Slashdot Mirror
Canon DSLR Hack Allows It To Shoot RAW Video
When the Canon 50D DSLR camera was released back in 2008, it could take nice pictures, but it had no support for video recording. Now, through an enterprising hack by members of the Magic Lantern forums, the 50D can capture RAW video. From the article:
"The tech inside the 50D looks like it borrows a lot more from its higher-end siblings, like the 5D Mark II, and it’s possible we may actually get better RAW video quality out of the 50D than we do out of any of the non-CF Canon cameras. ... The camera doesn’t have playback or audio recording as it was never designed to shoot video, but this isn’t too different from the RAW recording on the other Canon DSLRs at the moment."
Now that is a kickass hack! Seriously, taking hardware with limited functionality and actually adding (not just restoring) functionality to it that was not planned for it is pretty cool.
This is not like the "triple core" or "double core" CPUs being "hacked" into quad-cores when the crippling was just the setting low of a line or setting of a jumper on the chip. That was back when they were making all the chips quad cores and then crippling them as needed to meet market need: more dual cores were being purchased because of the lower price point, so the manufacturer just intentionally "disavowed" the extra cores on those chips, just to make a sale at that price point.
Of course, due to some hardware limitations, it can just record bursts of 59 frames at a time (probably RAM buffer limits since the RAW video takes up hella lot of data):
DNG Burst and raw videoThe 50d can already shoot DNG silent bursts with maximum resolutions of 1592x1062 (buffer is full at 59 frames) in 1x mode and 1992x1080 (buffer is full at 53 frames) in crop mode thanks to @smeangol http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5481.msg37526#msg37526
@coutts has found the stubs for the 40d which means it is 'likely' that the 40d can do raw video and DNG bursts however it will need porting and developing.
@Smeangol is having some success in porting the raw recording feature however some other developer assistance may be required to iron out bugs.
are camera companies ripping people off and people are having to hack thing themselves to get an actual functional product?
Maybe; but probably not in this case. It's a five year old product that wasn't designed to do this. Most of these are probably sitting in closets or got recycled by now. Sure there are times when a product is fully functional and simply crippled by the manufacturer. This may or may not have been the case. Maybe it doesn't support as much memory as the other models. Maybe it will overheat if you shoot video. That's why it's called "voiding the warranty". While not all manufacturers are good, they're not all evil either.
How about making old 550D 640x480 cropped video mode to save video uncompressed (for planetary observations)? ;]
ps. ML is a great piece of software and UI of nightlies surpasses canons ui
It's from 2008.
The cameras which do video record using some of the pixels on the sensor but they also encode it.
No, not really. This is a camera, designed for stills. It has the capacity to capture video (unlocked by this hack) but no ability to capture audio, or playback the video, meaning it's not really a functional video camera. That is, while it has the technical capacity to capture video, it has none of the supporting features that make the ability to capture video useful.
It's like plugging your headphones into your microphone jack and talking through them. Yeah, they have the technical capability to record sound, but the rest of the device isn't designed to make that capability useful.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
He's clearly a criminal mastermind and an obvious threat to national security! Sniper team, fire at will!
Most device manufacturers do not have a lot of budget on their firmware development, so, what they do is to have a generic-enough firmware developed, then they add and/or delete a couple of options, depending on the price point of their device model, package it as the firmware for that particular model
Back in the olden days when we were using USRobotic dial up modems we used to buy 2400 baud modem and then re-flash them to run at 4800 or even 9600 baud
The magic lantern community has been around for a long time, and I am surprised that Slashdot does not know about them, until now
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
it uses >1G of storage per minute of video, I've been watching this on the 6DD development thread for the last couple of weeks.
Higher resolutions can run for limited bursts the limit is the speed of writing to the SD card.
note that the 6D can also do HD compressed video with the stock firmware
David Lang
Not to mention the capacity issues... These cameras are eating up something like 500-600 megabits per second at full resolution, and the ones people are most excited about doing this on (like the 5DIII) cost as much or more than video cameras that are designed to record to high bit-depth compressed format like ProRes 4444 (which is 12-bit).
I guess there's some value in getting more out of your existing gear...
Feel free to create and manufacture your own camera with free software. Nothing is stopping you.
Monstar L
Is the Nikkor 50mm f//1.4 that much better than the Canon equivalent?
This is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Exactly how is it unethical to sell me a product that I want, that does exactly what I want it to do for a price I am happy to pay, unethical?
If it were advertised to do more but didn't, that would be unethical.
