Cameras And Stupid Subscriptions
👁 88
https://blenderdumbass.org/search?text=stallman : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles?page=5 : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/help_me_collect_financial_statistics_of_the_libre_community : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/I_Have_Finished_Animating_Moria%27s_Race : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
by Blender Dumbass
Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".
Information or opinions might not be up to date.
When hearing that I don't have a smartphone, a lot of people ask me, how the hell then I take pictures. And I always answer that I have a dedicated camera specifically for this. I often argue that it's a way better way to take pictures. You know... The sensor is most likely better. The lens is most likely better. As so on and so forth. And I almost haven't thought about the possibility that a camera can be as bad as a smartphone. But perhaps I was wrong. ↩ Reply
This is a touchy subject for me because I recently talked to a film producer about a possibility to make one of my projects a reality. And we reached a conclusion that even if I release the movie under Creative Commons after the movie is done, there is still a substantial amount of business that it can do. So it's not out of the question and the movie might actually be made for real. Though then I though about the logistical stuff and cameras were one of the highest things on my mind. Technically we could just rent them. But the movie is perhaps a bit more complicated than that. So perhaps the smartest thing would be to actually buy one good camera and use it throughout the project. There are some good cheap ones that are not bad. But maybe we will get enough money to get a proper, expensive one. Who knows. So I looked a bit into cameras and I don't like what I see. ↩ Reply
Embedded Software and Human Rights
If you read my articles enough, you know that I strongly agree with Richard Stallman on the necessity for software to be released a certain way in order for that software not to violate human rights. He coined a very misleading term Free Softwarefor it. Which later people tried to clarify with various different terms such as "Libre Software" and "Open Source". But the last one caught up with people more. Even though people who adopted it, didn't necessarily adopt the mindset that it's a matter of human rights. So he rejected the term "Open Source", while embracing the term "Libre Software". ↩ Reply
As you can probably see, he didn't mean to suggest that Libre Software should be always free of charge. Even though most Libre Software today are free of charge. His actual intend was rather a reaction to a trend at the time to shackle down the users. Which didn't necessarily decreased by now. ↩ Reply
Free Software stands for Software that respects the user's freedom. And while the full definition is a bit long, the main 4 principals are those: The user has to have the right to run it as the user wants to, whenever the user wants to. The user has to have access to the source code of the program and be able to study it and make changes to it. And the user has to be able to share that program with other people, either his modified version, or the original. ↩ Reply
It's rather a deep dive to explain how this is a matter of human rights. But luckily I don't need to. Richard Stallman made a very good, short presentation on the subject on TEDx in 2014. So here is the video. ↩ Reply
↩ Reply
So as you probably can tell there are no cameras on the market today running Free Software unless they are webcams or something silly like a "linux-powered" surveillance "cloud" cameras. So then what is the closest possible alternative? ↩ Reply
See, using only free software is only now possible. And therefor people like Richard Stallman and I are doing it. But before it was possible even Richard Stallman used proprietary software. Though he did it to develop Free Software, so he could ditch them. The first ever program in the GNU project which he wrote, was a text editor. And the second program was a code compiler. Two most used programs of a programmer. So they could continue develop Free Software already using Free Software. ↩ Reply
I could theoretically make a whole Free Software camera project, but I doubt that whatever budget I could get would be sufficient enough for a hardware research project. On the other hand I could try reverse engineering a camera to develop software for it. But I don't think I'm smart enough for this either. So instead I was hoping that the other thing at least would be true. ↩ Reply
The other thing is this: A lot of devices from Hard Disk drives to refrigerators contain some software in them. And unless that software is meant to be changeable or augment-able by the user ( like for example if the user can install apps or plugins for it ), this software could be thought of as a part of the circuit. And because we are not yet on the level of free circuit designs. This problem could ( today ) be swept under the rug, so to speak. ↩ Reply
We can think of the difference between built-in firmware and equivalent hardware as a minor implementation detail, provided that we are sure in either case that it won't be changed. A hardware circuit can't be changed; that's its nature. If it's acceptable for a device to be implemented with internal circuitry that no one can alter, then an internal program that no one can alter is no worse. It would not be sensible to reject an equivalent internal software implementation, when operationally they are indistinguishable.
