down exposure until you get the shutter speed you were looking for, and then just adjust the levels in post processing to brighten up the pic. It will look like crap, but about the same level of crap as a photo shot with the fake ISO 3200 setting.

Re:How long before...

[Hal_Porter]

I take it back, it's not just marketing you don't understand, it's the whole idea of running a business to make money.

Why should Linksys keep selling Linux routers when they need more flash memory and thus cost more to produce when most people don't care if the router runs Linux or vxWorks?

In fact I'd suspect that a vxWorks based router would outperform Linux because the code is smaller and therefore has a better cache hit rate. So for most people the vxWorks design might have been an improvement. And for the ones it wasn't there was an option to buy the old design.

And calling me an arsehole (note spelling) won't help you. Pony up the extra $20 for the Linux based router if you want it so bad. Or if you know so much about how routers should work and how to market them, design one and find an OEM and then try and sell it. I bet you'll find that getting sentimental about technology choices like Linux vs vxWorks is harder to justify once you're running a real business though. You'll end up picking the most profitable one just like Linksys did.

Re:How long before...

[mrchaotica]

I take it back, it's not just marketing you don't understand, it's the whole idea of running a business to make money.

Tell you what: how about you just fuck off. Seriously. You're apparently too stupid to figure out that there's a difference between not understanding something and not liking it, and it's not my job to spoon-feed shit to you!

Why should Linksys keep selling Linux routers when they need more flash memory and thus cost more to produce when most people don't care if the router runs Linux or vxWorks?

Maybe they shouldn't! I never said that what they did wasn't a good business decision for them; I just said I didn't like it! What, am I not allowed to have a fucking opinion?!

And calling me an arsehole (note spelling) won't help you.

I'm not fucking British, and I'm going to spell the damn word however the Hell I want, thankyouverymuch! And I was calling you that in an attempt to help you realize you're being a condescending prick!

Pony up the extra $20 for the Linux based router if you want it so bad.

Oh, I will -- from a company other than Linksys!

Re:How long before...

[Hal_Porter]

I'm not fucking British Yes you are. The Declaration of Independence was legally invalid due to poor spelling and grammar, not to mention Lèse majesté.

Re:How long before...

[mrchaotica]

Of course it was legally invalid; that's why we had to win a damn war to enforce it anyway! It became legally valid with the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Applekid]

Canon hacking has hit mainstream, it seems... with extra visibility I'm sure the higher ups in the company will soon know about them (no doubt the engineers already knew about the project). I LOVE my Canon cameras, so, I really hope Canon doesn't pull an Apple or a Creative and start intentionally guarding against firmware hacks because then my future purchases will have to go elsewhere.

Sidenote: I had an old A80 camera that's maybe 6 years old stopped taking pictures. Turns out there was an old technical bulletin about it in their KB and that Canon was offering free repairs to any affected unit regardless of its age. I sent it in and they did what they promised AND the turnaround was around a week.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Anonymous Coward]

One would hope that Canon would see this as a challenge to embrace - and bring out a feature enriched firmware upgrade of their own which would make CHDK redundant. Imagine downloading an official Powershot SDK to write your own specialized scripts! I would!! And if Canon opened up the EOS range to this, we'd be floating happy.
Now that would be positive thinking instead of a laager mentality like Apple had in 1985 (kill the Japples, kill the Japples). Canon, please do the right thing, not the idiot knee-jerk.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[doti]

They are already doing that, e.g. encrypting the firmware in the 350D model.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=23803446

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Z34107]

Canon hacking has hit mainstream, it seems...

Yes, but what does this mean for our navy?!

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Pull an Apple? Since when has Apple tried to stop hackers trying to run non-Apple software on Apple hardware?

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Anonymous Coward]

How could they prevent us from using our own engineering to solve our own problems with our own hardware? That would be an egregious trampling of rights.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[WNight]

Never. They're always trying to stop you from running non-Apple software on YOUR hardware.

iPhones, iPods, etc. If Apple can break a hacked device they'll do it.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Goaway]

Considering that the reason this works is mostly because features are intentionally disabled by Canon, no, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[stilz2]

Could you please provide link to the said free service from Canon? I also have an A80 that stopped working a while back. Thanks.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Pull an Apple? Since when has Apple tried to stop hackers trying to run non-Apple software on Apple hardware?

THE IPOD! Have you ever tried to get files off that piece of shit? Why can't it just act like a drive instead of requiring its piece of shit software.

Or what about QuickTime. That is absolutely horrible.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

There are plenty of apps available to do just that.

Quicktime works fine for me, BTW.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Didn't they just have a prominent iPhone hacker speak at one of their stores? And why on earth should Apple bother to support hacked devices? If you started hacking the hardware, you wouldn't expect them to support that, right? When they bring a DMCA suit against an iPhone hacker, let me know.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sidenote: I had an old A80 camera that's maybe 6 years old stopped taking pictures. Turns out there was an old technical bulletin about it in their KB and that Canon was offering free repairs to any affected unit regardless of its age. I sent it in and they did what they promised AND the turnaround was around a week.

And here's the link.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the link you want.

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[WNight]

Nobody is asking Apple to support anything, merely to stop sabotaging hacks.

And stop fighting against the perfectly legal actions of companies like Psystar. Psystar took advantage of the same laws that let Apple buy parts and sell them for more money. Apple likes the law when it's them buying RAM, HDs, video cards, etc, with no further obligation to their original creators. So why does Apple get so bent out of shape when someone wants to buy their product and resell it?

The same legal issues apply. All sales completely transfer all right and require no licensing. There's software involved in all cases, from OS X to the firmware on the HD, or controller on the RAM. Whatever power Apple thinks it has over Psystar, its component makers have over it.

Is there specifically a DMCA complaint? Who knows? Who cares? Apple is fond about of abusing the courts and attacking everyone from gossip columnists to hackers. Why would it matter which law they use?

Re:Fire the cannons, Canon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony PSP, TiVo, and Microsoft XBox do this. Few seem to seriously complain. Some hackers are satisfied with relying upon temporary security holes to get around the limitations, but manufacturers can fix those whenever they want.

Only Point and Shoots?

[Gerafix]

Call me when they can do this with Canon DSLR's. I know a few times I have needed a faster shutter speed than I was able to get. (I like big apertures, and yes I'm over-compensating). Bonus props if you can get a live histogram in the viewfinder...

