CHDK & Canon SD1000

Pioneer42 wrote in news:tXinl.13339$i42.5951
@newsfe17.iad:

Has anyone here tried the CHDK project's firmware with a Canon SD1000?
Are there any issues I should know about before I try it? I am looking
for some tips on this process because I don't want to brick my camera.

AFAIKT there isn't any flash memory that could crud up your camera program.
The program for CHDK preloads from the memory on the card and is not a
resident flash memory. To get back the camera you had from the beginning,
just avoid loading that program card into your camera. Bricking involves
flashing your memory on the unit into accepting a new program that may or
may not freeze your process up. As I understand it, you'd do well to avoid
that unfortunate situation in routers/firewalls, where that terminology
applies too well. Cameras...they don't have flash memory to mess around
with, do they??? I've been tinkering with CHDK and a Cannon SD1000 for a
year now and have had favorable results. One can take the raw data and
process it the way you want it to look, without having to worry about
overexposed or underexposed shots as much. I've never had a problem of
irreversible bricking on a camera.

--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:11:03 GMT, SneakyP wrote:

AFAIKT there isn't any flash memory that could crud up your camera program.
The program for CHDK preloads from the memory on the card and is not a
resident flash memory. To get back the camera you had from the beginning,
just avoid loading that program card into your camera. Bricking involves
flashing your memory on the unit into accepting a new program that may or
may not freeze your process up. As I understand it, you'd do well to avoid
that unfortunate situation in routers/firewalls, where that terminology
applies too well. Cameras...they don't have flash memory to mess around
with, do they???

Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks.

Here's Canon's web site for digital camera firmware updates,
including a number of Powershots, such as the G1, G2, G3, G10, SD800
IS, SD430, IXUS 700, S50 and more.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/BeBit-e.html

SneakyP wrote:
I've been tinkering with CHDK and a Cannon SD1000 for a
year now and have had favorable results. One can take the raw data and
process it the way you want it to look, without having to worry about
overexposed or underexposed shots as much.

I don't think that's a strong advantage of CHDK,
since the Powershots only give 10 bit RAW
data. There's not a lot of spare DR to allow
for exposure error.

BugBear

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:25:17 -0600, Pioneer42
wrote:


Concerning the RAW data produced by CHDK, I haven't been able to find a
suitable program to edit them with.

Most current versions of CHDK give you the option to save the RAW
files in DNG format (Adobe Digital Negative). DNG can be opened in
numerous programs including Irfanview and XnView.

Another conversion option is to use a program such as "DNG4ps2" which
will convert Powershot RAW files to DNG.

http://code.google.com/p/dng4ps2/

A third option is to use a program such as RawTherapee, which can work
directly with Powershot RAW files.

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

All are freeware

--
jimbok

In article , ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:11:03 GMT, SneakyP wrote:

Cameras...they don't have flash memory to mess around
with, do they???

Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks.

However, the source code of CHDK is available. There are *many* eyes
reading and reviewing it. Should anything virus-like were in there it
would be seen, removed, and the offending coder kick/banned from the
project. It's a project by photographers for their own benefit, it's not
going to "bake bricks".

The benefit of open source is that anyone can read the code and, where
they see enhancement potential, contribute and improve it. That your
average Joe (or Justin) doesn't understand what's in there isn't a
problem because there are enough code experts out there who want to make
this stuff work for their benefit too (contrary to popular belief code
geeks often have other hobbies!).

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:01:31 -0000, Justin C wrote:

Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks.

However, the source code of CHDK is available. There are *many* eyes
reading and reviewing it. Should anything virus-like were in there it
would be seen, removed, and the offending coder kick/banned from the
project. It's a project by photographers for their own benefit, it's not
going to "bake bricks".

You misunderstand. You're right that any mal-ware features added
would quickly be discovered, but that's by those that are interested
in downloading source, compiling and comparing with binaries. The
vast majority only download binaries, and many of these probably
don't restrict their downloads to safe, approved sites. I'm not
suggesting that any "virus-like" version of CHDK would be produced
by coders associated with the projects you're referring to.
Distributing source is an amazingly good concept, but it also
entails some minor risk. I downloaded CHDK several years ago for
one of my Powershots and liked the digital voltage display, but for
whatever reason stopped using it. I also don't recall where it was
downloaded from. It's almost certainly was a safe, virus-free
binary, but the point is that if it wasn't, nobody would know if it
wasn't safe if it was downloaded from some irresponsible website
that didn't also provide matching source code. If that was the
case, it could have been designed with a multi-year delay before
going rogue.