↩ Reply
So is software on cameras unchangeable? I have an almost decade old now Canon camera SX 720 HS which seems like has an unchangeable software. Even though it has WIFI and other things which I do not like. I know that newer cameras by Canon have firmware updates perform-able directly from the camera. Which means that software is changeable and therefor we are in a deeper problem. ↩ Reply
![[embedded image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Canon_PowerShot_SX720_HS_%28front%29.jpg/1280px-Canon_PowerShot_SX720_HS_%28front%29.jpg)
It seems like the software is not changeable automatically and you need to perform a manual firmware update. Which is not too bad, to be honest, because if it had an auto-update, it would mean it has a universal back door. But since there is no auto-update, there is no such back door. ↩ Reply
Even if the software doesn't have any firmware updates, the features of today's cameras are a bit scary. A lot of them have some way or another to send images through internet. And it is not very good. Though, most cameras still require WIFI for this to work, and you can just not give them any network. Which should be fine. Unless there are cameras that require network connection to have basic features. Which is not something I would be surprised to see. ↩ Reply
Sony Venice and Camera Software Subscriptions
![[embedded image]](https://bandpro.de/media/image/fd/cd/3b/DSC00068.jpg)
To be honest I didn't actually expect that. But when I noticed it while doing a review on A Haunting In Venice it was not something I was surprised to see. It was just a yet another reason to hate Sony. The movie I reviewed used a Sony Venice camera. And on their page ( if you scroll down to "VENICE Sensor Modes" ) you can see that they have different subscription "licenses" for the camera. ↩ Reply
Let me clarify what is going on here. To own a Sony Venice camera you need to pay roughly about 50 thousand dollars. With it you get hardware capable of recording 6K High Refresh Rate footage. And which has software functions for various things, like for example a de-squeezing of anamorphic lens footage. And stuff like that. ↩ Reply
But Sony being Sony, they developed the software with their interested in mind and not yours. The software will refuse to give you the ability to use the full resolution possible with the sensor. Or will refuse you the function of recording with high refresh rates. Or will refuse you a function to de-squeeze anamorphic lens footage, unless you also pay them extra per month. ↩ Reply
According to their subscription purchase page Anamorphic Lense de-squeezing and high resolution will cost you $440 each, per 30 days. And high refresh rate will cost you $500, per 30 days. On a camera that you already own and that already has all those features inside. This is literally a scam. And the software inside is being sold to you with a huge bug, that you can't fix because it's not Free Software. ↩ Reply
To be frank, they say that there is a permanent license that you can buy. But the cost for this license is not listed, perhaps because they will evaluate your pockets first and then provide you with a maximum price that they believe that they can get out of you. And I very much don't like it. ↩ Reply
Adding to this that Sony is notorious with using DRM anywhere where they can shove it in. And knowing that it is a subscription that deactivates itself if you don't pay. I'm expecting a system very similar to DRM to be present on the camera. And perhaps this camera actually requires the connection to the internet to work. I don't know for sure. But with Sony it's a possibility. Also there is this website: ↩ Reply
www.BoycottSony.org ↩ Reply
Which lists other things Sony does that are not very good. ↩ Reply
Black Magic Design Cameras
To be frank, though, I don't think I will be able to get 50 thousand dollars anyway, so why bother thinking about some Sony. On the other hand I might actually afford to buy and own a good Black Magic Design camera. ↩ Reply
If you are into video editing on GNU / Linux, you probably heard about Davinchi Resolve. A proprietary video editing program that weirdly has a GNU / Linux native version. It is designed by the Black Magic Design company. A manufacturer of cameras. ↩ Reply
Though the program is clearly not Free Software, the intention of at least considering people using Free Software is there. And at least for that I can respect the company. ↩ Reply
![[embedded image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Blackmagic-URSA-mini-on-a-tripod.jpg/800px-Blackmagic-URSA-mini-on-a-tripod.jpg)
They have both professional type cameras competing with Sony Venice. And more pocket type cameras for beginners. But the company is a little strange. Unlike Sony where the professional cameras are super duper expensive and beginner cameras are super duper crappy. Black Magic is not that extreme. The high end cameras that they sell are quite affordable. And the cheaper cameras that they sell are quite high end. ↩ Reply
![[embedded image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/BMPCC.jpg)
Even if I buy the cheapest camera that they have Black Magic Pocket 4k I'm still getting a switchable lens, great sensor, insane picture quality, insane low light performance, shooting in RAW and so on an so forth. But weirdly enough. The PDF that explains everything about the camera doesn't even have the words "Subscription" or "License" present anywhere. ↩ Reply
Okay, I though maybe they are doing something like this with their high end stuff. I clicked on the most expensive camera that they have and words "Subscription" and "License" does not appear anywhere. ↩ Reply
The cameras appears to not need a connection to the internet to work. Which is good. Even though they do have firmware updates. But since I can just keep the camera disconnected, I think it's not that bad. ↩ Reply
The prices are so good I can afford the high end stuff that they have. Which is nuts. It records 12K ( 12288 by 6480 pixels ) in 60 fps. Or if I want 240 fps I can still do that in 4K. And it costs only $6.5K? What? ↩ Reply
But there is a huge catch with all of it. Black Magic cameras do not record .mp4 files. Their default file format is .braw which stands for BlackMagic Raw. A file which has only one program that can read it and it's a system-wide plugin ( something like a driver, but for a file-format ) developed by Black Magic. This program is available for GNU / Linux but is very proprietary. ↩ Reply
To obtain it you need to fill up a form in which they ask you your name, email, phone number, country, city and street where you live. I put John Doe everywhere and it let me see the next step, which is a huge License agreement that nobody reads. Shall we read it then? ↩ Reply
To be honest I like the beginning. It starts with: ↩ Reply
IMPORTANT: Read this before installing this software.