The difference is that recording audio through your headphones gets you crappy audio that technically works and is a pain in the rear to capture. With a hack like this you get really great video quality (and audio is something you're ideally recording with separate equipment anyway), but it's a pain in the rear to capture. In the headphones-as-microphone case the only real motivation is desperation, but in this case you actually have a really great end product to show for it, and you can get it out of relatively very cheap gear. So if you don't have a lot of money and you really need video at that quality, then working around the restrictions of a hacked DSLR may very well be worth it, and can open up possibilities that wouldn't otherwise be accessible to you.
Making non-free software is unethical.
No it isn't. EOC.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Well, shit. Now that you wrote "EOC" I guess no other arguments can be made. Damn—I had a good one, too!
Excellent software that is easy to install and uses and provides additional functionality besides video. Highly recommended! Just hanging out for further development of ML for the 5d mk3.
It can be unethical when the manufacturer or a group of manufacturer makes sure that the products you can buy are only available with certain limitations and at a fixed price. You would still want "that product", it would do "exactly what you want because you do no know better" and at a price you are "happy to pay" since you need it and there is no alternative. The benefit for the monopolist or the oligopolist is that they can maximise the cash they remove from your pocket, and make sure it's very hard for disruptive technologies to enter the market. in the ex: DDR many people where very happy to buy a "Trabant" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Trabi_Go to get an idea of the attachment people had for their car, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant to have an idea of what you could get after 5 to 25 waiting time and a large part of your "extra cash"... So it's not because you are too dumb to understand that you've been conned that it's not an unethical con. And of course "non free software" is a "cheap" way to make sure that your hardware is controlled by the seller and not you, whether it's a computer, a phone, a tablet, a camera, or even a car... (non free software in the car systems enables the manufacturer to force you to use the garage they choose (by forcing them to buy their diagnostic tools and only authorize them to use their spare parts at their prices)
Are you sure this is the official point of view of the Eastern Orthodox Church ? or does it has something to do with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ?
Look -- I'm not going into the discussion of what is ethical. Too complicated.
But a business relation is a relation of trust, and if I find out someone is selling me something for a price while they could just sell me more for the same price (because it doesn't involve more work or material on their side), then I'll be less likely to buy from them in the future. Plain and simple.
Now that doesn't apply for this case, because Canon might have a reason to do things as they did (including "it's a lot harder to write better firmware"), but there are many cases which do apply.
Ethical? Unethical? I just don't care. I'll take my business elsewhere (and recommend others to do likewise).
"It can be unethical when" is a qualification that was not applied to the AC's original statement. Quite often it's banded around like it's an axiom or a matter of orthodoxy.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
These are some cool hacks, but I will stick to my NXCAM's for work. They have much better lens for video and near unlimited storage (22 hours @ 1080p30, 2Xsd + flash module)
Tomorrow is another day...
So if you don't have a lot of money and you really need video at that quality, then working around the restrictions of a hacked DSLR may very well be worth it, and can open up possibilities that wouldn't otherwise be accessible to you.
Oh yeah, I'm not seeing there's no point to the hack - I'm just saying that Canon not providing video out of the box wasn't done out of malicious intent.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
EOC - Eventually On Canon?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Most of these are probably sitting in closets or got recycled by now.
This isn't a disposable point and shoot, it's a $1400 dSLR discontinued less than 3 years ago, with a still competitive specification. I'd hazard a guess that most of them are still in active use. Also, from the article "The tech inside the 50D looks like it borrows a lot more from its higher-end siblings, like the 5D Mark II, and it's possible we may actually get better RAW video quality out of the 50D than we do out of any of the non-CF Canon cameras." ('non-CF' cameras would include the current 60D model and below).
Hate to break it to you, but the RMS line of thinking isn't practical for most people. And sadly, he doesn't seem to grasp why it isn't practical for most people. During one of his speeches, a person in the crowd once asked him how software developers should make their living in his ideal world, and his answer amounted to something along the lines of getting room and board from universities for free in exchange for ideas (which is essentially what he does.) Hate to break it to you, but that simply isn't practical at all.
As somebody who believes strongly in free market economics, I recognize the benefits of open source and open standards. It basically amounts to what Ford did with building cars on the assembly line, which made cars cheaper and made parts interchangeable. Further, by reducing the need to reinvent the wheel, you can now spend that time and/or money on some other project instead of repeating what was already done. Basically, it creates economic efficiency, which is why various commercial enterprises are now publishing the source for projects that they create. The idea is that somebody else may build on it for their particular need, which can then be used by the originating company, so they have gained something out of it. Webkit and Linux are both great examples of this.