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[corsec67]

Bonus props if you can get a live histogram in the viewfinder...

Um, changing the firmware isn't going to put a LCD screen on the mirror. Apparently you haven't grasped how a SLR works.

I have needed a faster shutter speed than I was able to get.

The firmware probably isn't going to be able to get the shutter to go any faster reliably. What you need to use is a ND filter if you like wide apertures.

Certainly the scripting stuff could be used in a SLR.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[BAKup]

You like big apertures, and you can not lie?

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Amouth]

i don't think you grasp how an SLR camera works..

the shutter speed is limited to the shutter servo - they put settings so that it will work without prodcution tolerances.. while it might be posiable to make it faster it wouldn't be reliable

as for the live historgram - that would be afeet of enginering - and now way could you do it with an firmware update.. again.. see how an SLR works..

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Ford Prefect]

Um, changing the firmware isn't going to put a LCD screen on the mirror. Apparently you haven't grasped how a SLR [wikipedia.org] works.

I think the 450D has a live preview feature - so not exactly through the viewfinder, but a live histogram would be a funky addition.

Assuming it doesn't have it already - I'm happy with my old 350D. ;-)

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Gerafix]

Does not have to be on the mirror itself, there are a number of readings inside the viewfinder that do not have to do with the mirror. Would probably still take a hardware hack, but hey more fun am I right? And yes you are right an ND filter would work, thanks.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[kidgenius]

You know what I would like? Ability to use the LCD as a viewfinder. That would be a slick hack. Granted, I prefer using the viewfinder, but for certain angles, the screen would be much nicer (without having to buy an angled viewfinder)

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[kidgenius]

Why not show the histogram on the LCD though?

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Gerafix]

They have this on the new Rebel and I think maybe on the new 1D.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Anonymous Coward]

>The firmware probably isn't going to be able to get the shutter to go any faster reliably. What you need to use is a ND filter if you like wide apertures.

If you would have read the article, you would have noticed that the firmware hacks do let you use higher/lower shutter speeds then the stock firmware. Sure they might not be reliable because they aren't tested by Canon, but they are there.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[corsec67]

the shutter speed is limited to the shutter servo - they put settings so that it will work without prodcution tolerances.. while it might be posiable to make it faster it wouldn't be reliable

Actually, don't the shutter blades always fall at the same speed? Their speed is the flash sync, the fastest speed where the whole film is exposed at a single point in time, right?

Then to set the 'shutter speed', the time between the first shutter blade and the second shutter blade is changed.

At least, that is how Focal Plane shutters work. Leaf shutters are different.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[adam613]

And the 40D...

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[dfn_deux]

I could be totally wrong here, but I was under the impression that digital cameras don't even have a shutter. My thinking is something along the lines of a traditional film camera uses a shutter to maintain complete darkness on the film to prevetn the chemical reactions which take place upon exposure to light and the the shutter opening is able to regulate the photo-chemical reaction by limiting exposure. However a digital camera has a sensor which doesn't rely on absolute dark to prevent exposure. It simply captures all the time and the "shutter" button triggers a data capture routine in the camera's electronics which then process the captured images as a composite of all image data captured within the "shutter speed" window. Perhaps there is still some ancillary shuttering mechanism in a DSLR to prevent light from entering through the view finder and washing out the image that passes through the penta prism in the body; but I'm just guessing here.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Ford Prefect]

I could be totally wrong here, but I was under the impression that digital cameras don't even have a shutter.

I don't actually know about point-and-shoots (I assume they don't have conventional shutters, what with all the live-preview stuff) - but digital SLRs most definitely do.

Actually, the best way to imagine a dSLR is as a film SLR, but with an image sensor taking the place of the film. The half-silvered, hinged mirror is still there for the viewfinder, as is the autofocus and metering gubbins arranged beneath it - on older dSLRs, the image sensor only gets to play when the mirror hinges up, blocking light from getting in through the viewfinder, and the shutter opens.

(Ever wondered what that funny rubber rectangle is on the camera strap? It's for putting over the viewfinder when you're about to take a long exposure - light getting in can confuse the metering system that's in front of the shutter...)

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[EvanED]

Um, changing the firmware isn't going to put a LCD screen on the mirror. Apparently you haven't grasped how a SLR works.

Or maybe you don't have enough imagination. Why not lock the mirror up with the shutter open (thus exposing the CCD), then when the button is pressed, close the shutter, start exposing, open the shutter, expose, close the shutter, stop exposure, then open the shutter again.

It would slightly increase button-press-to-photograph time, but not by much.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[EvanED]

If you would have read the article, you would have noticed that the firmware hacks do let you use higher/lower shutter speeds then the stock firmware. Sure they might not be reliable because they aren't tested by Canon, but they are there.

The cameras in the current story aren't SLRs; they don't have physical shutters. To hack in faster shutter speeds to a DSLR would "require" actually moving the shutter faster; there are physical limits here.

(I suppose you could probably keep the shutter open longer than necessary then expose electronically like point-and-shoot cameras, but I'm not positive this would work.)

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Incadenza]

The firmware probably isn't going to be able to get the shutter to go any faster reliably.

Go and visit the CHDK site, and you will see that it does exacly that (for P&S cameras that is). only for extremely fast shutter speeds you wil have to drop the word 'reliable' because you can only reach these with the smallest diagram aperture.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[mikael]

That always puzzles me - a consumer camera like a Nikon Coolpix allows you to see the final image through the LCD (even with zoom), while Digital SLR's, costing several thousands of pounds always switch the LCD off when a picture is about to be taken.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[doti]

What I'd like is some simple tweaks to the interface.

For instance, the ability to delete photos by range (e.g., this photo and all previous ones). Useful when you download the photos to the computer, forget to delete them from the camera, and discovers that after taking one more photo: shit! Now you have to delete all the other 400 photos one by one.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[modecx]

And wear your mirror action up twice as fast, too... And for a feature which can be accurately deduced through the meter. OMG YAY!

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[tlhIngan]

That always puzzles me - a consumer camera like a Nikon Coolpix allows you to see the final image through the LCD (even with zoom), while Digital SLR's, costing several thousands of pounds always switch the LCD off when a picture is about to be taken.