The benefit of open source is that anyone can read the code and, where
they see enhancement potential, contribute and improve it. That your
average Joe (or Justin) doesn't understand what's in there isn't a
problem because there are enough code experts out there who want to make
this stuff work for their benefit too (contrary to popular belief code
geeks often have other hobbies!).

One of those hobbies might have something to do with cameras, I
believe. Other geeks enjoy trolling newsgroups as anti-DSLR sock
puppets that push both CHDK and Photoline 32. Not referring to you,
btw. It's these (this?) unstable CHDK fanatics that make caution
something to consider, justin case. CHDK would probably be more
popular if one tenth of the effort put into its coding was put into
its interface and documentation. From what I saw several years ago,
it's a geek's present to other geeks. It would be nice if that's no
longer the case.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:30:10 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

It's these (this?) unstable CHDK fanatics that make caution
something to consider, justin case. CHDK would probably be more
popular if one tenth of the effort put into its coding was put into
its interface and documentation. From what I saw several years ago,
it's a geek's present to other geeks. It would be nice if that's no
longer the case.

Unlike the resident know-nothing pretend-photographer DSLR-trolls in this
newsgroup, morons like you, the ONLY person to have documented the WHOLE
damn thing (wrote 95%+ of the Wiki, provided all the graphics and charts
for the documentation, all the testing methods, all the usage tutorials,
all the uBASIC tutorials, dozens of scripts, among others) and did it all
for free, taking hundreds of hours of his own personal time to do so, was
this so-called anti-DSLR fanatic that you try to defame with your
stupidity. Then some freak of an idiot just copied all of that hard work to
his lame PDF documentation and badly paraphrased everything in it and is
now getting credit for it. That cretin aught to be shot for spreading so
much misinformation about the project. People just like you, who should be
on some mail-bombing hit-list.

The person you are trying to defame stopped doing all of that for everyone
because of jackoffs just like you running around. Now you're all on your
own trying to figure it out. Be glad he left as much of his documentation
intact as he did or fool internet-trolls like you would be even more in the
dark and even more ignorant and stupid than you already are.

He knows perfectly well how to use every last bit of CHDK, but due to
cretins like you he isn't going to share one more damn thing about it.

It's idiot paranoid trolls and freaks like you that ruin it for everyone.

Enjoy your ignorance and stupidity, it becomes you. It IS you.

ASAAR wrote:


I do agree with your comments about open-source and the over-promoted
items of "geek" software.

Cheers,
David

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:51:58 -0600, Carl Ashley wrote:

It's these (this?) unstable CHDK fanatics that make caution
something to consider, justin case. CHDK would probably be more
popular if one tenth of the effort put into its coding was put into
its interface and documentation. From what I saw several years ago,
it's a geek's present to other geeks. It would be nice if that's no
longer the case.

Unlike the resident know-nothing pretend-photographer DSLR-trolls in this
newsgroup, morons like you, the ONLY person to have documented the WHOLE
damn thing (wrote 95%+ of the Wiki, provided all the graphics and charts
for the documentation, all the testing methods, all the usage tutorials,
all the uBASIC tutorials, dozens of scripts, among others) and did it all
for free, taking hundreds of hours of his own personal time to do so, was
this so-called anti-DSLR fanatic that you try to defame with your
stupidity. Then some freak of an idiot just copied all of that hard work to
his lame PDF documentation and badly paraphrased everything in it and is
now getting credit for it. That cretin aught to be shot for spreading so
much misinformation about the project. People just like you, who should be
on some mail-bombing hit-list.

"unstable CHDK fanatics". See above. Too bad about that "ONLY
person" you mentioned that evidently suffered from burnout. You
should ha . . . He should have sought help (in more ways than one).
Writing good documentation can be as difficult as writing good code,
and beta testing improves both products. It's certainly made more
difficult when megalomania intrudes.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:26:01 -0500, ASAAR wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:11:03 GMT, SneakyP wrote:
: AFAIKT there isn't any flash memory that could crud up your camera
: program. The program for CHDK preloads from the memory on the card and
: is not a resident flash memory. To get back the camera you had from
: the beginning, just avoid loading that program card into your camera.
: Bricking involves flashing your memory on the unit into accepting a new
: program that may or may not freeze your process up. As I understand it,
: you'd do well to avoid that unfortunate situation in routers/firewalls,
: where that terminology applies too well. Cameras...they don't have
: flash memory to mess around with, do they???
:
: Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
: download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
: starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
: theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
: future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks.

The assumption implicit in that warning is that software running on an SD card
can hijack the camera's firmware upgrade procedure. I suppose that's possible
(almost anything is), but it would represent quite a grievous oversight on
Canon's part. Even if that flaw exists in some earlier Canons, one would
certainly hope that they'd have fixed it in more recent models.

Bob