↩ Reply
I don't know if anyone ever read it though, but hey. At least they are trying to make people pay attention to the fact that they are about to sign a bloody contract. ↩ Reply
Subject to payment of applicable license fees, Blackmagic Design Pty. Ltd. ("Blackmagic Design") hereby grants to you a non-exclusive license to use this software product (the "Software") and accompanying documentation on the terms below. The Software may be used on a single system only, and may be copied for archival purposes, provided any copy must contain all of the original Software's proprietary notices.
↩ Reply
This is already interesting. They start with saying that you pay for something, while the download link is technically gratis. Perhaps they are using the same agreement for all kinds of software. Which is strange, but okay, fine. Whatever. ↩ Reply
Then they particularly claim that you can use the program only on one system and that you can't give it to nobody else. This means that the program is not Free Software because it already violates the last 2 freedoms to share the program and to share it modified. But then again, using this link you obtain only the binary, so you are also denied the second freedom. In which case, this program is already quite something to stay away from. ↩ Reply
Then the license is going into the whole "No warranty" thing. The kind you can find for obvious reasons in all Free Software licenses. But the kind that is kind of strange for a proprietary program from a professional hardware company. But I guess they all want to cover their asses. ↩ Reply
Then it says: ↩ Reply
Content accessed through or created by this Software is the property of the applicable content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws. This License Agreement conveys no rights to such content.
↩ Reply
Which is nice. At least they are not as evil as Autodesk. Even though this statement is kind of unnecessary to be honest. ↩ Reply
Blackmagic Design has no obligation to issue any updates, revisions, corrections, new versions or manuals for this Software or otherwise to support this Software in any way.
↩ Reply
Is this a thing now that people think that updates are inevitable, to the point that a company needs to write this thing into their license agreement? Like some time ago you would get a disk. And that's what you will get. And if you want the new version, you buy a different disk. What the hell? ↩ Reply
Blackmagic Design reserves the right at any time to alter prices, features, specifications, capabilities, functions, licensing terms, release dates, general availability or other characteristics of this Software.
↩ Reply
Okay this one is kind of bad. Does this imply that the program has a universal back door? Will it change itself on the fly if they suddenly decide that a change is required? It is not very good. Also they might change prices? For something that you download gratis?... Which means they might out of nowhere demand you pay a subscription and the program will refuse to work if you don't? I would not trust my files to that thing, if I want to see those file again. ↩ Reply
Oh an of course they can change licensing terms at will. Brilliant! ↩ Reply
Then they do something interesting. They make you: ↩ Reply
agree to abide by the copyright law and all other applicable laws of Australia, United States and other applicable jurisdictions.
↩ Reply
Which is strange, because Australia and United States have different constitutions. And they want you to obey "all other applicable laws" or in simpler languages "all laws" of both of these countries. Or other countries. How on earth can you obey laws of every country? What if the law in one country contradicts with the law in another country? Is it a genuine mistake, or are trying to trick people? Because if the people obey by all the other rules in this agreement and Black Magic still doesn't want to service those people, they could theoretically claim that since laws are different, it is impossible for a person to obey all laws and therefor it is impossible for a person to obey the agreement. What the hell? ↩ Reply
I know what they are trying to do. They are trying to stop people in a country without copyright, which still have a court system from copying the program and re-distributing it. I get it. And I believe that it just makes the program even more unnecessarily proprietary. ↩ Reply
And of course: ↩ Reply
You may not, permit unlicensed persons to use your copy of the Software, modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works based on the Software
↩ Reply
... they are trying to stop good people from developing a Free Software alternative to it. ↩ Reply
Then it says that you can terminate the license by deleting the program. Or terminate the license by not obeying the license, apart from the part where they claim no warranty and the part where they claim that you have to follow laws and not allow people to reverse engineer the program. So those you still agree to even if you terminate the license. So you can't terminate those two... Hm... ↩ Reply
Then they state that the agreement is governed by Australian laws ( since the company is apparently from there ). ↩ Reply
Then they do this: ↩ Reply
If any provision of this License Agreement is unenforceable, invalid, or violates applicable law, such provision shall be deemed stricken and shall not affect the enforceability of any other provision of this License Agreement.