Because it's physically impossible on an SLR. In an SLR, you have the lens, that then is followed by a mirror. The mirror, in the "down" position, reflects the light from the lens through the prism viewfinder and then to your eye.

When you click the shutter, the mirror flips up (viewfinder goes dark), exposing the shutter which then opens and shuts the right amount of time the actual camera sensor.

That's not to say it's not possible to say, add a little cameraphone like sensor and offer a live preview (several dSLRs do this now), but historically, it wasn't possible. The light is either going to the main camera sensor, or the viewfinder. A small amount is actually reflected *down* for autofocus, though.

Though, as anyone knows, holding your camera at arm's length (so you can use the LCD as a viewfinder) sucks for camera shake. And most camera LCDs are of QVGA or lower resolution, so you miss out on all the nice little details youc an see through a real optical viewfinder like that on a dSLR...

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Spamalope]

(I suppose you could probably keep the shutter open longer than necessary then expose electronically like point-and-shoot cameras, but I'm not positive this would work.)

Some Recent Nikon SLRs actually do this, so it's possible and has been done. Certain flash sync tricks are only possible with these models. See strobist.com for more info.

I'd love modified SLR firmware for Canon to add features they've left off, presumably to sell high priced external add ons. I want an intervalometer! (simple program to do time lapse shots in camera - Nikon's have it built in...)

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Archon-X]

1Ds Mark III has live view.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[EvanED]

And wear your mirror action up twice as fast, too

The mirror doesn't need to go, only the shutter.

Anyway, I still occasionally use a couple SLRs my parents have from the late 70s. They still operate. Granted, they aren't used much, but they haven't worn out.

And for a feature which can be accurately deduced through the meter. OMG YAY!

What meter? Do you mean viewfinder?

The viewfinder doesn't show you if you are overexposing part of your image, and there are a number of times when there are shots that are very hard or impossible to take while looking through the viewfinder.

If I'm holding the camera at arms length over my head, it would be nice to see what I'm aiming at. Or be able to set it on the floor and not have to figure out some configuration where I can put my head in where I can see into the viewfinder. Or put it on the ground facing up. Or if I had more money, underwater photography. Or ...

Anyway, I think I would still use the viewfinder for most shots. But there are enough reasons that would be helpful that if, when I was in the market for a DSLR, there was one that had live preview and one that didn't, that would have been a strong argument for the one with it.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[vought]

And wear your mirror action up twice as fast, too... And for a feature which can be accurately deduced through the meter. OMG YAY! +1 funny. Digital has brought out many interesting habits in new-to-photography digital photographers.

I can meter a scene at least as well as any DSLR with a 1 degree spotmeter - what makes people think they need a 256 level graph to meter a scene is beyond me, but you know, I also shoot 4x5 film, so I tend to think carefully before shooting and look at the scene before shooting - not a bar graph.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[vought]

Or maybe you don't have enough imagination. Why not lock the mirror up with the shutter open (thus exposing the CCD), then when the button is pressed, close the shutter, start exposing, open the shutter, expose, close the shutter, stop exposure, then open the shutter again. Because holding up the mirror for that long uses a lot of power. Doing it on every shot would decrease your battery life by at least 50%.

Don't forget about light leaking in through the finder, either. On a DSL in bright conditions, this is a non-trivial limitation. Be my guest if you want to cover the finder every time you shoot.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[EvanED]

I'd love modified SLR firmware for Canon to add features they've left off, presumably to sell high priced external add ons. I want an intervalometer! (simple program to do time lapse shots in camera - Nikon's have it built in...)

I've thought about making an external programmable shutter release for this. If I ever actually sit down and learn more electronics and such that's on my list of things to do. (Also: much longer exposures.)

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Spamalope]

Um, changing the firmware isn't going to put a LCD screen on the mirror. Apparently you haven't grasped how a SLR works. Or maybe you don't have enough imagination. It would slightly increase button-press-to-photograph time, but not by much. Histogram in Live View mode would do this. There are at least two negatives. You'll burn through the battery, and using Live View heats the SLR sensor. Heating the sensor increases noise and 'hot' (temporarily stuck) pixels. SLRs can take pictures so quickly that it usually isn't a problem to just take a test shot. It would be a nice feature, but not that important.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[tweak13]

The 450D does have a live histogram when shooting in live view mode. I don't find it that useful personally, but then I don't find live view that useful either.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[neonfrog]

You are mostly correct.

On Canon SLRs the shutter blades travel as you describe. As the shutter speed gets faster, the delay between when the first/front curtain fires and the second/rear curtain fires gets shorter and shorter. At shutter speeds faster than X-sync (fastest shutter speed usable with flash), both curtains can be moving at the same time leaving a narrow slit between them. The width of that moving slit is effectively the shutter speed. The curtains always move at the same speed, just the delay between when they "fire" is altered.

On some more recent Nikons, the same is true up to 1/250, but then the imager becomes the gate. At shutter speeds faster than X-sync, the shutters stay open as if they were set to 1/250 even if you are at 1/8000. The imager simply captures for less time.

And on some Nikon cameras LCD shutters are being used.

It is a changing world for good old focal plane shutters.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[RDW]

At least some dSLRs have both a conventional shutter and an 'electronic shutter'. This is why the humble Nikon D70 has an unusually high flash synch speed of 1/500s (presumably the sensor is only active for part of the time the conventional electro-mechanical shutter is open).

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[neonfrog]

A method that is used to get live preview on SLRs is a prism either in the viewfinder or in place of the mirror.

Canon had a film camera years ago that used the prism-instead-of-a-mirror method. The benefit was you never lost the image in the viewfinder and the camera could do 10 FPS (which was amazing back then). The drawback was it cost you 1 to 2 stops worth of light.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[networkBoy]

I've got a crown graphic myself, but hardly ever get to use it (I have a 3 and 5 year old...)

Yup, the digital photo never learned on film crowd is very very different.

When I got my F4s I bathed in the glory of it's insane FPS, until I had to pay to develop the 15 rolls of film shot in only seconds of shooting (sans reload time).
-nB

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[neonfrog]

They have their reasons.

