If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
in rec.photo.digital, about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?; On 19 Apr 2011, ray wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:44:15 -0700, Crash! wrote: Better question: Why doesn't Canon stop playing games and man-up to these features/abilities? ...support them. ....Even Better question: ...and the rest of the camera makers too? This is hardly rocket science. Development costs, I expect. It would cost them something to take the 3rd party stuff and integrate into their firmware - or it would cost them something to add the functionality themselves. It seems to me that since the harware to software interface is already there, and basically only their non-hardware menu needs extending (made more complete,) it would be camparitively free. Particularly since the guesswork of CHDK authorship would not be there, cuz they have the actual schematics AND said interface. Would it cost them "something?" Perhaps, but that's why I said "man-up to" rather than "pop in." IOW, to a real man: Big Whoop. But yes, I'd agree that their excuse is economic, real or imagined. If it's real, I can't guess what it might be now that they have had the years to make all thier camera lines accessable and electronically superior. (Thus not competing with each other feature-wise.) My guess is, they falsely get their philosophy from Microsoft - brains are bad. If so, a $20 firmware upgrade as you suggest would solve this, -- only smart or needy people would buy it, thus "protecting" the less inclined. (Here, the higher price itself is actually a feature!) I would happily buy that, rather than use free CHDK with all it's delay, hassle and uncertainty...And is the interface clunky too? Evidently that is not needed since folks still buy their equipment If they had & advertised some of those features (for a nice cam under $200!!!???) they'd clean up! (well, some people do - I don't). Yes, your obvious anti-Canon bias makes your required kneejerk negative comments difficult to take seriously and easy to reply in kind. Perhaps if one maker would break things open by adding all the bells and whistles, enough consumers would switch to their brand to basically force everyone else to do the same HAHA!!! BIN****INGGO!!!! Yup yup. Think about how silly it is to NOT add popular costfree features to a product in a competative market. I believe that's an ipossibility accorting to the laws of simple economics. Oops! ...it's NOT a particularly competative market!?? - rather a 'chicken and egg' question - isn't it. For the record, the chdk way of doing things seems rather obtuse to me. Clunky, slow, uncertain, unproffesional, inconvienient, yup. I'm about to install the beta, something that has me cringing and commiting procrastination. As I understand it, it's necessary to put a copy on every card you use in the camera. Yup. If I'm not mistaken, it also needs tweeking, customizing for many functions. Much better if it came as a firmware upgrade Or somesuch, I agree. A halfway-step would be for Canon to offer awards and prizes to the CHDK authors. I'm sure that would eliminate my complaint, which seems to be based on unmotivated software authors. And who could blame them? $1000, plus a Canon certificate would prolly do it. What does Microsoft call their "authorized" forum volunteers again? - I recall that some distributions of nikon 3rd party improvements came that way in the past - don't know if they still do - but I installed such on my wife's coolpix 2100. I did the same. I installed a Pioneer stereo with Jenson speakers and handmade enclosures in my van, plus an alarm using Radio Shack switches. And handmade dome dimmers and wiper delays also using Radio Shack parts. And mag wheels..... However, I did not buy the camera with the expectation that someone would add functionality. Third party added functionality. "Expectation." Big Whoop. Yer just "protecting" yer initial silly comments that you were forced to make by your prejudice. (or worse?) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:13:11 -0700, Crash! wrote:
I'm about to install the beta, something that has me cringing and commiting procrastination. Please don't. I've seen this happen a thousand times. Some idiot who wouldn't even have use for 1% of CHDK's features thinks they need it, so they then try to install it.Then they overwhelm newsgroups and forums whining and complaining that they don't know how to do this, or how to do that, or what's this for, and why doesn't it do this, and what did they do wrong ... on ad-infinauseum. Just like you've already been doing. If you install it and get any closer to the project then you'll just be wasting the valuable time of the CHDK programmers and developers by demanding they hold your hand to get you through all the problems that you'll create for everyone, instead of just wasting the time of disinterested people on usenet. Go find some other way to get attention for yourself. Why do I know that this is your ONLY reason you are even typing about CHDK? Because why else would you be so happy about using the Acid installer if you've never even installed it before--caught in one of your desperate-for-attention troll's lies. We don't need anymore total morons hanging on like unwiped turds onto the ass-end of the CHDK project. There's more than enough of your kind already. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?; On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, ken d wrote: Go find some other way to get attention for yourself. Why do I know that this is your ONLY reason you are even typing about CHDK? Because why else would you be so happy about using the Acid installer if you've never even installed it before--caught in one of your desperate-for-attention troll's lies. Huh!? So whacko you thinks Acid only DLs CHDK!? Or did I fluff your feathers with my honesty, and now yer on a blind delusional one-man lynch mob again? smile Sounds like too many Limbaughtomies. Have you considered Xanax? That, and an education can cure that! In your case, add hash, lotso hash, five times a day, too. ...Not for me, do it for your family. We don't need anymore total morons hanging on like unwiped turds onto the ass-end of the CHDK project. Laughingggg!!! I'll tell that one to my little nephew, he'll LOVE it! He's at that age, know what I mean? Potty training, and all that..... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?; On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, ASCII wrote: Crash! wrote: Is Canon's CHDK Dead? I dont' think so ...only goofballs now "support" it? Speak for yourself. The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on 19th August 2009. It's been obsolete and unavailable At Walmart (and other high volume stores) since around Oct 2010, replaced by the SX130 IS 12X zoom. WalMart now has (in stock) the SX30-IS 35X zoom and there's a CHDK available for it. Cool. # SX30 (beta): 1.00e, 1.00h, 1.00l Yet it also says: (2011 01 07) The following new ports now are available from the Autobuild server: Ixus95 (SD1200) 1.00C, G12 1.00C & 1.00E, SX30 1.00E, 1.00H & 1.00L Canon PowerShot SX30 IS Review - Watch CNET's Video Review Rated 3.5 out of 5.0 Review by Joshua Goldman - Oct 20, 2010 - Price range: $399.00 When did it come out? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
