6 ms·

Camera software is an area that is frustratingly closed off, and where manufacturers regularly differentiate new/more expensive cameras with firmware difference

by codys 4y ago

Camera software is an area that is frustratingly closed off, and where manufacturers regularly differentiate new/more expensive cameras with firmware differences: subject detection, auto focus, drive modes (pre-capture, higher frame rates, etc), file format support (HEIC, compressed raw, colorspaces), ui features (how custom modes work, menu systems, etc). Competition in this space driven by a provider that doesn't have a motive to convince users to buy the next new camera (ie: open source software) would be very useful to users. Sony and Panasonic cameras (and perhaps other manufacturers) are running Linux (and release some of the third party source code they include in their products, but the amount of reverse engineering that has been done on those camera's software. Canon uses a custom RTOS (DryOS), and lots of work has been done to extend the existing Canon firmware to enhance its capabilities (Magic Lantern[1] and CHDK[2]), but as far as I know fully open software for these devices doesn't exist. Camera capabilities these days are highly software dependent, and the functionality of dedicated cameras is held back by subpar software development practices and a lack of pressure to make things better. 1: https://magiclantern.fm/ https://magiclantern.fm/ 2: https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/CHDK https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/CHDK

dylan604 4y ago
It's not just that they want you to buy new cameras (of course they do), but they also do it to protect different verticals within their company. If a stills camera can shoot video of the same quality but much lower price, then that takes sales from the provideo cameras.
- codys 4y ago
  That's a great point, and shows up in annoying ways in Sony's camera line up in whether "high frame rate" support exists. For Sony cameras, HFR implies "can capture a limited length (seconds, typically) of footage at a higher frame rate (240fps, 480fps, 960fps, etc) and reduced resolution as frame rate increases (this is not the same as normal video modes and S&Q video modes, which don't have time limits like these). Sony includes this feature on cameras without interchangeable lenses (ie: "point and shoots"), and on their high end cinema cameras, but not on their mirrorless (interchangeable lens, but not considered cinema cameras) line. Seems pretty clear this is designed to avoid their mirrorless lineup have a feature that might make it competitive with their cinema line. But they're ok including it on the point and shoot line because that already is well differentiated from the cinema camera line.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I've always given benefit of the doubt that the limited duration of S&Q modes in stills cameras is related to the max throughput of the recording media. 120+fps at 4K resolution starts demanding quite a bit of sustainable bandwidth. Shooting to SD cards might be a limitation and explains why the pro-video cameras have much more expensive record formats.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    Is there any chance that some of this limiting has legitimate hardware reasons? It's been over a decade since I really followed the digital camera scene. At the time, DSLRs were just beginning to get 1080p/720p video capabilities. There were frustrating time limits of course, even then. But, I recall that some of the cameras heated up pretty significantly when capturing video. This was sometimes cited as a reason for such time limitations on video recording. I'm not sure if that is possibly a "legitimate" physical reason for the limitation today, or if it ever was in the first place. Any thoughts on that?
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      It still is, and I think its legitimate still - the R5 can record 8K video but of course real time encoding of that is going to generate a lot of heat. A Cinema body has a lot more room for heat sinks, and can more easily accommodate fans - you're a lot more likely to be using an off-body mic on the cinema body. And then you have a larger battery for the chips and recording time.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        >A Cinema body has a lot more room for heat sinks, and can more easily accommodate fans And yet, you'll still see cameras on hot sets with bags of ice around them because these heat sinks and fans cannot keep up. The original Red One was notorius for overheating. I have BMD Ursa Mini that was struggling in 105 degree temps. Big body does not mean over heating is solved. Personally, the camera that I've used that best handled heat was Sony's F55. Shooting interior of an old van with sun beating down through a window in the roof directly on the camera, 110 degrees inside the van (yes it was miserable), and the camera never once complained (unlike the cast&crew).
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Camera software is an area that is frustratingly closed off, and where manufacturers regularly differentiate new/more expensive cameras with firmware differences:[...] Why is this frustrating? How is this different than anything else tech related that's in the business of making money? Every company trims the features they give their customers access to depending on the amount they're willing to pay. Camera companies aren't charities, they need to make money for their shareholders. All that sunk R&D has to be recouped.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  It's frustrating because much better do devices that do things that no available device can do could be made available if was more open. It's different to say, computers, where Linux is available and can be customised to your heart's desire. It's not different to lots of other areas. Those are also frustrating.
- seabird 4y ago
  This isn't just market segmentation. It's a frustrating, recurring theme among Japanese hardware manufacturers where great products are negatively impacted or outright hamstrung by shit software support. I run into it in embedded firmware and industrial controls all the time. I think it's a side effect of the corporate culture there, which is how it manages to cut into multiple market segments. Having to pass on good offerings because the software is too bad to stomach feels bad.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    I get what your saying but how is their artificial firmware limitations different than Apple's own market segmentation practices? Or Google's? Or Microsoft's? Or Hashicorp? Or Docker?
    - Der_Einzige 4y ago
      You can't pirate hardware.
mrandish 4y ago
Magic Lantern is an awesome example of the value which can be created by collaborative open source, despite the hardware manufacturer doing nothing to document or help. It's great because it's also very low risk for the user since the firmware mods are loaded on every boot, the camera is never perma-modified reducing the chances of bricking the device. I wish one of the major mirrorless camera manufacturers would decide to openly endorse an open source model as an optional alternative to their own factory firmware.
brudgers 4y ago
Camera software is an area that is frustratingly closed off Try to get Nikon replacement parts. Or make your own color film. Which reminds me that fully mechanical cameras are eminently hackable. And that reminds me that I don't want to wade into the turing tarpit of custom software on my cameras. Hell, I don't even want autofocus anymore. I want an optical system that is easy to focus manually. YMMV.
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  Just go all the way. Handheld adaptive optics because lol.
bsder 4y ago
> Camera software is an area that is frustratingly closed off Then build an open source camera body? We have the ability nowadays. I'd guess they only real problem is getting a decent sensor. But I'd be surprised if you can't get something comparable out of China. If no one is doing it, well, then that's a data point in and of itself, no?
omegacharlie 4y ago
Hope at some point we can have un-crippled firmware for the 1D(X) series of cameras. Magic Lantern developers are acting like scared cats because allegedly someone at Canon said 'No'[1] and no one questioned it. In theory developing third-party software for devices is legal if the 'finished product' does not contain material copyrighted by the original vendor. [1]: https://www.eoshd.com/news/1d-x-has-traces-of-1d-c-firmware-but-magic-lantern-will-never-touch-1d-series-as-canon-threatens-potential-hackers-with-legal-trouble/ https://www.eoshd.com/news/1d-x-has-traces-of-1d-c-firmware-...