One is physical (see my post below) - the way you get the LCD image in an SLR is via a prism in the viewfinder (light from your subject is split between your eye and the LCD watcher). When the mirror flips up so the light can hit the main CCD/CMOS imager instead of your eye, well there is no longer any light going to the viewfinder or the prism where the LCD grabber lives.

One could be a reduction in power usage. LCD backlights take power. So do shutters and CCDs. At the moment of exposure, the power goes where it is needed.

Another could be processing power. Rather than drive the LCD, all of the camera's CPU is dedicated to the task at hand which is to get the exposure correct very quickly. High end SLRs will favor reaction time (reduced lag time) over live chimping because the moment of capture is more important than anything else. Low-end point-n-shoots favor creature features over lag time and that's usually why they suck for lag.

There may be more, but those come easily to mind.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[cpotoso]

Or one could use a mirror that let, say 20% of the light through (which should be enough for the low resolution viewfinder to get a decent image).

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[WGFCrafty]

My pretty new Canon 450D goes a step farther:

When you hit the "set" button it flips the mirror up and powers up the sensor for use as a 'point and shoot' camera.

Unfortunately, it removes the auto-focus feature as it uses the mirror and prism for focusing.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[wessto]

What about the canon 40D? It has live preview. I don't think it uses a second sensor either. When you turn the live mode on, you hear it click like something mechanical is changing. Also, resolution is pretty good on it.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[hahn]

That always puzzles me - a consumer camera like a Nikon Coolpix allows you to see the final image through the LCD (even with zoom), while Digital SLR's, costing several thousands of pounds always switch the LCD off when a picture is about to be taken.

Because it's physically impossible on an SLR. In an SLR, you have the lens, that then is followed by a mirror. The mirror, in the "down" position, reflects the light from the lens through the prism viewfinder and then to your eye.

When you click the shutter, the mirror flips up (viewfinder goes dark), exposing the shutter which then opens and shuts the right amount of time the actual camera sensor.

That's not to say it's not possible to say, add a little cameraphone like sensor and offer a live preview (several dSLRs do this now), but historically, it wasn't possible. The light is either going to the main camera sensor, or the viewfinder. A small amount is actually reflected *down* for autofocus, though.

Though, as anyone knows, holding your camera at arm's length (so you can use the LCD as a viewfinder) sucks for camera shake. And most camera LCDs are of QVGA or lower resolution, so you miss out on all the nice little details youc an see through a real optical viewfinder like that on a dSLR...

Because it's physically impossible on an SLR. In an SLR, you have the lens, that then is followed by a mirror. The mirror, in the "down" position, reflects the light from the lens through the prism viewfinder and then to your eye. Not true. Ever since the Olympus E-330 introduced a couple of years ago, 4/3 SLR cameras with Live MOS all have Live View (Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica)

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[modecx]

Exactly. This stuff doesn't help the creative process, and it doesn't add much if you're willing to gain some personal experience.

Tangential to that, is that I do believe DSLRs are a great learning tool for perspective photographers, even if they're rarely used that way. The critical difference is the ability to shoot a few frames and have near instant feedback with practically no work. It's funny, but after using digital in the studio with strobes for six months, and having that instant feedback, I quit using a meter for more than 80% of the things I do.

However, it still amuses me to no end when some doofus goes and buys a $1700 body and $1600 lens (if not worse), just to make the most boring images ever created by man. It's good for us, though, their spending habits are pushing the price on superb gear down, down down. Thank you, people who buy top of the line pro-sumer DSLRs, just to make snapshots; you're the best!

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

> I can meter a scene at least as well as any DSLR with a 1 degree spotmeter

Which is exactly the way photographers use DSLR meters; set to spot mode, meter on the darkest highlights that you want to keep and then adjust exposure stops by a favourite rule-of-thumb to pull that to 18% gray.

Just like with your old-style hand-held meter.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[asvravi]

All modern digital cameras, even point and shoots do have a mechanical shutter. The reason is a bit involved - readout of the captured image is not performed at one go, but rather by fields - upto 5 or 6 fields comprise each image (remember the odd/even fields of television system?). Without a mechanical shutter to shut off the light, when one field is being read out the other fields continue to be exposed to light - result is uneven exposure of image lines and smear. Mechanical shutter is the only way to prevent this. During live-view the situation is slightly different - the CCD is configured to read only one field (resolution and dynamic range is compromised for frame-rate) hence the need for mechanical shutter does not arise.

Re:Only Point and Shoots?

[Anonymous Coward]

The firmware probably isn't going to be able to get the shutter to go any faster reliably. What you need to use is a ND filter if you like wide apertures. The ND (Neutral Density Filter) is to enable a SLOWER shutter speed - by limiting the amount of light let in the lens. One use would be for getting a cool motion effect of a waterfall, by allowing a longer shutter speed without overexposing the shot.
 
If you want to have a FASTER shutter speed for a given exposure then there are 2 variables: ISO - make it lower, or APERTURE - the wider the hole that lets in light the faster you can capture the correct amount.

Take RAW Photos

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been aware of chdk for a bit now, and just haven't tried it out. One thing that it enables is the ability to take RAW photos. So if you are interested in taking pictures that have no compression artifacts or unknown filters, but don't want to shell out for a more expensive (and oftentimes physically larger) camera, this is an option for you. RAW photos are a standard that are used in some photo contests.

Re:Take RAW Photos

[CRCulver]

RAW photos are a standard that are used in some photo contests.

Isn't "RAW" really just an umbrella term for a number of competing and very ad-hoc formats?

Re:Take RAW Photos

[dfn_deux]

Yes, there is no "RAW" standard, it varies from manufacturer and model. Although there are a few mainstream manufacturers which have had their format accepted as a defacto standard of sorts; at least in that mainstream photo editing software supports native raw import.

Re:Take RAW Photos

[Moridineas]

That's my understanding as well. The RAW from a Canon SLR might have no relation at al to a nikon to a sony, etc (or even between canon models, etc). They are just the unprocessed raw data that the cameras use internally. Thus the need for import filters for programs like photopshop, aperture, and lightroom to be able to read the files from different cameras.

Re:Take RAW Photos

[Applekid]

RAW photos are a standard that are used in some photo contests. Isn't "RAW" really just an umbrella term for a number of competing and very ad-hoc formats? Original post should have referred to "lossless" instead of RAW, but, even following that, how complicated could RAW be? You've got RGB information in some order uniform order and bit-depth in sequence from one corner of a picture to another. Trying it once will instantly reveal each component's bit-depth, order of the colors (maybe BGR like most LCDs?), top-left-to-bottom-right versus bottom-left-to-top-right.

