5 ms·
> Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed? This is how I've used my Sony camera
by brushfoot 2y ago
> Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed?
This is how I've used my Sony camera since COVID. It works great.
I wasn't sure at first if OP was trying to do something nonstandard, because you get video to your computer with a video cable. Plus a way for your computer to capture that, which for me is CamLink.
Honestly, I'm surprised there's a relevant manufacturer app at all. Not surprised that it costs money.
This is a bit like not having power in your home to charge your camera with and asking the manufacturer for a generator. They may have a solution, but the price will be bad.
- SSLy 2y agoOP wants to just use the USB cable, which makes sense for me.
- brushfoot 2y agoWhy should the manufacturer raise the price of the camera for you and me just to implement something extra OP wants that they can already do through HDMI?
- afandian 2y agoThey have already implemented it, otherwise it wouldn't work.
- brushfoot 2y agoThe app is part of the implementation. And they're apparently subsidizing the cost by charging separately for it. Drop the fee and that's now baked into the camera's base price.
- dspillett 2y agoIt is already implemented, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enable it once the subscription is active. Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera, that is a standard feature on other cameras and imposes no ongoing costs to the manufacturer¹? This is an example of gouging, pure and simple. ---- [1] unless they are forcing the user to use their hosted service for steaming the webcam output, in which case there is some bandwidth and perhaps other processing cost, but that is on them for having not just implemented a standard that enables local-only recording
- brushfoot 2y ago> Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera Getting video into your computer through USB is _not_ built into the camera. Else why is OP downloading an app to do it? The app is part of the implementation, and it costs money. I have no problem with the manufacturer charging separately for that. The rest of us can use a video cable to get video into our computers.
- dspillett 2y agoYou are entirely ignoring the subscription for what should, at most, be a one-off cost. > The app is part of the implementation Give other cameras can do it, there has a standard for it since 2003, and there are F/OSS implementations for others, maybe I'm asking the wrong question and instead should have asked “why should the OP pay a subscription for their bad choice of how to implement the feature?”.
- brushfoot 2y agoThe company can charge whatever they want for this feature. Most people who can afford to use a good camera as their webcam will never use it, because they know the quality is worse and they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI. If I asked Sony for a power generator to charge my camera's battery, they could charge me a million a month if they'd like. Hopefully that would signal to me that there are better and more standard options.
- dspillett 2y ago> The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. They can. But that doesn't mean everyone is forced to be happy about it, and doesn't mean it can't be talked about so other people who might not be happy about it can use the information to chose a different camera from a different manufacturer instead of discovering the issue post-purchase. > they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI Or the industry standards for video-over-USB, that this manufacturer chose not to implement because they couldn't easily gouge a subscription out of it.
- mjevans 2y agoUSB 2.0, that bog standard version from 2000 that is assumed to be the lowest common denominator possible for any new hardware... Edit: 4am math correction... 480Mbit/sec transfer; Uncompressed, that's ~333333 pixels per frame for 60FPS. Not even considering overhead, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class 1.1 support from 2005 includes Motion JPEG (low compression, all patents probably expired given it was developed in the 90s) and MPEG2 (also sufficiently old, to be unencumbered now). However, if they'd use USB 3.0 ~ 5gbps, ideally over a USB-C port, the connection would be more modern, and easily able to handle even 4K video with now free from patents and well supported compression algorithms.
- SSLy 2y agothe camera indeed has USB-C port, 3.2 gen1
- mjevans 2y agoI like the new marketing names they finally settled on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Connector_type_quick_reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Connector_type_quick_refer... USB ${N}Gbps instead of the confusing old labels and operation mode classifications. I'll assume you meant the 5Gbps version of the link, which ( 5000000000/8/3/60 ) can drive about 3.47M (24 bit) pixels at 60fps, even raw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_display_resolutions#Digital_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_display_resolut... It looks like 4K mode would require the use of VP8 (likely no hardware included) or h264. Patent license issues are soon to expire, (though some BS one won't until 2030, not sure how that's even possible), but no remedy for older models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Licensin... drat.
- baxtr 2y agoOP expects the camera comes with some decent convenience at that price.
- brushfoot 2y agoOP is using a camera as a webcam that's not sold as a webcam. That's fine, I do the same with mine, but it's also fine of the manufacturer to allow for that by simply providing A/V interfaces instead of trying to account for every use case.
- bhickey 2y agoCanon advertises their cameras as webcams.
- brushfoot 2y agoNo, they don't. They advertise that the camera can "turn into" a webcam with the right software or through HDMI out.
- bhickey 2y agoYou're simply mistaken.
- brushfoot 2y agoThe marketing material for OP's model: > Use the EOS Utility Webcam Beta Software (Mac and Windows) to turn your Canon camera into a high-quality webcam, or do the same using a clean HDMI output.
- bhickey 2y agoMarketing material changes over time and varies between models and regions. Canon customers bought their cameras because Canon advertised a set of features. I bought mine because Canon advertised that I could use it as a webcam. I don't think you're making a persuasive argument.