↩ Reply
Which is interesting. I think they are trying to acknowledge a possibility of some of the stuff on the license to become illegal. Which is interesting type of thinking. Never seen that before in a software license. ↩ Reply
And than they say that you may not change the text of the license. Fair enough, people today can use the Inspector tools to change the text and agree to that instead. Perhaps that is what they are trying to avoid here. ↩ Reply
Then a twist happens. They are suddenly pointing out more rules in a much more legal-sounding language than before. In the end I learned that those things in the beginning are only kind of explaining the legal text. But looking through the legal text I didn't find much difference. ↩ Reply
One of the terms in the legal text is: ↩ Reply
The Licensee agrees to use the SDK only for the Permitted Use and in compliance with all applicable laws, including all applicable intellectual property laws.
↩ Reply
Which basically takes away the last remaining freedom. The freedom to run the program as you wish. What a bunch of assholes! ↩ Reply
Then the legal code is referring to "Sample Source Code" all the time. Perhaps the SDK comes with a piece that they developed that shows how to work with the SDK. So you could develop your own program that run with it. But they say things like: ↩ Reply
Licensee Software subject to Licensor’s ownership of the underlying Sample Source Code and other parts of the SDK
↩ Reply
Which means that even though you hold the copyright for your changes, they hold the copyright too. Which is a weird way to say that nobody can develop any Free Software from that "Sample Source Code" in the package. And if it is the only way to learn how to code for the SDK. Well, they just made me very angry about their company. ↩ Reply
I like the section 2.6 one a lot: ↩ Reply
The Licensor and its suppliers do not warrant that the SDK will be free from all known viruses and the Licensee is solely responsible for virus scanning the SDK
↩ Reply
Very funny. ↩ Reply
Then we have a repeat on everything so far. I guess to hammer down what people are agreeing to. And after a while they have this: ↩ Reply
If the Licensee becomes aware of any actual or suspected internal use or mis-use of the SDK that is not in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement, then the Licensee will notify the Licensor in writing and shall take all reasonable steps required to rectify or prevent any and all uses that are not in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement.
↩ Reply
Which is interesting, because one of the ways to reverse engineer software with such licenses is to be employed by somebody who has Agreed to the contract, but yourself be somebody who doesn't Agree to the contract. They are trying to stop it here too. Shit! ↩ Reply
Of course there is this again: ↩ Reply
The Licensor may immediately terminate this Agreement at any time with or without notice
↩ Reply
Which is just pathetic at this point. As a comparison both GPL and Creative Commons licenses explicitly state that the license is irrevocable. In the case of those proprietary programs they can just say "I don't like you" and fuck you over. ↩ Reply
Upon termination of this Agreement, the Licensee must immediately cease to use the SDK and if capable of return, return the SDK (and all copies thereof in its possession, custody or control) to the Licensor.
↩ Reply
Wait. What do you mean by that? Because later they state that if you are unable to do that, you have to delete the program. So should you mail them a USB drive with it. I don't understand what are trying to say here. It's a thing you download. What, do they have an upload back feature somewhere? LOL! ↩ Reply
To be honest a similar wording can be on a license agreement for their camera OS. And therefor if they decide that you are not worthy ( even if you paid for the camera ) you will have to return the camera to them. I want to see if they have any such bullshit. And if they do. Holly fucking shit! ↩ Reply
Yeah. This was a hell of a stupid legal code. ↩ Reply
To be honest, the camera I was looking at, Black Magic Pocket 4K is also recording in Apple's Pro-Res file format. Which was reverse-engineered since 2011. But I'm kind of pissed. ↩ Reply
Think about it. A person buys a camera. The person is recommended to use a particular file format "BlackMagic Raw" ( or in some cases this is the only format that it can record in ) and then this person makes videos in that format. Then this person need to work with those videos, so he copies them over to the computer only to learn that the computer doesn't understand the format. And so the person goes online, finds the SDK program. And is now literally forced to sign the damn agreement, to get the damn videos to work. This is very nasty. ↩ Reply
Red Cameras
![[embedded image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/RED_Digital_Cinema_Raven_camera.jpg/900px-RED_Digital_Cinema_Raven_camera.jpg)
I didn't expect to find a Red camera in the same price range and a Black Magic camera to be honest. Red camera's prices remind me of the prices of Sony Venice more. They are at least 5 digits long in American Dollars. But then there is KOMODO 6K costing only $6K. Which is also the resolution of the camera. Even though, the 12K Black Magic costs roughly the same amount. ↩ Reply
Red Cameras shoot both Apple Pro Res which is reverse-engineered and their own Redcode format. I guess everybody is trying to shove their format SDK down my throat. ↩ Reply
According to this page the redcode format is somewhat reverse-engineered already and a part of it is available in ffmpeg. So perhaps I can use Red cameras directly with Blender. But there are problems with new versions of the format. ↩ Reply
Also they claim: ↩ Reply
R3D files are essentially just a custom container that holds video encoded in JPEG2000 and PCM audio.
