5 ms·

This is a great idea for the public good, but unfortunately there just isn't much economic imperative for the camera companies to invest in it. Security-sensiti

This is a great idea for the public good, but unfortunately there just isn't much economic imperative for the camera companies to invest in it. Security-sensitive filmmakers and journalists represent a vanishingly small niche, not a meaningful market. For the rest of users, photos taken on stand-alone cameras are generally meant to be shared, not strongly protected, meaning encryption is at best a "nice to have" not a "need to have" or perhaps even a "want to have". And that means that if it comes at the price of even a tiny degree of inconvenience, consumers will refuse it. Having said that, it's not inconceivable that camera makers can solve this problem (a) cheaply and (b) in a way that is "off by default" for most consumers but available if needed. But I'm not holding my breath. I think it's far more likely that we'll see the quality of phone photo/video quality become "good enough" for security-sensitive users to abandon standalone cameras entirely than that we'll see camera encryption catch up in the other direction.

mSparks 10y ago
yeah, the great and the good of film and photography giving you their backing means nothing these days. at least that is probably what trump has been telling himself at night since everyone turned him down to perform at his inauguration speech. for everyone else. kinda a big incentive.
jmde 10y ago
Reasonable point, but I'd argue that the purchasers of dedicated cameras are already not the general market, who will just be using their phone camera anyway. For purchasers of these cameras, I think the cameramakers going down this route would be a clear signal that they care about the users' freedom of speech and security concerns and are taking their use seriously. Also, my guess is compared to other features they work on this would be fairly trivial, or at least in the same ballpark. And I think it would immediately give the camera a certain cache that would signal "professional" or "serious" that would increase its value, regardless of whether or not the user really needs it. Without meaning to be dismissive of the large numbers of people who do need these types of cameras (I have close loved ones who are professional photojournalists who rely on having the best cameras), I think a large proportion of people who who buy them don't need them relative to what's on decent phones today. They're just a status symbol for them anyway.
Johnny555 10y ago
There's still a benefit to the average consumer -- if I lose my camera or SD card, I don't neccessarily want the finder to be able to retrieve all of the photos of my kids, or that "racy" photoshoot my wife and I did that one time in the bedroom... While I do share many of the photos I take, I don't just dump the entire SD card to Facebook, I want to pick and choose which photos I share.
- peterbonney 10y ago
  The average consumer isn't using a standalone camera for their, um, bedroom work... they're using their phone. I'm sure there are some people who get into that sort of stuff enough to use high quality camera gear, but again - vanishingly small niche market. As for kids... most people are just posting it straight to Facebook anyway. Again, some might care about privacy, but not enough to make it a real premium feature, I suspect. Naturally people want to pick and choose which photos they share, but that doesn't mean they are worried enough about the ones they didn't choose falling into the wrong hands to pay a premium and put up with cumbersome decryption procedures - they just don't like those photos as much.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Yes, but the market for high end cameras is an incredibly small niche anyway - small enough that it's not that hard for buyers to have direct contact with business decision makers. If Canon/Nikon won't do it, someone like BlackMagic will.
- Joeboy 10y ago
  There's also (possibly) the Axiom open source camera, if it ever sees the light of day.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I highly doubt it will - developing cameras for professional use is fairly capital-intensive and commercial offerings have such a huge head start that the open source proposition isn't very compelling to cinematographers. The best camera is the one you have in your hands right now, not the one that sounds like it would be great in the future. Even Red camera almost choked on its own hype about the Scarlet and had to do a marketing pivot to get into the mid-price bracket. Ultimately, people drop thousands on a pro camera in order to shoot beautiful pictures, not because they want to write their firmware, so you have a chicken-and-egg situation. And while a few people do write amazing firmware - Magic Lantern being an excellent example - that's a liability on a commercial shoot. I might use ML on an art or micro/no-budget project, but as a producer I'd probably nix the idea; you absolutely don't want to be locked into someone's quirky personal workflow to the extent that you can't fire them if they turn out to be shitty photographers or hard to work with on set.
    - Joeboy 10y ago
      I dunno, everything looks like vapourware until it exists. For the time being I think they're supported by EU funds and they do still seem to be making progress. I would not bet my house on it appearing though. Of course not many people are going to literally write their own firmware, but I can see it being compelling to be able to expand your range of codecs, LUTs etc in a relatively cheap camera, and not have to put up with what the manufacturer thought you'd like. As for ML, I think it's unlikely to destroy your shoot if you stick to the basics like the focusing and exposure tools (I forget what it actually offers tbh). RAW and more experimental features are probably a bad idea on anything serious, but then so is using a consumer Canon camera.