in rec.photo.digital, about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?; On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:22:31 -0500, ken d wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Crash! wrote: The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on 19th August 2009. It's been obsolete and unavailable Do note that the SX30 was released only 6 months ago and CHDK for that model is now nearly 100% functional. But then that depends on what you consider 100% to be. If 90% of all known CHDK functions are enabled, does that mean that you don't have a working version of CHDK? There's a feature written to allow you to stamp dates and personalized notes into your final JPG photos. It was written 3 years ago. It's never been added to the main trunk and was only available for 4 camera models. Does this mean that every non-beta version of CHDK is now only 97% functional because that feature was never added to all cameras? But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta! *ALL* versions of CHDK for *ALL* supported cameras are in perpetual Beta, you MORON. I didn't know that. How silly. However, it's still not on the "Supported Cameras" list. And ACID knows that too. Hence version numbers like: 0.9.9-1127. Nobody has yet ever felt the desire to finally call it CHDK v1.0, for ANY camera. How Santa Cruz, California! Take for example the PTPCamGUI feature that was began about 3 years ago. To enable tethered-shooting (control by PC) on those cameras where Canon was no longer going to support that function anymore. CHDK PTPCam was written for only 1 or 2 camera models back then, and it was highly experimental. Less than 2 weeks ago it was finally introduced into the main trunk and is now enabled on ALL camera models. Camera's sold 4-5 years ago just now finally got that CHDK feature. Should all those people whine and complain because CHDK wasn't finished for their cameras yet as well? Where all owners of all camera models that didn't have this feature being ripped-off for 3 years because it wasn't available on their particular model? Ok, you make good points. However, to accuse somebody of "whine and complain," because one isn't "in the know, baby" of "special" jargon does not seem appropriate. Perpetual Beta!!!??? Please. (Now, so is the CHDK for the "new" SX130.) I wonder if this is because of the hackers themselves, or is it from the CHDK guidelines, management, or whatever? If CHDK hasn't been fully ported to your particular camera, that's YOUR fault. Oh brother. How Santa Cruz California, baby! Time for you to hone-up your assembly skills! I'll also pass along the word of what kind of ungrateful little asswipes buy SX120's and then demand their camera is supported. Just for you. Let's see if it gets "finished" faster, shall we? Laugh. Get back to me when you get to high school, kid. Or is it "dittohead?" ...the perfect "Authoritarian personality" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality "These traits are conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, religion/superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness," destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sexuality (sexual repression). In brief, the authoritarian is predisposed to follow the dictates of a strong leader and traditional, conventional values." ....so you expect me to be groveling to use CHDK, to get my handout, just like your vision of (yourself and) any good employee to get his handout from Daddy. Knowing that little ****heads like you might benefit from CHDK in any way really makes it difficult for ANYONE to want to help on the project at all. Cheesh, as I said before, abstain from parenthood, dude! Can you imagine a child or wife trapped next to that? While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,) NOBODY from Canon has EVER been involved in the CHDK project. There's no stupid "wink wink" about it. Oh really!? You seriously think they left that firmware accessable all these years BY ACCIDENT!? Perhaps you know something I don't? Like......? So unless this changes and they get goal-oriented over there, unless you hear otherwise, I reccomend to NOT make buying decisions based on the assumption that you may eventually get CHDK features. NOBODY has EVER suggested that they buy a particular camera on the HOPES that CHDK might be available for it one day. Those are the beliefs of a FOOL and a MORON. So if my suggestion is so reasonable, why are you getting so frantic and upset? Like is spittle running down your face? Now unless your programming assembly skills are up to par, then go ahead! assembly!? Not BASIC!? Buy that latest camera! Help add another model to the ever growing list of CHDK capable cameras. Huh? Are you frothing? ...Or, have other people seen different results on all other cameras recently? ...is this mostly an sx120 problem? No, this is mostly a YOU problem. You think you are automatically entitled to something to which you are not. I never implied that, but don't let that stop you. However, I admit to not groveling, -- so that's what has you craving your Vagisil? (Besides that, I have used, and reccomend the "Acid" freeware which decides which CHDK version you need and automagically downloads and unzippes them for you. (I used it to get other stuff related to CHDK.) An elegant little utility!) Yes, it was written to help the tomes of morons who couldn't figure out the extremely simple installation process. Morons would be very impressed. They always are impressed every time that something is made more idiot-friendly. And what of the morons who would rather spend an hour researching and doing six steps rather than 1/4 hour doing two steps? ...of as you point out...rote, mindless crap that a BAT file does better? Do those kind of people really need to get laid? I posted the below 7 months ago! In the CHDK development forum for SX120 http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php...,4284.390.html I saw quotes like this: ============start quotes: " I haven't tested SX120 CHDK exhaustively, but are there any open issues? I haven't found any bugs, maybe apart from the squished logo aspect ratio..." " CHDK for SX120 on: 14 / August / 2010, Thanks Whin. I did compile it OK and CHDK is running fine." Then what's the whole point of your post? Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead? The only thing that's dead in this thread are your brain cells. There should be a law passed to make it illegal for ungrateful morons like you to be allowed to buy ANY camera. Yer an amusing guy ken d. More or less what everybody pictures when ya say "Usenet." Like an ant on a hot sidewalk. ....able to amuse people for seconds at a time! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:14:34 -0700, Crash! wrote:
Oh really!? You seriously think they left that firmware accessable all these years BY ACCIDENT!? Perhaps you know something I don't? Like......? Like? Like I now fully know that you're a total moron. If you had at least read the history of CHDK you'd know to not even pose a comment like that. The firmware was NEVER accidentally accessible all these years. The very first firmware had to be read out through a blinking LED on the camera body, reading the LED blinks with a photo-diode, that signal then fed into a sound-card, then software written to filter the LED light intensity signal into digital bits. This is how ALL the firmwares of the very first cameras in the CHDK project were obtained. Each one had to have a different blinker utility written for it by randomly poking memory addresses until one was found that would light any LED on the camera body, no two cameras nor firmware numbers were ever the same for useable memory locations. Does that sound "accidentally accessible" to you? No camera firmware author in their right mind would have even considered that their firmware could have been read that way one day. This doesn't even include finding the right encryption keys to make the blinked-out bits legible. That's yet a whole other process. YOU are a ****ING MORON TROLL WITHOUT ONE CLUE. Go find some other topic to fill your troll's desperate need for attention. You'll not waste any more of my valuable time. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
ray wrote:
You're obviously much more educated about the GPL than I am, but perhaps you can explain to me how it would violate the GPL. I was under the impression that GPL code could indeed be included in commercial products as long as the source is made available. Is Canon free to release the source code under the GPL (or a GPL-compatible license)? Or have they perhaps licensed some of the code, maybe the denoising? Is Canon willing to release the source code under the GPL even if they can? After all, they'll tell the competition what they are doing, which can be very valuable, even if you won't be copying the code ... -Wolfgang |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
Crash! wrote:
About then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,) because of CHDK, and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was seemingly almost complete, it seemed sure it would be done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.) [...] But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta! Feel free to donate money or time to the effort. -Wolfgang |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:25:09 +0200, Puppygang Trollberg
wrote: Crash! wrote: About then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,) because of CHDK, and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was seemingly almost complete, it seemed sure it would be done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.) [...] But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta! Feel free to donate money or time to the effort. -Puppygang Trollberg Money donations are NOT allowed, nor are they ever encouraged. Keep your ignorant troll's opinions away from the CHDK project. Thank you. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:20:04 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
ray wrote: You're obviously much more educated about the GPL than I am, but perhaps you can explain to me how it would violate the GPL. I was under the impression that GPL code could indeed be included in commercial products as long as the source is made available. Is Canon free to release the source code under the GPL (or a GPL-compatible license)? Or have they perhaps licensed some of the code, maybe the denoising? As far as I can see, canon is free to release anything they want - however, the source to chdk is not theirs to release. But if chdk is operating under GPL, it is their responsibility to release the source. It is my understanding that if canon were to incorporate any or all of the chdk source in their firmware, they would be obligated to release that portion they used - not the whole thing. Is Canon willing to release the source code under the GPL even if they can? After all, they'll tell the competition what they are doing, which can be very valuable, even if you won't be copying the code ... That's B.S. Everyone in the industry knows what they are doing - and what everyone else is doing. 'Trade secrets' are very limited and greatly overrated. -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc? | Crash! | Digital Photography | 106 | September 18th 10 05:57 PM |
Canon's can't hack bad weather | Paul J Gans | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 11th 09 04:51 PM |
Canon's can't hack bad weather | D-Mac[_11_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 9th 09 07:41 PM |
Canon's can't hack bad weather | David J Taylor[_9_] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 9th 09 08:32 AM |
HELP! My Canon S1 IS flash made horrible loud popping/banging noises and I think it's dead? Fix it or replace it? Is Canon's CS bad? | toogerbug | Digital Photography | 15 | October 2nd 06 05:58 AM |