Hell, the fanciest it might get is some header with EXIF information (easily stands out from opening a test picture) or not having separate color layers interlaced together (as in first R for the whole picture, then G, then B).

If anything it's probably a good assignment for high-school level comp-sci: reverse engineering the data structures encoded in an unknown file format.

Re:Take RAW Photos

[DJProtoss]

Adobe have been attempting to remedy this with their dng raw format (Digital NeGative). Its a good idea, but I haven't noticed it getting anywhere really - I don't know of any cameras that take dng natively (although most slr's raw format can be converted to it), and equally I don't know of any programs which support dng which can't also read the other raw formats, making it only really useful if you have multiple cameras which take different raw formats and you want to store them all in the same format (not quite as crazy as it sounds, as certainly canon at least has two different raw formats in use (crw and crw2)).

Re:Take RAW Photos

[mikael]

There's an open source project (Dcraw which aims to solve this problem.

The source code file can be found at this file

Re:Take RAW Photos

[LinuxGeek]

The actual process is much more involved than just figuring out the order of the RGB info.

Re:Take RAW Photos

[Goaway]

To sum up what everyone's said: "RAW" does not mean "raw RGB". It means "raw data right off the image sensor". This data needs quite a bit of post-processing before it becomes anything like RGB data.

Re:Take RAW Photos

[Kompressor]

I know that the Pentax K10D can shoot DNG natively - I own one. For discussion online, linky.

Ease of use...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have long been aware of CHDK, and own one of the cameras that was recently added to their "list"... the S5-IS. I got as far as downloading the file and trying to make head or tail of the 'intructions'. Not even the worst offending Microsoft 'undocumented' feature you can think of is this badly documented. There is NO step by step guide that makes you feel confident at all about loading this onto your camera. Yes there are steps - more like leaps off the edge of the Grand Canyon! Huge gaps of logic, no finale of "now go take pictures". Until its presented in a less "hacker" style I don't think I can risk screwing up my Canon warranty, thank you!

Re:Ease of use...

[dfn_deux]

There is no risk of "screwing up" your camera, the hack loads the "firmware" into volatile ram in such a way that simply deleting the file from your mem card will revert your camera to the original state.

Re:Ease of use...

[junglee_iitk]

I will just add a link to "Loadlin", a tool which boots Linux from DOS using similar technique.

It is how the old viruses used to work on DOS - loading into memory and then overtaking COMMAND.COM

Re:Ease of use...

[Cruciform]

What exactly was hard about the instructions?
When I first found out about CHDK I had it running on my camera *3 minutes* after the download completed.

All you do is:
1) copy the files to your flash card
2) Power up the camera in playback mode while holding the menu button to add the firmware update option to the menu. This is something you should already know how to do from the cameras manual!
3) Select the update.

Once the files are on the flash card you can repeat this process at any time in under 15 seconds. If you want to use the stock firmware then you just don't run the update.

The custom firmware has all kinds of neat features. If you like making HDR pics, you can use available scripts or write your own to bracket the exposures. My Powershot A620 now has the ability to shoot RAW thanks to CHDK.

Some builds even incorporate face detection and motion detection. Screw webcams, how about having a 7 megapixel camera capturing what's happening outside your window.

Time lapse photography is now a cinch, as are all kinds of things that the stock camera doesn't do.

I never found any of the features to be all that hackerish. They don't document using a histogram, sure... but if you're downloading a firmware for the use of a histogram, you probably already know what one is!

Re:Ease of use...

[neonfrog]

The risk of screwing up your camera comes from potentially feeding it a parameter outside of it's safety zone.

For instance what if there were a RAM mode in the hacked firmware for firing the flash at a rate faster than the camera's default firmware would allow. You try it for that super cool skateboard picture and wonder why your flash Fresnel is brown and smoking after the fact. Granted the caps shouldn't be able to do that, but what if?

Or you try to drive the aperture 1 click past its physical limit? Do you know if the camera has limit switches or is relying on firmware pointing to known values in RAM (pulled from EEPROM at boot) that define the scope of aperture values to control that motor? Maybe it can handle a few slams at the end of travel, but what if you keep doing it by mistake?

Or you use a mode to leave the LCD backlight on while the flash caps recharge (normally the LCD backlight is off) and you fry the power supply in the camera because you sourced too much current?

Or you use a mode to drive the lens into the extended position, but somehow the hacked firmware ignores the limit switch for the little lens cover door and tries to run it at the same time? Scraaaaape.....

Don't get me wrong, this looks freakin' cool! But to presume there is zero possibility of damage seem naive to me.

Re:Ease of use...

[Anonymous Coward]

The lifehacker article actually is MILES better than the 3 lost clues on the CHDK site. For the S5 chdk's page says to make the card bootable by a dubious process, then write-protect it with the PS.FIR on there and absolutely no other clues on operating or loading. Maybe I am limited to reading English and not h4kerspik.

Even with the clearer guide from lifehacker, this still leaves a few issues open:
    (i) its a HACK and if Canon smell it, bang goes thy warranty;
    (ii) CHDK are from/in Russia - genius programmers, but nationally a poor track record on the TRUST aspect.

Sigh, maybe will risk it..

Re:Ease of use...

[gEvil (beta)]

Even with the clearer guide from lifehacker, this still leaves a few issues open:
(i) its a HACK and if Canon smell it, bang goes thy warranty;
(ii) CHDK are from/in Russia - genius programmers, but nationally a poor track record on the TRUST aspect.

The first one is addressed right here on the site. And sorry, but I can't help you with your xenophobia.

I've used CHDK on my A710IS for about six months with zero problems. As many others have mentioned, it's incredibly easy to disable it, but the features that it adds are very handy.

Re:Ease of use...

[cjsnell]

It's even easier on my A720 IS. All I had to do was to flip a few bits on my SD card with a hex editor and flip the read-only switch on the card and the camera automatically boots to CHDK. Don't want CHDK? Simply flip the SD card back to read/write. The camera ignores a read-only card and happily writes photos to it when it's locked.