mSparks 10y ago

yeah, the great and the good of film and photography giving you their backing means nothing these days. at least that is probably what trump has been telling himself at night since everyone turned him down to perform at his inauguration speech. for everyone else. kinda a big incentive.

jmde 10y ago

Reasonable point, but I'd argue that the purchasers of dedicated cameras are already not the general market, who will just be using their phone camera anyway. For purchasers of these cameras, I think the cameramakers going down this route would be a clear signal that they care about the users' freedom of speech and security concerns and are taking their use seriously. Also, my guess is compared to other features they work on this would be fairly trivial, or at least in the same ballpark. And I think it would immediately give the camera a certain cache that would signal "professional" or "serious" that would increase its value, regardless of whether or not the user really needs it. Without meaning to be dismissive of the large numbers of people who do need these types of cameras (I have close loved ones who are professional photojournalists who rely on having the best cameras), I think a large proportion of people who who buy them don't need them relative to what's on decent phones today. They're just a status symbol for them anyway.

Johnny555 10y ago

There's still a benefit to the average consumer -- if I lose my camera or SD card, I don't neccessarily want the finder to be able to retrieve all of the photos of my kids, or that "racy" photoshoot my wife and I did that one time in the bedroom... While I do share many of the photos I take, I don't just dump the entire SD card to Facebook, I want to pick and choose which photos I share.

peterbonney 10y ago
The average consumer isn't using a standalone camera for their, um, bedroom work... they're using their phone. I'm sure there are some people who get into that sort of stuff enough to use high quality camera gear, but again - vanishingly small niche market. As for kids... most people are just posting it straight to Facebook anyway. Again, some might care about privacy, but not enough to make it a real premium feature, I suspect. Naturally people want to pick and choose which photos they share, but that doesn't mean they are worried enough about the ones they didn't choose falling into the wrong hands to pay a premium and put up with cumbersome decryption procedures - they just don't like those photos as much.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Yes, but the market for high end cameras is an incredibly small niche anyway - small enough that it's not that hard for buyers to have direct contact with business decision makers. If Canon/Nikon won't do it, someone like BlackMagic will.

Joeboy 10y ago
There's also (possibly) the Axiom open source camera, if it ever sees the light of day.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I highly doubt it will - developing cameras for professional use is fairly capital-intensive and commercial offerings have such a huge head start that the open source proposition isn't very compelling to cinematographers. The best camera is the one you have in your hands right now, not the one that sounds like it would be great in the future. Even Red camera almost choked on its own hype about the Scarlet and had to do a marketing pivot to get into the mid-price bracket. Ultimately, people drop thousands on a pro camera in order to shoot beautiful pictures, not because they want to write their firmware, so you have a chicken-and-egg situation. And while a few people do write amazing firmware - Magic Lantern being an excellent example - that's a liability on a commercial shoot. I might use ML on an art or micro/no-budget project, but as a producer I'd probably nix the idea; you absolutely don't want to be locked into someone's quirky personal workflow to the extent that you can't fire them if they turn out to be shitty photographers or hard to work with on set.
  - Joeboy 10y ago
    I dunno, everything looks like vapourware until it exists. For the time being I think they're supported by EU funds and they do still seem to be making progress. I would not bet my house on it appearing though. Of course not many people are going to literally write their own firmware, but I can see it being compelling to be able to expand your range of codecs, LUTs etc in a relatively cheap camera, and not have to put up with what the manufacturer thought you'd like. As for ML, I think it's unlikely to destroy your shoot if you stick to the basics like the focusing and exposure tools (I forget what it actually offers tbh). RAW and more experimental features are probably a bad idea on anything serious, but then so is using a consumer Canon camera.