That model doesn't work for every situation though. For example, games developers mostly depend on end-user sales, and by the time they need to improve something (because the hardware has finally caught up with their goals) they generally have to start from scratch or at least rewrite the vast majority of their existing code anyways. It is not at all unethical for them to not release the source, nor is there any economic advantage in doing so. In fact, it could even harm them from lost sales to license their code to other games developers who want to use their game engine, or even any trade secrets that are just given away if the source is public.
To me, RMS is by and large a nutcase. He wonders why Hurd will probably never make it, and why people just call Linux by the name of the kernel rather than his insisted GNU/Linux (many embedded distributions of Linux don't include any GNU tools at all, by the way.) Some even suspect that he is a high functioning autistic, and I agree. Likewise, that line of thinking is probably why you got modded to -1.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Ethics is interesting thing. Just because they can should mean they should. I can buy and sink homeless puppies every day. And it won't prolly be illegal. Doesn't mean it's good. Now is it ethical behavior? Depends.On one hand, killing puppies is obviously bad. On another hand, see animal suffering from hunger might be worse...
I tend to agree with both statements of parents. It is bad that software is locked. You are free to sell your's. Majority is stupid to go for first option, so what i thik is really irrelevant, unless i can educate majority, which i don't think is possible... Perhaps it makes majority inherently stupid/immoral?
No, it just means that he explicitly marked the end of his comment (EOC = End Of Comment), so you don't accidentally read on to the next comment and think it is still his. ;-)
No, they are not. There are many reasons this was not enabled on the original camera, but let's take a look at some of them.
This is not today usable to anyone but the most hard-core video enthusiasts. Think about it. This is raw video. The recommended cards to use are 1000x cards (which were not available at the time and quite expensive today). You should have 64G cards or bigger in order to put more than a couple of minutes worth of video on the card. Then you need to post-process what is basically a bunch of images. After Effects is not something the average user has. Also, the camera doesn't have microphone input, so there is no way you can get audio in the video from the camera. Etc, and so forth.
This is for movie makers who are happy bringing dozens of CF cards at $300 a pop on a shoot. Most people doesn't spend $3000 on a camera, let alone 10 compact flash cars so they can shoot for an hour.
Actually the sensors used in Canon and Nikon cameras are manufactured by Canon and Nikon on Canon and Nikon Lithographic processes, and are used exclusively in Canon and Nikon cameras. You can't buy the sensors for use in your own camera and what is available commercially is substantially inferior to those produced by Canon and Nikon (and Sony).
In fact there are cameras with free software firmware, including digital cinema cameras similar to what this hack does, however the quality of the sensors used in them is inferior, resulting in an inferior camera. Also Canon and Nikon DSLRs have extremely good opto-mechanical assemblies, which would be hard to match.
Nikon is a leader in precision engineering, they built one of the first ruling engines which is a pretty critical piece of precision machinery for bootstrapping photolithography as it is used to produce linear diffraction gratings which is critical to all photolithographic processes, additionally Canon and Nikon are two of the very few (I can also think of Minolta, Carl Zeiss, ASML and Applied Materials) companies worldwide that produce steppers which are used for patterning semiconductor wafers. The precision construction of lens and mirrors is the dominant limiting factor in geometry reductions in photolithography, so it follows that companies with a long history of making quality optical components and devices are also leaders in the field of photolithography. As I'm sure you are aware, this type of equipment and processing is extremely expensive (billions of dollars).
So nothing is stopping you, except billions of dollars of capital you don't have.
with a still competitive specification
Not even close to a competitive specification in relation to this discussion. The camera doesn't have a microphone. Shooting video with no sound is not something most people are willing to do. Also, at the time of the camera release, DSLR video was not close to as practical as it is today. The on-board chip would not have been able to encode H.264 at a pace required to store on the CF cards at the time. RAW video would have been unthinkable since the CF cards of the time could not keep up with RAW video and would only be able to store a couple of minutes of it even if they did.
This is not about a manufacturer crippling a camera, it is about a manufacturer creating a usable product with the technology available at the time, and by available I mean for the intended audience. Even today, only the top of the line (at $300 a pop) memory cards can keep up with the RAW video stream.
Nikon uses Sony sensors.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So most of the Hollywood high end cameras are also non functional? Because a panavision camera cant record audio. That is why they do the clapper thing and have an audio recording setup.
IT makes it unusable to consumers that want to film their kitteh. But then shooting RAW video is useless to 99% of the people that have video cameras.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
No, not really. This is a camera, designed for stills. It has the capacity to capture video (unlocked by this hack) but no ability to capture audio, or playback the video, meaning it's not really a functional video camera.
Uh, for the majority if the history of cinema, people have captured "video" on devices with no ability to capture audio, or playback video. I don't think any of those photographers, directors or producers considered those cameras "not really functional".
