Closed Digital Cameras - Does Anyone Care? 506
Karamchand asks: "Free Software and open standards are ubiquitous in the server and even desktop area. But why does nobody seem to care about openness in digital cameras? I couldn't find a single hint as to what main processor my camera uses (I guess many use ARMs and others use TI DSPs), and while searching for information about (re-)programming digital cameras, I had to give up (apart from the scriptable Digita OS which was used by some discontinued cameras by Kodak, HP et al). Do you know of any efforts in this direction, whether they are actual disassembling/programming of cameras or asking vendors to get more open?" I still have my Kodak DIGITA-based camera from several years ago and I loved the flexibility, even though the performance is poor by today's standards (long cycle times, poor battery life, etc). Why are digital camera manufacturers keeping the lid on the capabilities of their products, when digital cameras could be so much more than their film-based counterparts?
Obvious reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing any for-profit companies will be keeping the lid on the capabilities of their products, so that they can slowly roll out "new" features every quarter, and consumers will be attracted to upgrading.
when digital cameras could be so much more than their film-based counterparts?
Seriously? I would rather digital cameras function like, and only like a camera. I'm already having hard time finding a standard mobile phone that makes calls, and that's all it does.
Camera hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
The main answer: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Two words: "Unintended uses"
The camera manufacturers want to control how their cameras are used, within the realm of what control they can have. Imagine camera hackers adding functionality with the new software, creating software that uses the hardware more efficiently, adding new compression formats... People wouldn't upgrade nearly as soon as they otherwise would.
There are probably some bad examples too: a virus that detects when a camera is connected, updates the firmware, and then without a complete reflash of the ROMs, every time you turn on your camera it starts zooming in and out and you can't stop it. Who wants the bad publicity of being the first camera to be virus infected?
Last, and probably most importantly, the trouble of publishing the specs and documenting the hardware so that programmers could actually really dig into the system... well, it's an expensive proposition. Convince them that enough people who wouldn't have bought the camera would change their minds if there was a programming interface - make it make financial sense - and they might do it.
- Greg
Closed Digital Cameras - Does Anyone Care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not flaming/trolling, I just don't see the point of your question...
Re:Obvious reason (Score:2, Insightful)
> mobile phone that makes calls, and that's all it
> does.
Well, you better find one fast because that whole "phone" thing is rapidly going out of style. The only way I was able to get a half-way decent phone was to buy one with a camera in it. It's an interesting little gimick but drains the battery quickly, so I almost never use it.
I had to basically change my criterion to a phone that would just RING, not play the latest hit from Top-40 land...
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely support costs (Score:3, Insightful)
I would imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are starting from scratch, there is a lot to screw up. First of all, you need to get the metering right, which is far from trivial. You also need to be able to auto-focus, which is also far from trivial. And this is AFTER you figure out the interface to the CCD, LCD, and buttons. Plus, you have to know how to control the zoom motor, auto-focus motor, and flash.
If you DID re-invent the wheel (and did a good job of it), what do you gain at the end? Sure, you might be able to improve metering a little. You might be able to improve the user interface. But if a camera has a raw file format, you are already getting all of the quality that the hardware can deliver. And JPEG already has pretty good compression, so it is hard to improve on that.
I saved the best part for last. You go through all of this work on a 5MP camera, which is discontinued after one year and replaced by a 7MP model with a different architecture. So, you decide to upgrade, and throw all of your work in the trash.
If you want to, feel free. But include me out.
phone cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Ever wonder why the firmware for your microwave isn't open? Wow, imagine the possibilities!?!? Their just is too much risk for the payoff of releasing all that data and being 'open'. Besides, ever think that there might be some IP in that firmware?
Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing is, I think that the majority of people who buy a camera, digital or otherwise just want it to 'work'. The low-cost of actually using digital cameras, as opposed to their film counterparts has lead to a lot more people taking pictures as a hobby (I regularly see people randomly walking around snapping pictures of buildings and stuff now), which means more people are going to be interested in messing around with the shutter, etc.
But not many people are going to want to try hacking the CCD driver to to take prettier pictures. Not many people are going to want to play video games on their cameras when they could buy a gameboy or something, and really there aren't that many interesting applications to put on a camera.
(the few I can think of involve automation, for doing things like time-lapse photos and such, but you could always just hook a camera up to a regular computer to do that)
Software = product differentiation (Score:5, Insightful)
The cheap cameras has very bad image processing algorithms, so they would gain from open software. They would still use an old plastic bottle for molding the lens though.
The famous example of camera hacking is the Russian hack for the low-end Canon EOS 300D. 2 bytes changed enabled the custom functions menu of the big brother, the 10D. Then there were a few more mods. Think the best firmware had 20 bytes changed, and closed the gap between the 2 products.
The is also lots of things that are the same between the Canon 20D and the Canon 1D Mk II. If the extra features were enabled in the 20D, there would be even less reason to pay 3 times as much for the 1D Mk II. (It also has more buffer RAM + weather sealing).
So it is there in the hope they can sell the same product as 3 different ones.
Re:Obvious reason (Score:3, Insightful)
The Digital Rebal (aka 300D) is still missing quite a few functions such as second-curtain flash, selectable AF mode, has a smaller buffer, and is noticably slower than the 10D.
Re:Obvious reason (Score:3, Insightful)
The rebel is really nice, but even with the hacked firmware it's not really a 10D, never mind a 20D.
Re:Camera hardware (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Closed Digital Cameras - Does Anyone Care? (Score:4, Insightful)
My digital camera lets me take pictures, and lets me do whatever I want with my pictures. That's why you don't see people getting up in arms about the lack of openness of digital cameras, but you do see active communities built up around "hacking" cell phones to remove artificial restrictions.
