• lurklurk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Ideally there should be a requirement for camera manufacturers to interoperate, so they couldn’t limit who builds third party software or lenses etc. Proper cameras are probably too niche nowadays for that to happen though

    Canon is especially bad about these things though, buy Sony instead

  • sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    You can apply the following answer to 95,99% of questions why a company is asking x price for y service/product:

    Because enough people are paying it (because reason z)

  • Donnywholovedbowling@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Copying my comment from another thread on the topic

    Probably because the software team is under a different cost center than the hardware/camera team, and they weren’t generating revenue. So the idiot assholes at the top of the SW side said “we can monetize our webcam software” and a bunch of people agreed so they could look relevant and keep their jobs. Capitalism!

      • Donnywholovedbowling@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        But that’s not the point. Of course it costs money, but they’re not content providing it for free. A lot of hardware companies provide additional apps and functionality for free to enhance the hardware and make it better, but Canon chose to monetize it

  • viking@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t understand why anyone needs a software to achieve this in the first place? I’ve hooked the camera’s HDMI out to some cheap random USB-C HDMI capture card, and use OBS to record the stream. Easy, uncompressed, no restrictions to whichever settings their software lets you access.

    • gazter@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      It’s essentially the same thing, but instead of paying for software, you’re using more complicated free software, and paying for the hardware.

    • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      So the $5 is the idiot tax then - for people that can’t figure it out themselves. Scummy as fuck when they could just out a youtube tutorial instead.

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I guess it depends on the app, but I just checked and both Skype and Teams show me the capture card as input source, and the preview picture looks fine. So I’m pretty sure it works in an actual call, though I haven’t tried it yet.

        Both apps heavily compress the video signal though, even if you set the quality to 1080p, so I doubt it makes a huge difference compared to a regular webcam.

          • viking@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            For a video call, I’m not sure that really matters a whole lot, but I guess that depends on the use case.