Up until about 3 years ago it was normal to record on 35mm film, where the final capture could not be seen until it was sent to a lab, processed, developed and printed. Of course at some point they put splitters in the viewfinder which record (typically B&W) what was shot to video tape at much reduced quality. Additionally the largest 35mm cartridges used have capacity for 11 minutes at 24fps.
As for audio, no audio (if any) that is captured by the film camera makes it into the movie, they have a separate crew with all their own equipment for capturing the sound, and even then it is often overdubbed in a voiceover studio.
Consider that this 2008 camera now has the ability to capture images that would surpass any camera available in the 1960s and probably '70s and many workhorse cameras of the '80s. Consider that the great works of Stanley Kubrick, Oliver Stone and Francis Ford Coppola were captured on cameras capable of less and put things in perspective.
3D printing will let you print your own sensors. In about a week, or two, tops.
So nothing is stopping you, except billions of dollars of capital you don't have.
And this is where the idea of intellectual property makes sense. If someone invested billions in creating something, he's entitled to profit from that.
It's not like those billions were lying around. People worked to save money and invested it in shares of those companies, that's where the billions came from.
Sure, if you want to lug that big thing around. a 3CCD setup in S35 format would be enormous. And cost an insane amount of money.
Even the Sony F65, RED Epic, and the Arri Alexa use single sensors. The 3CCD thing is really a prosumer thing, and a leftover from the olden days of vidicons and other vacuum tube cameras. I'd make a bet that the companies that have produced cameras that Academy award winning cinematographers used on those features know a little bit more than you do...
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
Not even close to a competitive specification in relation to this discussion
You're missing my point. I'm replying to the AC's suggestion that most of these cameras will have been junked or shelved by now, which seems unlikely. With the very obvious exception of video, the _unhacked_ camera stands up pretty well in 2013, and has a decent second-hand value (many still photographers have only a passing interest in video). For those who are interested, this looks like a worthwhile hack, especially if it eventually produces 'better RAW video quality' than anything short of the semi-pro models.
Canon must not mind people hacking on their firmware. There is another project, the CHDK project, that allows you to replace the firmware on most Canon point and shoot cameras, again coming up with great features not originally on the camera. Things like:
RAW, bracketing, full manual control over exposure, zebra mode, live histogram, grids, motion detection and Scripting using ubasic and Lua scripts.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
It is the reason I will only buy canon cameras.
Wax on, wax off baby!
Awesome, but an SLR is simply inadequate for video. What you really want is a mirrorless system, preferrably one optimised for digital sensors. The only one nowadays is Micro Four Thirds, with Olympus, Panasonic &, soon, Kodak cameras. Of these, Panasonic is the more video oriented, and its flagship hybrid GH line cameras have already been hacked, so I would be interested if someone replicated this hack there (or at the nearly equivalent Olympus OMD EM line).
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
What part of The camera doesn't have playback or audio recording as it was never designed to shoot video is unclear to you? It's a still camera. Someone hacked it into an impractical video camera with no sound. Maybe the sensor will survive being powered for far longer than it was designed to, or maybe it will overheat and be irreparably damaged. It's a cool hack and that is all that it is. Nobody is getting cheated here.
Might as well enjoy it. We're all going to die.
It can be unethical when the manufacturer or a group of manufacturer makes sure that the products you can buy are only available with certain limitations and at a fixed price.
Conversely, even though the hardware may be capable of doing many things with the right software, those software features cost money to create. So the vendor has a choice:
1. Give everyone those software features, raise the price for everyone to cover the cost of creating them.
2. Give those software features only to the people willing to pay for them, therefore keeping the price down for the people who aren't.
(2) seems like a better option for everyone - the consumers who aren't interested in paying for a feature get to keep the cheap price they desire; the consumers who are interested in paying for a feature gets that feature; the vendor recoups the cost of (and profits from) development of that feature.
The slashdot crowd seem to think that just because software distribution is essentially free, software creation is too.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
You wouldn't want the audio most DSLRs offer. Serious users are already using external recorders like the Zoom H1.
Hey! My 50D is still alive and kicking, you insensitive clod! ;-)
To me, RMS is by and large a nutcase.
Some may argue that, but he's still the guy responsible for kicking off free software as a phenomenon.
It's open to question whether Linux would have been released under something like the GPL if Stallman hadn't created that in the first place. Bear in mind that it was originally distributed under its own license, which restricted commercial usage.
He wonders why Hurd will probably never make it
Does he, or are you putting words in his mouth?