by codys 4y ago

dylan604 4y ago

It's not just that they want you to buy new cameras (of course they do), but they also do it to protect different verticals within their company. If a stills camera can shoot video of the same quality but much lower price, then that takes sales from the provideo cameras.

codys 4y ago
That's a great point, and shows up in annoying ways in Sony's camera line up in whether "high frame rate" support exists. For Sony cameras, HFR implies "can capture a limited length (seconds, typically) of footage at a higher frame rate (240fps, 480fps, 960fps, etc) and reduced resolution as frame rate increases (this is not the same as normal video modes and S&Q video modes, which don't have time limits like these). Sony includes this feature on cameras without interchangeable lenses (ie: "point and shoots"), and on their high end cinema cameras, but not on their mirrorless (interchangeable lens, but not considered cinema cameras) line. Seems pretty clear this is designed to avoid their mirrorless lineup have a feature that might make it competitive with their cinema line. But they're ok including it on the point and shoot line because that already is well differentiated from the cinema camera line.
- dylan604 4y ago
  I've always given benefit of the doubt that the limited duration of S&Q modes in stills cameras is related to the max throughput of the recording media. 120+fps at 4K resolution starts demanding quite a bit of sustainable bandwidth. Shooting to SD cards might be a limitation and explains why the pro-video cameras have much more expensive record formats.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  Is there any chance that some of this limiting has legitimate hardware reasons? It's been over a decade since I really followed the digital camera scene. At the time, DSLRs were just beginning to get 1080p/720p video capabilities. There were frustrating time limits of course, even then. But, I recall that some of the cameras heated up pretty significantly when capturing video. This was sometimes cited as a reason for such time limitations on video recording. I'm not sure if that is possibly a "legitimate" physical reason for the limitation today, or if it ever was in the first place. Any thoughts on that?
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    It still is, and I think its legitimate still - the R5 can record 8K video but of course real time encoding of that is going to generate a lot of heat. A Cinema body has a lot more room for heat sinks, and can more easily accommodate fans - you're a lot more likely to be using an off-body mic on the cinema body. And then you have a larger battery for the chips and recording time.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      >A Cinema body has a lot more room for heat sinks, and can more easily accommodate fans And yet, you'll still see cameras on hot sets with bags of ice around them because these heat sinks and fans cannot keep up. The original Red One was notorius for overheating. I have BMD Ursa Mini that was struggling in 105 degree temps. Big body does not mean over heating is solved. Personally, the camera that I've used that best handled heat was Sony's F55. Shooting interior of an old van with sun beating down through a window in the roof directly on the camera, 110 degrees inside the van (yes it was miserable), and the camera never once complained (unlike the cast&crew).