Re:Ease of use...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the coolest features made possible with the CHDK for the Powershot S3 IS is the ability to change the controls for manual focusing. Instead of using the directional pad you use the zoom control to select the correct manual focus. This is much easier to do when you are looking through the viewfinder.

Also, the ability to have a live battery indicator is a drastic improvement.

Re:Ease of use...

[LowKeyLieSmith]

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ#Q._How_do_I_get_CHDK_onto_my_camera.27s_SD_memory_card.3F That entry and the one right after it pretty much explain everything you need to do. I think that took an entire 15 seconds to locate.

Re:Ease of use...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fi you check the CHDK FAQ you'll find the official Canon answer to CHDK: it does not violate your warranty, because it does not make any actual/permanent modification to the camera firmware (CHDK resides in the external flash memory, just remove it and it will be gone!)

Re:Ease of use...

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

CHDK are from/in Russia - genius programmers, but nationally a poor track record on the TRUST aspect.

Yes, the CHDK project is obviously a part of Vladimir Putin's master plan to resurrect the Soviet Union. Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes!! Eh, comrades? Eh?

Re:Ease of use...

[Idarubicin]

(ii) CHDK are from/in Russia - genius programmers, but nationally a poor track record on the TRUST aspect.

That's why I never key my online banking information into an unsecured camera.

Re:Pointless... Between that and FPS games...

[davidsyes]

Withstanding OR notwithstanding the DCMA, I think the developers and players could be literally figuratively "shooting themselves in the foot"... (LOL!)

The question is...

[electricbern]

... does it run Linux?

Re:The question is...

[Ford Prefect]

Many older Canon cameras run VxWorks, apparently - and only recently have they moved on to something entirely of Canon's own devising...

Re:The question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the Digic III cameras are built around DryOS, which apparently has a long and stable history of use on Canon's video cams. A good move, as they will save a bunch on licensing fees and are fully in control of their home-brewed OS.

Not really

[junglee_iitk]

I tried it with my S2 IS. They really do a good job at maintaining the "soft" firmware.

Although, for RAW images, cheap point and shoot cameras don't have physical build, and lack everything that makes RAW images special. Taking RAW images with my camera was akin to storing 1 MB JPEG image into 3 MB RAW format.

Re:Not really

[PFAK]

Taking RAW images with my camera was akin to storing 1 MB JPEG image into 3 MB RAW format.

Uh, How about the fact that there are no JPEG compression artifacts on a RAW image?

Re:Not really

[EvanED]

Although, for RAW images, cheap point and shoot cameras don't have physical build, and lack everything that makes RAW images special. Taking RAW images with my camera was akin to storing 1 MB JPEG image into 3 MB RAW format.

RAW images should give you the ability to white-balance them after the shot. (You at least can with the RAW images from my DSLR.)

That alone is worth the price of admission (i.e. a larger memory card) IMHO.

Re:Not really

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

My Canon IXUS400 actually takes pretty sharp images. It sure won't beat a Canon DSLR with an L lens on it, but it's hardly what I'd call cheap compared to some small cameras. It's certainly sharp enough to benefit from RAW.

Love it. I'm using Allbest's build on my SD800 IS

[lazyforker]

Wired.com also mentioned this stuff recently. I tried it - awesome.

One of the coolest features is that at any time you can restore your camera to default settings just by turning it off - no permanent flashing of BIOS/firmware!

Who tagged this HARDHACK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardhack, by definition, is a hardware hack. That would mean, for instance, adding an MCU to the board to gain extra functionality. This is a firmware change and thus is a software hack. What lotus flower are you people eating?

Oh wait, people on slashdot are just mindless and stupid and know the difference but don't bother spending the 500us to make the distinction. I see.

(Of course, I will be modded down, but at least I get the satisfaction of wasting a modpoint.)

Re:Who tagged this HARDHACK?

[compro01]

perhaps they're meaning "hard" as in "difficult".

Re:Who tagged this HARDHACK?

[Anonymous Coward]

The principal use of the device is the hardware (the camera bits), not the software. The software is embedded and only serves to allow access to the hardware. Therefore although this is technically a software hack it is changing what you can do with the hardware so calling it a hardware hack is not out of line.

Re:Who tagged this HARDHACK?

[shellbeach]

Hardhack, by definition, is a hardware hack. That would mean, for instance, adding an MCU to the board to gain extra functionality. This is a firmware change and thus is a software hack. What lotus flower are you people eating? Actually, it's not a firmware hack, either. Basically it works as follows:

When you upgrade firmware in a Canon camera, there is scope to run an application before the firmware upgrade. What CHDK does is trigger the upgrade process, but doesn't upgrade the firmware -- it just uses the firmware upgrade routine to run the CHDK code on top of the firmware. The camera still works, and the CHDK code has access to all the camera variables, allowing you to do pretty much anything you want. But the underlying firmware remains unchanged (and thus your warranty isn't void).

It's all rather neat, and the CHDK code is easy to hack around with (I've done so in the past).

Re:Who tagged this HARDHACK?

[LordVader717]

Installing CHDK involves copying a couple of files onto your camera's memory card; permanently removing it from your camera entails deleting those files. Yeah, real heavy this stuff.

Re:Who tagged this HARDHACK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, real heavy this stuff.

There's that word again; "heavy". Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?

Re:Who tagged this HARDHACK?

[AmericanInKiev]

Ouch,
before carping about the prefix in someone else's, you should take out the adjective from your own.

Turns out it's not a "Firmware Change" either anymore than running a bootable linux CD under vmware on your mactop is a firmware hack.
What it is - and this is a critical point for warranty concerns, is the ability to /temporarily/ ammend the active program for the duration of a single boot. It does not as you suggest change the firmware, which by definition is the nonvolatile program memory contained in the device. The original firmware remains safely ensconced in its usual place, it is merely substituted in whole or part with code from the boot "disk" - until the system is rebooted.

No SX100IS support? :(

[Urza9814]

And now is when I regret getting a fairly decent Canon camera. The Powershot SX100IS. Doesn't have half the stuff this supports. Of course, to be fair, it was only $200 and it has an optical image stabilizer, 10x optical zoom, 8.0 megapixels, great manual controls, and is just generally the best camera you'll find without going for SLR. But man would it be nice to add some of this stuff.