My understanding is that Stallman is generally positive about the Linux kernel itself (even if he dislikes the use of "Linux" to refer to the whole OS and lack of acknowledgement given to the GNU components), and considers it to fulfil the need for a Free kernel that the Hurd was originally intended to meet.
and why people just call Linux by the name of the kernel rather than his insisted GNU/Linux
Possibly because it's shorter, or because they're lazy. Whatever the reason, I doubt it's got much to do with them being ideologically opposed to Stallman.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
that's called the government and it's their job. Not a private company's. Even when they participate in charities, it's due to tax breaks, marketing, or other business incentives. It's seldom about pure altruism.
as a photographer, i'm interested in this. I know how to edit video, but it's still relatively new to me. I always strip the sound out or use an external audio recording if necessary and pair it up in FCP or Premiere. But most of the time I just add special effects (CG animation renders) or overlay with music. Unfortunately, I already bought a T3i and the audio is just an added burden to remove. I like Magic Lantern, but hate digging through the menus to disable audio and whatnot. Then again, it's not a cakewalk to configure the settings on a Panasonic HVX either.
Video on my Cannon 50D for years, and before anybody calls bs or somethin!!! hold on there is only one 'n' in Cannon? wtf
C) Allow people to examine the extant software features, and let them improve them easily and legally.
This is actually better for the economy, as it turns out. :-P
Is this the nerd version of YOLO, or are you channeling Marvin the Paranoid Android?
"Maybe the sensor will survive being powered for far longer than it was designed to, or maybe it will overheat and be irreparably damaged."
One of the few intelligent points in this entire conversation.
The onboard microphones on DSLRs pretty god awful. You probably shouldn't use them anyway and would be wise to invest in separate audio recorder/mixer. Even if the microphone was decent you still lack decent gain control, it's usually stored in a lossy codec, and most of the other components are lower quality and introduce lots of additional noise to your recording. It's just not capable of recording good audio.
Oh, the old "everybody that disagrees with me is so stupid that don't even know how stupid they are" routine. Thanks for the "enlightenment".
As i posted earlier... Just call every one that disagrees with you too stupid too even know they are stupid. Libs in the US do that with minorities who disagree with them all the time. It is a pretty bigoted viewpoint but you have every right in the world to be a bigot.
Canon has issued statements declaring that Magic Lantern does not void the warranty. ...just one more reason to like Canon. :)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You do realize that the die temperature would need to get to 120C or thereabouts to even begin speaking of any damage, right? It's possible it'll happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Trolling troll was trolling. The hint was the absolutism of the statement. Even RMS has a somewhat nuanced set of opinions on software being free. Trolls don't care enough to. They just say what they need to say to piss you off.
/* it has none of the supporting features that make the ability to capture video useful */
erm, what?
I record sound externally and sync in post. Having in-camera recording makes syncing much easier, for sure, but it's not a necessity. I'm more concerned about the frame drops and system stability than lack of audio.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
As an aspiring independent filmmaker, I've been following this with great interest (disclosure: I shoot through a hacked Panasonic GH2 and will most likely add a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera to the line-up this summer). In 2009, you couldn't find Compact Flash cards fast enough to write the data that RAW requires, and even if you could, the pricing would be astronomical compared to the cost of the camera. REmember that these are DSLRs, not dedicated video cameras. It was a selling point that Canon eventually tacked on to meet a consumer "bullet point" ("Hey! You can also take some videos with this camera!") and they had no idea the monster they were about to unleash once people discovered that they could get "better" video from a $1500-2000 camera than a $15k dedicated video camera. That's the game changing part.
But, as evidenced last night at my school's film festival for its students, you don't even need a high end camera to make a good movie. My and others' favorite movie? Shot on a fucking iPad. a fucking iPAD. I've also seen some great stuff shot on Nokia phones, iphones, android phones, etc. If you've got a good story and good audio, the film image doesn't have to be spectacular.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Possibly because it's shorter, or because they're lazy. Whatever the reason, I doubt it's got much to do with them being ideologically opposed to Stallman.
Because it is shorter, and because modifying Linux with GNU implies that there is some other Linux out there that does not use primarily GNU tools, thus creating unnecessary specificity. Also, because Linux is actually the thing that turned GNU tools into something that could actually be called a complete operating system. They could have called it simply GNUOS or something, but since Linus made the piece that made it all work, his kernel gets the credit. It is the missing piece and it was the foundation.
That said, I totally get why RMS would use the terminology. There's a lot of work that went into the GNU tools and it is more than a little annoying to have been upstaged, even by something as central as the kernel. Anyone who feels strongly about it should certainly use it, but I'm never going to bother personally. I know who is responsible for things like gcc, glibc and lots of other things, and so does everyone else I've ever worked with.