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>Camera software is an area that is frustratingly closed off, and where manufacturers regularly differentiate new/more expensive cameras with firmware differences:[...] Why is this frustrating? How is this different than anything else tech related that's in the business of making money? Every company trims the features they give their customers access to depending on the amount they're willing to pay. Camera companies aren't charities, they need to make money for their shareholders. All that sunk R&D has to be recouped.

nicoburns 4y ago
It's frustrating because much better do devices that do things that no available device can do could be made available if was more open. It's different to say, computers, where Linux is available and can be customised to your heart's desire. It's not different to lots of other areas. Those are also frustrating.
seabird 4y ago
This isn't just market segmentation. It's a frustrating, recurring theme among Japanese hardware manufacturers where great products are negatively impacted or outright hamstrung by shit software support. I run into it in embedded firmware and industrial controls all the time. I think it's a side effect of the corporate culture there, which is how it manages to cut into multiple market segments. Having to pass on good offerings because the software is too bad to stomach feels bad.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  I get what your saying but how is their artificial firmware limitations different than Apple's own market segmentation practices? Or Google's? Or Microsoft's? Or Hashicorp? Or Docker?
  - Der_Einzige 4y ago
    You can't pirate hardware.

mrandish 4y ago

Magic Lantern is an awesome example of the value which can be created by collaborative open source, despite the hardware manufacturer doing nothing to document or help. It's great because it's also very low risk for the user since the firmware mods are loaded on every boot, the camera is never perma-modified reducing the chances of bricking the device. I wish one of the major mirrorless camera manufacturers would decide to openly endorse an open source model as an optional alternative to their own factory firmware.

brudgers 4y ago

Camera software is an area that is frustratingly closed off Try to get Nikon replacement parts. Or make your own color film. Which reminds me that fully mechanical cameras are eminently hackable. And that reminds me that I don't want to wade into the turing tarpit of custom software on my cameras. Hell, I don't even want autofocus anymore. I want an optical system that is easy to focus manually. YMMV.

R0b0t1 4y ago
Just go all the way. Handheld adaptive optics because lol.

bsder 4y ago

> Camera software is an area that is frustratingly closed off Then build an open source camera body? We have the ability nowadays. I'd guess they only real problem is getting a decent sensor. But I'd be surprised if you can't get something comparable out of China. If no one is doing it, well, then that's a data point in and of itself, no?

omegacharlie 4y ago

Hope at some point we can have un-crippled firmware for the 1D(X) series of cameras. Magic Lantern developers are acting like scared cats because allegedly someone at Canon said 'No'[1] and no one questioned it. In theory developing third-party software for devices is legal if the 'finished product' does not contain material copyrighted by the original vendor. [1]: https://www.eoshd.com/news/1d-x-has-traces-of-1d-c-firmware-but-magic-lantern-will-never-touch-1d-series-as-canon-threatens-potential-hackers-with-legal-trouble/ https://www.eoshd.com/news/1d-x-has-traces-of-1d-c-firmware-...