Sure it's possible that some hardware hacking could result in some new whiz bang feature in my camera, but honestly, I (and I assume many others) don't use 99% of the whiz bang features that are already enabled on my camera, so why do I need more?
On the other hand, I'd never buy a cameraphone that didn't let me download my pictures to my computer and use them myself without paying a fee to the service provider. That's just insane, and wrong.
Re:Obvious reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd find it odd that a "secure" facility would not confiscate cell phones in addition to cameras. I've been to a few secure military places and they required cell phones to be left at security.
After all, if a picture is worth a thousand words you could always transmit the same info as the camera in a few minutes (or a few seconds if you are from Newfoundland).
well..."disposables" (Score:2, Insightful)
The only cameras that have been looked at and disassembled are the Dakota Digital/CVS "one-time-use" cameras. It's because they're cheap, and hold the promise of extended reuse. They don't have very many features, and probably can't have any more added to them. The attraction is the challenge of breaking a "closed" system, and getting something for (close to) nothing.
The original blue Dakota was based on a custom Sunplus chip. So far there's been one modified firmware release that fixes bugs and extends the picture limit. This model has been discontinued, however. More info here [cexx.org], here [maushammer.com], and here [balerdi.com.ar].
The newer models have been looked at in depth as well, and they're based on SMaL chipsets. So far methods of reading and writing have been uncovered, and a method of downloading pictures via hacked drivers is documented. The eventual goal is a GPL driver and sofware, and possibly firmware upgrades. Current progress here [linux-hacker.net], and background info here [cexx.org] and here [maushammer.com].
$25 cable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike Computers... (Score:2, Insightful)
Cell Phones didn't used to be open either, and it's only the cross-over into dual purpose PDA/Phone land that has opened them up. So the question is does your toaster make tell you what alloy it uses in the heating elements? No! Because you aren't supposed to care, and if you did there is probably little you could do to improve upon whay they already have.
Also remember that Digital cameras are rife with proprietary hardware, we're not just talking a hefty RISC CPU crunching numbers on raw data, we're talking about screens that use non-standard resolutions and refresh rates and have proprietary drivers, image optimization ICs that run in combined digital/analog mode to eek the most possible performance out of a given sensor device, etc etc. In most cameras the only things that are even remotely standards based are the flash-card controllers.
If someone were to build a standards-based digital camera that could contain user-upgrable parts/software it would end up either sacrificing a great deal of performance over a device thats not constrained by standards or cost twice as much as the competition.
I for one, as a photographer, appreciate that my digital camera never crashes, (almost) never needs a software update, and gets the most possible performance out of the hardware that they could cram into it.
Re:Software = product differentiation (Score:3, Insightful)
The EOS 1D is the only digital SLR that I know of that has a full-sized sensor, which makes it more or less the only digital camera useful for doing professional ultra-wide photography (although that is admittedly a small market). As such it commands a price premium, its not simply a 20D with 'unlocked' features.
Also, there are a significant hardware differences between the 300D and the 10D such that only a couple of firmware-added functions actually do anything useful on the 300D. The 300D has different sensors, buffer size/speed etc.
I don't think the Canon EOS range is really the target of this article, the EOS's actually run DOS, and aren't really the kind of thing a hacker tends to get frustrated with - a digital SLR (even a cheap one like the EOS-300D) is all about giving you control of the photographic process.
While I am aware there are firmware-disabled features shared between the 10D and 300D, and the others in the range, with the exception of 'lock mirror up', there aren't any 'hacked firmware enabled' features on the 300D that I would find to be functional or useful on the 300D in the real world.
What feature on the 300D unlocked by the hacked 10D firmware do you find most useful? (this is a genuine question)
OT: Your Sig (Score:1, Insightful)
I see your point, but then I thought about it, and it is actually correct... market forces _would_ take care of it. If a panzer division were coming for Wall Street, then suddenly it would be in Wall Street's best interests to stop it. They'd go buy a few nukes and flatten that division, or something along those lines.
just sayin
Some people... (Score:2, Insightful)
My Sony DSC 717 takes infrared photos. You can hear the "clunk" as it moves the IR hot mirror out of the way for "Night Shot" mode. It would be perfect for a low-cost scientific aerial mapping application (e.g., http://www.soils.wisc.edu/~wayne/aerial_photos/aer ials_2003_06_14/ [wisc.edu]), replacing custom-built cameras worth thousands of dollars.
But, because somebody once took naughty pictures with a Sony Handicam (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-214389.html?legacy= cnet [com.com], Sony crippled the IR function. Now it only works at wide apertures and slow shutter speeds, leaving aerial IR pictures hopelessly overexposed (yes, I tried ND filters) and blurry (I can only slow to about 70 MPH or the nose rises, as do the passengers' gorges).
A simple "don't do that" hack to the firmware would suffice. You *know* that the cripplage is only a couple of lines of code:
But, when asked formally and with the full references to the scientific research we were doing (the lead prof, BTW, is internationally renowned in the field, we ain't just grubby grad students looking to save a buck and peek at Auntie Bowdler's bra), Sony blew us off.
Open source firmware? You bet we'd go for it.
Re:Closed Digital Cameras - Does Anyone Care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Keyword here being "most". I am not "most" people, I am a hacker and a thinkerer. The rest of the world can be happy with black box that "just work", and that is fine by me. But the mere knowledge that I hold in my hand a microprocessor-based device that I can't reprogram nag me in some very annoying way. YMMV. Mere mortal can't understand.
We can see that the hacker spirit have definitely left this board when most answers to such a question is "Why would you want to do that anyway ?".
photo naming (Score:2, Insightful)
05-01-22.220059.tiff
05-01-22.220102.tiff
ins
If it were "open" I could control how this worked.