Odd that pretty much every broadcast TV camera in the world uses 3 CCD sensors, the big sensor single chip stuff like the F65 and the alexa (discounting the red which is seen as cheap shit throughout the indstry) tend to be used by people that like to pretend that they're making feature films, when in treality a hand ful of people will see it.
As for lack of experience - I recently was involuntarily retired from the BBC after 35 years exclusivly in studio engineering - starting with 30mm plumbicon tubes, so you'll forgive me for having forgotten more about video cameras that a tosser like you has ever known/
I totally agree, and the audio was not my point. The fact that Canon didn't cripple these on purpose was.
They use a mix; The D7000 was Sony, for instance, but the D4 was Nikon. It's not just low-end / high-end split either; the 3200 was Nikon IIRC.
Canon uses Canon sensors.
Nikon uses Sony sensors.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
"After Effects is not something the average user has. Also, the camera doesn't have microphone input, so there is no way you can get audio in the video from the camera. Etc"
The sort of people using After effects don't care about audio on the camera, in the same way that most tv/movie film cameras have no audio capability.
This is about getting a cheaper high quality video (only) camera in the hands of amateur film makers. The sort of people that want to record audio on a separate device, and for him several minutes of footage at a time is plenty. (Most shots don't last very long before a cut, etc)
There are lots of uses for a less expensive/less capable camera- for instance this would make a great crash cam. Also, as others have mentioned professional movie makers almost always use a separate audio recording device.
love is just extroverted narcissism
""The tech inside the 50D looks like it borrows a lot more from its higher-end siblings, like the 5D Mark II"
The ergonomics are borrowed from the single-digit cameras, as is the easily-swappable viewfinder. HOWEVER the sensor and AF are more closely related to the XXD/Rebel line than the 5D. Also, IIRC the 50D had a magnesium body.
Even in the current XXD (60D, aka "super rebel") the sensor may taken from the 7D (with fewer data lines) but the feature set (including AF) is more closely related to the XXD models than the XD models, even though the ergonomics are a mix of XXXD and XD. BTW the current XXD (60D) has a plastic body, not magnesium.
The XXD really doesn't inherit all that much from the XD bodies. Rumors indicate that might change, that the XXD is going to get better AF and the 7D is moving further upmarket, but rumors sites tend to be wrong about upcoming bodies 90% of the time.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Nobody said they shouldn't profit from their excellent sensors. The argument was purely about their software. Which is the part which certainly didn't need the billions of dollars to create.
unless you're doing documentary or long b-rolls, most movies and tv shows are storyboarded and each shot lasts 10-40 seconds (with heads and tail). The number of takes is contingent upon the talent. And sound is recorded separately.
This is excellent for the indie film maker.
are camera companies ripping people off and people are having to hack thing themselves to get an actual functional product?
by this logic, processor manufacturer's have been doing this since day 1.
"Shooting video with no sound is not something most people are willing to do."
Um, what? It's pretty much standard for video production. Video gets shot on a video-dedicated device, audio gets recorded on devices dedicated to audio (DAW+Mixer+tons of microphones) and then you sync/cut/edit both streams in production.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"That is, while it has the technical capacity to capture video, it has none of the supporting features that make the ability to capture video useful."
That's what production/post-production is for.......
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
By that same line of reasoning, nobody should be posting on Slashdot.
If your goal is to have a video (at video resolution) rather than a professional movie, you'll average over several pixels anyway (because the image resolution of a photo camera is above the video resolution even with 1080p). So I don't think the Beyer mask will make much difference, because the extra quality of a three-CCD setup would mostly be averaged away anyway.
I'd expect the video/TV cameras will only have as many pixels as the intended resolution (which means larger individual pixels = better S/N), and thus for those it really matters if you use a Beyer mask (consumer) or three CCDs (professional).
And this is where the idea of intellectual property makes sense. If someone invested billions in creating something, he's entitled to profit from that.
Spending money does not entitle you to profit, I wish people would understand that. You could spend billions of dollars to research something useless. IP law gives creators the privilege of monopoly control, not the right. That privilege is meant as an encouragement to share what they've created instead of keeping it secret. When encouragement is no necessary that privilege does not make sense. People invent thing because the want to or need to. IP law doesn't encourage people to create things. What IP law is supposed to do is encourage people to share those things once they've created them rather than horde it for fear of being copied.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
The camera could have been designed with no ability to accept updates or external software. Your religion of free software would have been irrelevant then: even if the source were known, you'd be unable to apply any changes to the camera.
Canon is quite forward-thinking in allowing the software to be changed.