Re:No SX100IS support? :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Then get hacking! A firmware dump is available.
Yeah, I've been waiting for it to come out also. Love the SX100, but ended up buying a G9 also to make up for the lack of RAW and autobracketing. Love the G9 also. It's probably the closest you can get to a pocketable SLR replacement.

Games are hardly among the main features

[Anonymous Coward]

Among things, most people use CHDK for one or more of:

• RAW capture in cameras that don't normally support it (this one is huge)
• Much shorter, or longer exposure times than supported by the camera's firmware (see this page for high-speed examples)
• Zebra striping mode (highlights over/under exposed areas in real-time)
• Motion detection (which some folks have allegedly used to successfully take lightning photos)
• Adjustable video bitrate
• More adjustable ISO
• DOF calculator
• Hot pixel removal
• Adjustable grid
• Real-time histogram for cameras without
• Detailed battery life meter
• etc.

Re: CHDK

[ozbird]

I tried CHDK on my Canon S2IS camera a while ago. While the RAW mode does work, the delay of several seconds between photos with a black screen was really frustrating. I've yet to properly process the RAW photos to compare the quality to the JPEG images, but unprocessed photos in Picassa varied wildly in exposure and colour.

If you're using CHDK for RAW you might be disappointed (buy an DSLR with lots of buffer memory), but some of the other features are quite neat.

But...

[xtracto]

... does it runs Linux?

Re:Pointless... Between that and FPS games...

[Slashdot Suxxors]

Holy crap I can't believe I giggled at that. Damn you, /.

Already there....

[Anonymous Coward]

You should look at the Digital Cinema market, and see how bad it is. If you want all the possible features and resolution that a specific sensor Sony or another big manufacturer has, you are looking at a 6 figure (100,000+) price tag.

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

extremely informative wikia link provided.

Shame

[BigBadBus]

Its a darn shame they, and other camera manufacturers, can't solve this problem

Re: Linksys gimping the 54G

[colinnwn]

I was OK with Linksys reducing the memory footprint, especially since they introduced the 54GL.

I was not enthused they forsake open source firmware (busybox) for closed source VxWorks, and then that Linksys or VxWorks put some checksums in their upload routines that tried to disallow altered firmware.

The fact the openWRT people finally overcame the checksums and shoehorned busybox into the gimped 45Gs (while retaining more features than VxWorks) shows it was technically possible. They were just taking the comfortable path rather than upholding the hacker roots of the 54G which made it such a success.

They're not that bad

[Lisandro]

If you're stuck with a cheap Canon point-and-shoot camera and have feature envy over the neighbor's sophisticated latest model, fret not!

The headline makes it sound (unintentionally) like Canons are crap, but actually they make some of the finest point-and-shoot cameras out there. I have an old Powershot A530 that, despite having "only" 5 megapixels, take beautiful sharp photographs, either in manual or auto mode, and holds it own when compared to newer cameras.

Anyway, i'm so downloading this. Sounds like a great addition.

Camera-Phone?

[Piranhaa]

What else do they have in mind? A firmware to have a camera with a cellphone built in? Oh, wait ...

Re:Camera-Phone?

[famebait]

What else do they have in mind? A firmware to have a camera with a cellphone built in? Oh, wait ... Actually, a darn good compact camera with a low-fidelity but usable phone included sounds like a much sweeter deal to me than the opposite arrangement that they are currently selling us.

Wouldn't want the battery life of a typical compact camera on my phone, though.

system in use on my a570is in under a minute

[bball99]

only took about a minute or so and now i have a [new] Canon a570is! this project is wonderful and has added some neat features... i simply copied two file to the SD card and restarted the camera... plus, the 'upgrade' is completely reversible... (i'm using the 'persistent' boot mode)

i tested picture taking and import and there have been no ill effects (although as one might expect, iPhoto doesn't support import of RAW images - and neither does Aperture) - thankfully there's the dcraw command for OS X...

Re:system in use on my a570is in under a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhoto doesn't support that raw format or any? I just finished importing ~100 RAW photos from my Rebel XTI and it works fine in iPhoto.

Re:system in use on my a570is in under a minute

[bball99]

interesting! will have to look more closely at iPhoto docs/RAW support... (admittedly, iPhoto isn't the greatest photo editor, but it's more than sufficient for my needs)... but alas, it did not work 'out-of-the-box' for the RAW images generated by my a570is...

I can not be that intelligent...

[xtracto]

I consider myself of standard intelligence, and moreover English is not my first language.

Having said that, just after reading this story I downloaded the firmware and copied it to my camera (just extract to files from the zip file using withzip or whatever is easier for you) and turn of the camera in "play" mode.

Then just choose the "upgrade firmware" menu and you are set to go.

I just took several pictures in RAW, I enabled and played a bit with the zoom-while-playing-video and with the HDR with stacking scripts. It is just a matter of putting the script in the folder that is created by the firmware.

Really, it is not difficult. And you do not void your camera warranty. Some weeks ago when I first read about CHDK, I read that someone even sent an email to Canon, and one of Canon's tech guy replied stating that, given that CHDK does not, in any way modify your camera firmware (the program stays in your SD card), the warranty doesn't get void.

I really encourage anyone with a compatible camera to give it a go...

Re: CHDK

[earnest murderer]

Frankly, unless you are a measurebator, high quality JPEG's are quite good enough for even the most discerning photographer. Especially when you consider the negatives such as long writes and sketchy interpretations.

I'd download it for the RGB histograms alone. I can hardly believe they'd leave that out. I guess that's what happens when your bottom end and high end aren't very different once you get past the glass.

Re:Pointless... Between that and FPS games...

[davidsyes]

Too bad u apparently didn't have mod points.... (and, yep, I turned off karma points and subscriber bonus...)

CHDK saved the day

[cjsnell]

I discovered CHDK while trying to find a remote trigger solution for my high altitude balloon project. After destroying three digital cameras trying to make a remote shutter, I discovered CHDK and it's UBASIC capabilities. I used a hacked-up USB cable and a simple UBASIC script to trigger the shutter from my Arduino.