↩ Reply
But the link they provide to prove their point makes be believe that reverse-engineering this format is a pain in the ass. While the page to download the proprietary SDK doesn't have anything legal to read about it. Perhaps you read it after you download it with this one. ↩ Reply
If all I have is a somewhat affordable cinema camera from Red with only one format that maybe I can use. And a lot more affordable pocket cinema camera from Black Magic with the same format that maybe I can use. Black Magic so far is the best deal. ↩ Reply
Arri Alexa Cameras
![[embedded image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Arri_Alexa_camera.jpg/1200px-Arri_Alexa_camera.jpg)
Arri Alexa is often credited as the camera used for this or that movie, because apparently they are very good. On their website I found a chart containing available formats and it looks rather expected. The camera records into Apple's Pro-Res which we already established was reversed-engineered. And it records into their own ArriRaw format. Which probably requires an installation of some proprietary thing like all the other ones. ↩ Reply
But to be honest I'm not looking into that direction because the cheapest camera that they sell costs about 32 thousand dollars. So I will skip this company. ↩ Reply
Canon Cinema Cameras
![[embedded image]](https://global.canon/en/technology/structure/cinema-camera/img/kv.jpg)
Canon has the EOS series of cameras which is so large it's insane. Compared to something like Red or Black Magic, Canon has so many models even in the pro series that I don't even know where to start. The company is huge! ↩ Reply
I love how the Cinema Cameras page on Canon's website is kind of useless. Because it doesn't list any models. It just lists features that you can expect from the cameras. And it's so weird. Also, this is by far the worst presentation. But I kind of like it. ↩ Reply
Then by looking a bit more I found an online store of Canon which was not surprisingly registered under a completely different domain to their official website. And to which the official website doesn't link. And the first thing that caught me off guard was the Canon VR Content Creator Kit. ↩ Reply
Then I found a new camera which is somewhat affordable for me which is the Canon EOS R5 C and which claims to be a hybrid photo / cinema camera. Because Canon! ↩ Reply
They included a full specification PDF. ↩ Reply
It lists the following formats: ↩ Reply
- JPEG - HEIF ↩ Reply
- RAW (CR3, 14 bit RAW format) - C-RAW (Canon original) ↩ Reply
And for video: ↩ Reply
- ALL-I - IPB ↩ Reply
- RAW ↩ Reply
The .raw which I presume Canon uses for Raw video is kind of an open standard already. And it's very nice. Like there should be no problem what so ever with those. ↩ Reply
So far Canon seems like the most normal company here. I guess I'm going with Canon then. ↩ Reply
Conclusion
I hope from this rambling and ranting you learned something. Because I did, researching all of it. Canon seems to be the best company so far. They use formats that are standards and don't try to shove some proprietary conversion software down people's throats. Image-Quality-Wise perhaps some of the other offerings could be better. Black-Magic, with all their shoving their SDK down my throat is perhaps on the second place. Mostly due to it's image quality. But to be honest, I don't feel too good about them. Unless I have money to buy both Canon and Black-Magic and then perhaps sell one of them away, I will stay away from Black-Magic. Sony? Fuck Sony! ↩ Reply
Happy Hacking!!! ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/SnakeEyesPoster.jpg/250px-SnakeEyesPoster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/malware/backdoor.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/malware/drm.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://forg.madiator.cloud/BlenderDumbass/DanisRace/raw/branch/main/SettingUI/banner.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/theater.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Death_wish_movie_poster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/HZP91B02YOJ1O5W3.jpg)
![[avatar]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/55NKGQKE7IRKMLHV.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/proof_not_ai.png)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/DejaVuBigPoster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/83/War_of_the_Worlds_2005_poster.jpg/250px-War_of_the_Worlds_2005_poster.jpg)