On a related note, Canon has invested a great deal of time and money optimizing the de-Bayering of the RAW images. No free algorithms to post-process pictures combines the sharpness and relative freedom from color aliasing that Canon software yields. They earned their superiority, they have no duty to provide it to childish whiners like you.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
An 8x10 view camera built in 1910 can produce better images than any consumer-grade digital camera.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Without RMS and GNU, yes, it's quite possible that Linux as we know it would not exist -- the non-commercial license would have prevented it from ever getting much of anywhere.
In which case, of course, Linux would never have (mostly) squeezed out BSD-derived distributions as it did, so most likely some BSD flavor would be occupying much the same role Linux does. There would absolutely be differences, and we can't be sure what those differences would be, but "OMG no Linux" isn't nearly as scary as it sounds -- there would still be free *n*x distroes, because there have been free *n*x distros before the GNU manifesto.
And if you're concerned that "big corps would fork our BSDs and take over the market with their proprietary BSDs" -- Linux being under the GPL doesn't stop that now; Apple did just that with OS X, so what's the deal if the main free *n*x was, say, NetBSD, and Apple copies and proprietarizes that; why should Apple's NetBSD-based OS X be any more successful at squelching NetBSD, than FreeBSD-based OS X was at squelching Linux? Again, I'm not saying that there wouldn't have been changes for the worse, just that it wouldn't be the calamity it sounds like.
So most of the Hollywood high end cameras are also non functional? Because a panavision camera cant record audio. That is why they do the clapper thing and have an audio recording setup.
Med iPhone
www.med4design.com
That's why I didn't say "what most professional or highly advanced enthusiasts are willing to do", I said "most people". "Most people" never even get a proper microphone for their camcorder.
"OMG no Linux" isn't nearly as scary as it sounds [..] it wouldn't be the calamity it sounds like
Note that I said that "It's open to question whether Linux would have been released under something like the GPL if Stallman hadn't created that in the first place", not in the scaremongering manner you presented it as.
And your point regarding OS X seems a little strange... you're saying the fact that OS X (based on Mach and BSD, the latter BSD-licensed) hasn't taken over the market from the GPL-licensed Linux proves something in favour of the former (i.e. BSD licensing) rather than the latter (i.e. the GPL)?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Most people with half a clue even in college know better than to do what you propose.
Shut the fuck up and join the rest of the smart population.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
That's not entirely true- the apertures needed to get the most photos into focus really degrade the sharpness of 8x10. In some cases you are right but in most practical applications not so much.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Fair point ... have they cured the skewed verticals on panning shots yet?
So most of the Hollywood high end cameras are also non functional? Because a panavision camera cant record audio. That is why they do the clapper thing and have an audio recording setup.
IT makes it unusable to consumers that want to film their kitteh. But then shooting RAW video is useless to 99% of the people that have video cameras.
Yeah, and this is a pro-sumer camera, not a Hollywood high-end camera. Not being able to record audio, and not being able to preview the shot is likely to make it useless for the vast majority of its target demographic (as you observer). I'm not saying the hack is useless, I'm saying that if Canon had included it as a feature, it would have appeared half-assed to most if the owners, making the whole device seem bad.
That's why Canon didn't enable it, not because they were trying to artificially raise the price of their higher-tier hardware.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Ego Overpowers Caution?
You have no clue what "most people" even mean, do you? Most people are fuzzy on the difference between a program and its data. Most people don't know H.264 from DV-AVI. Most people can, given some training, grasp iMovie or Windows Movie Maker, and that's it. Most people never use an external microphone when recording video of their kids playing in the garden or swimming in the pool. Most people (in the western world) have video recording capabilities, and statistically none of them use anything else than the built in microphone to record sound with their video.
Personally I use mostly a Zoom h4n, but I am not most people. I also use PocketWizards and multiple speedlights when doing flash photography. The vast majority of the population uses either the built-in flash or a separate flash mounted on the camera.
Now, shut the fuck up and learn how to read.
I am thinking you dont have a clue how to make movies at all.
I am thinking neither do most of this camera's owners
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I just did the math. A Canon 50d has an expected shutter life of 100,000 snaps. One hour of 24 frames per second video chews up 864,000 snaps. Hmm, beautiful images, but worth burning through the shutter life of the camera? Nipped from another forum: "I've seen OEM 50D shutters brand new for sale on ebay for $40.00. I've also seen videos showing you how to replace the shutter yourself." -- yes but all for an eighth of an hour of video? It seems like this hack might be the first thing one should leave on the cutting room floor.
Yeah, but you can only take one picture before you have to replace it. Oh wait, it's 9. No, no, it's 600 shots. Or was that 300?