Cool stuff. The HDR and RAW capabilities are incredible, for a $200 camera.

raw != BMP

[marxmarv]

A quick look at dcraw source code would have informed you that it can, indeed, get MUCH more fancy than that. Ignoring the complexity of containers (typically TIFF) and "encryption", pixel data is often compressed. You can see routines for Huffman coding, adaptive differential coding, even lossless JPEG for newer Canon DSLRs. It's starting to look more like an ECE4760 final project now, no?

Re:raw != BMP

[Goaway]

And that's not all. You don't get RGB data out of a CCD sensor. You get a single 8-bit (or higher for fancier ones) value per pixel. There's a filter grid on top of the sensors so that some pixels capture red, some green, and some blue. You have to interpolate the colours from your knowledge of this grid.

Oh, and of course those aren't pure R, G and B either, just approximate. There's quite a bit of mixing going on between the channels, so you have to compensate for that. And then you have to do white balance compensation. And noise reduction. And so on.

Support for CF cameras?

[jberryman]

Does anyone see what the possibility of supporting the ELPH/IXUS compact flash cameras? I have an old S200.

wtf.

[joocemann]

call me a flamer if you like, but this is worthless babble imho. You can play games on your phone, xbox, computer, and kitchen counter... Post something worthwhile.

Convergence

[Repton]

You're making a video with your phone, when it rings. Unwilling to interrupt your filming, you hit the divert button, redirecting the call to your MP3 player. This annoys your offspring, who were watching a movie on it. To placate them, you tell them to fetch your video camera, which they can use to stream the same movie to your television in higher quality...

Re:Convergence

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! I've seen pitches like this in research meetings!

Re:Pointless... Between that and FPS games...

[i.of.the.storm]

Funny mods don't give you karma anyway...

Re:Pointless... Between that and FPS games...

[timster]

Some of us are long since bored with karma and just hang out here in the hopes of finding a good opportunity for a joke.

I own an A630, this really is a neat hack

[DragonTHC]

I installed this on my A630 after reading the wired article. Here are some interesting features: Zebra, a live flashing warning of over-exposure limit. RAW format! Though I cannot read the files on my computer for some reason. and the Live histogram is very cool. There's one feature I can't really understand though, the shutter speed override. It supposedly has settings up to 1/100k but I seriously doubt my camera's physical shutter can operate that fast. What actual settings can I set it on to have the highest shutter speed possible that the camera can physically do?

Re:I own an A630, this really is a neat hack

[wllf]

The RAW files from chdk are not in any standard format and contain no exif information. You can convert them easily to DNG with this tool. It even copies the exif information from the jpg if it is available.

Oh lord no...

[jnelson4765]

The 350D has bad enough noise at ISO 1600. 3200 would be dreadful. I'd rather have ISO 50 and 25 for using wide-aperture lenses in broad daylight and doing long exposures in the sun without having to stack ND filters. High ISO would be nice, but it's not something the sensor in the 350D can do. Let's wait for the 5D Mk II for that one...

Re:Oh lord no...

[moosesocks]

Under certain conditions, and if you're using RAW processing, the noise at ISO 1600 is mostly "acceptable"

Although cranking it up to 3200 might produce results that are too noisy to use in a print, I could see a few cases in which it would be nice to have.

That all said, the 350D is a fantastic body, and I can't think of much more functionality that a firmware 'hack' could provide that isn't somehow limited by hardware...

Re:Pointless... Between that and FPS games...

[i.of.the.storm]

Haha, that's true. I don't post much anyway so I'm not worried about karma either to be honest. I prefer to soak in the intelligent discussion here. Now I want to get a Canon camera for my parents and hack it, because although they probably wouldn't use most of the features, at the very least being able to zoom while in video would be useful, although a point-and-shoot camera is a poor substitute for an actual camcorder.

Sweet, now time to move on...

[r_jensen11]

and get to work at getting me RAW mode for my Cybershot! Being able to use my cybershot also as a webcam would be sweet, too

Yup, I've had it for months and its bloody great..

[distantbody]

...apart from the slightly akward UI, CHDK has given me time lapse, exposure control, shutter speed control, and reversi! No webcam capabilty so far though :(

wrong

[nguy]

RAW mode is very useful on small, noisy sensors. That's because RAW software running on a desktop can do a much better job doing the conversion than the in-camera converter.

oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

including games and BASIC scripting. 10 SPY ON NEIGHBOURS
20 GOTO 10

One can also shoot stereoscopic photos

[3D-nut]

Using a pair of Canon point-and-shoots,the SDM (Stereo Data Maker) version of CHDK, and a cheap electrical switch connected to the USB ports of both cameras. This allows you to trigger both cameras at very nearly the same instant, and has other stereo-related features as well.

Hardly new

[clickclickdrone]

I have a Canon 300D (aka Digital Rebel) with a hacked firmware that effectively turns it into a 10D - a much more expensive variant. Pretty much all canon DSLRs have been hacked to upgrade them and add features over the years. It was probably 5+ years ago that someone managed to run MAME on a Kodak point & click which was pretty cool too.

Canon is losing it

[dcxdan]

Well, up to a point I had great words for the Canon A series cameras. But after using the Canon A540, I went back to buying Nikon digitals. The Canon A540 sure eats up batteries, no matter what I have used - AA alkaline or rechargable NiMH . And no, I do not have one of the recalled A series with a bad battery door. Anyway, I went back to using my Canon A95 for important photography, that using 4 AA batteries

Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Great piece of software . My tiny a550 just became competition for an SLR !!!. I just love the zebra and histogram features

ND Filter is not for faster shutter

[mrman18766]

The firmware probably isn't going to be able to get the shutter to go any faster reliably. What you need to use is a ND filter if you like wide apertures. The ND (Neutral Density Filter) is to enable a SLOWER shutter speed - by limiting the amount of light let in the lens. One use is to get a motion effect when taking a picture of a waterfall - enabled by being able to use a longer shutter speed yet get the same exposure as if one did not use the filter.

If you want to have a FASTER shutter speed for a given exposure then there are 2 variables: ISO - make it lower, or APERTURE - the larger the hole that lets in light the faster you can capture the correct amount. PS: I'm a dumbass and first posted this AC. With this being the first time i believe i actually have an informative post :) IANAPP (I am not a Professional Photographer)

higher resolution video

[heroine]

There has always been the potential for these hacks to enable higher resolution video than the camera was programmed to do, but no-one has done it.