Making non-free software is unethical. If the camera is controlled by non-free software then making that camera is unethical.
I agree that in a time where we are trying to reduce human consumption of earths resources, that it is unethical to create products that do not allow the consumer to obtain the full potential out of physical materials used to make it. This is similar in the router industry where multiple routers of varying functions and cost are the same physical product. The unethical part is that the company actively cripples an identical product in order to artificially create artificial scales of value. What happens when a customer decides that they need a feature that is not available in the crippled version? They dispose of the crippled product to buy the exact same product with non-crippling software. Good for company profits, but bad for human consumption and waste.
I think there should be a law against producing hardware products with closed source software. It would be best if the manufacture did not even provide any software pre-installed on their products. This would encourage re-use of older products and provide the option for new features on products that the manufacturer did not envision at the time of sale.
Why are you defending the concept of allowing consumers to have more options over the features of their hardware products? Does the idea of limiting manufacturer profits upset you? Do you prefer to purchase products that are intentionally crippled by software to not allow you to achieve the full potential out of the products you paid for?
Think very generally. How would you feel if you needed to purchase three shovels... one for digging in dirt, another for sand and one for digging gravel? This is not possible with a shovel, because only software allows a manufacture to actively cripple the physical item you paid for in a way which limits its functionality. But if a shovel manufacturer could limit its function in this way... you can be sure that they would do it. And all competitors would do it too... and the reason isnt to compete for a better shovel, but rather to increase the total market space for demand of shovels. Even if they did produce a shovel that would dig all in all three areas, you can be sure that that uncrippled shovel would cost you more then all 3 shovels... because carrying only one multi purpose shovel is more convenient then carrying all 3.
Now, if you cannot see how the camera industry is using this shovel principal in order to limit the functionality of their camera lines, then you have far more money then me. Because I can clearly see that some features are left out of some cameras when there is no reasonable technical limitations other then not including the feature in the software. I can tell you that the still camera, compact camera and video camera could all be one camera, but no manufacturer will provide all the advanced features of each on one single camera. The current limitations are far less technical and more profit based then you may be willing to admit.
So you are telling us that it is a good and neccessary thing for manufactures to limit the functionality of the physical hardware you paid for in order to allow them to gouge consumers and maximize profits in order to pay for past research and future developments?
I think you are wrong. I think that hardware should always be designed to function at its maximum capabilities. To do less is to encourage consumers to repurchase products to get the functionality that their existing products are already capable of. This causes waste and the earth is not designed for infinite human product waste.
Perhaps if companies cannot recoup the cost of R&D through ethical production and sales of the product and technology they actually developed, then the company deserves to be exposed to a loss on that product line to discourage them from making bad decisions in the future.
I think it is funny the way that many camera experts actually take pride in the fact that their equipment is so outrageously priced. Like their disposable income allows them to enter an elite group and the price is their to limit the masses from competing with them in a feild. Perhaps most photographers realize that if the playing feild was level and all consumers had access to the advanced equipment they can afford, that their "talent" would be exposed as really simply a side effect of much more functional equipment. I mean if everyone had access to the hardware you can afford... maybe your photos would be lost in a sea of equal or better photographs produced by the masses.
The excessive price of good camera equipment is not a good thing for humanity. If you believe that photos and video are more important then the photographer who took it. There are some cases of photographers and cinematographers that excel beyond others. But face reality... your probably just not one of them. Most great historical photography and video is about location and timing (imo). So limiting access to cheap quality equipment only serves to reduce the amount of great historical media we capture for future generations.
To defend a corporate practice of limiting the functionality of photographic hardware only serves to defend the bottom line profits of a corporation.
If someone invested billions in creating something, he's entitled to profit from that.
Profits are not a bad thing. However it is bad to use energy and materials to create anything and then reduce its functionality through software limitations. I suggest to you that Canon and all other photo/video hardware manufacturers are actively engaged in limiting the functionality of the physical products they sell in order to create artificial pricing scales and force consumers into purchasing more hardware then is required.
For example, if an owner of this camera want to start taking video, according to Canon, he should purchase a new product. This is great for Canon, but bad for the consumer who already owns something that can physically do what he wants. And it is bad for the environment which encourages waste instead of reuse.
Now you can easily claim that Canon did not intend this and may not have envisioned this feature when the camera was designed. But I am not the naive. And even if I was, there is a real case that hardware with open sourced software is good for the enviroment and consumer product reuse.
I was wondering if someone else would notice that.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Just saw a crazy camera accessory that plugs into your cameras USB port and let you control almost everything on your camera wireless using your iPad or MAC www.jamlogics.com is it for real, anybody ever seen or used this before?