1D X has traces of 1D C firmware but Magic Lantern 'will never touch 1D series' as Canon threatens potential hackers with legal trouble

[Sean Cunningham]

... hacking it is a form of piracy...

 

 

No, it's not.  

 

Hack the Planet.

 

 

I'll give you another example... Your kick ass computer could run ANY software around, are you gonna start bitching that not having Maya or Nuke for free is crippling your hardware and that it gives you the right to resort to piracy instead of paying for the $10k they cost?

 

Your examples don't really impress me as much as maybe you were hoping.  One, I'm a licensed Houdini user and one of their, or used to be, top users worldwide, so I've never cared much what Maya ran on or how much it cost.  Too limited.  Two, I was one of the first Nuke users on the planet, version one, when it existed as a command-line only program in 1993 and nobody outside 300 Rose Ave.  could run it on anything but overpriced IRIX boxes.

 

I know full well what R+D and product development costs.  I'm also smart enough to recognize double-dipping.  It's their prerogative to do as they please and it's the consumer's prerogative to beware, be educated and more clever than they're being assumed to be.

[tomekk]

@ALL.

Hey guys, this is pointless. Everyone DOES it. Maybe you'll focus on something more productive if you finally understand it. This whole post is useless. Think about INTEL / AMD making ONE CPU and then selling it at different prices points depending on the speed they choose. Most CPUs could be overclocked to the fastest ones. NVIDIA/ATI Most cards can be overclocked to the fastest ones. CARS > diesel engines. Most can be chipped to get the performance of the strogest versions. Your true love APPLE - learn how to sell overpriced products and it BEATS hands down Canon in products crippling (Iphones)

So what's your point Andrew? This is how world works. This is how companies make money. If you whine about canon then go and whine about the whole world but what is the point?

I mean I like it if you encourage some russian hacker to hack 1DX  =) hehe.

[Bruno]

No, it's not. 

 

That settles it then.

 

Your examples don't really impress me as much as maybe you were hoping.  One, I'm a licensed Houdini user and one of their, or used to be, top users worldwide, so I've never cared much what Maya ran on or how much it cost.  Too limited.  Two, I was one of the first Nuke users on the planet, version one, when it existed as a command-line only program in 1993 and nobody outside 300 Rose Ave.  could run it on anything but overpriced IRIX boxes.

 

You kind of lost me there. Does that mean you wouldn't consider your computer crippled as long as you have Houdini and an ancient command-line version of Nuke? When did this become about Maya vs Houdini, yourself, or whoever used the first command-line version of Nuke?

[Andrew Reid]

Wow this is going way off topic.

 

I have removed the video as it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 1D C / 1D X. Feel free to post in the screening room Max.

[johnnymossville]

Sounds like a marketing/sales exercise gone bad.   Though I don't agree with some of the things companies do I can understand why they do what they do.    Thankfully we live in a day and age where there are people willing to expose things and there are people curious enough to find the information, by way of the internet.  

[OverCranked]

Show me one LAW that supports your argument. If you were correct we could've had many interesting court cases around the world.

That said perhaps if you change the operative word " SHARE " to " SALE " in your sentence you could've been saying something worth listening.

There is a method in the madness when Vitaley and ML distribute their work ( AWESOME ) for free and just collect donations. 

Quite frankly it wasn't for the ML we wouldn't have purchased seven 5D II. And all my hacked  GH2s could've been plasticky toys.

 

[ .... but whoever shares the cracked firmware could be legally charged for it....]
 

[Bruno]

Keep in mind that ML designs their own software to run on Canon cameras, they have never stolen software from one model to the other. If they implement features that exist in other models, they do so from scratch and they'll tell you this themselves. The only fooling around they do with Canon's firmware updates is a workaround in order to run their own software in those cameras as they are not prepared to run external apps, but they are not distributing anyone's code, it's all their own code.

 

What's being suggested here is quite different.

[Andrew Reid]

This stuff about CPUs and graphics cards being differentiated by firmware switches and clocking is hardware related. The chips that don't pass quality control perfectly are put into the under-clocked boards. It is not the same as what Canon is doing here and the prices between different CPUs and graphics boards is minuscule compared to the huge $6000 Canon wants for your 1D C firmware and heat sink.

 

Yes clearly some management guy has said "how can we extract added value from our mass produced 1D X camera and L series of lenses". The answer is - modify them in a minimal way, double the price and sell them in lower quantities to a bloated film industry where price is no object, and forget about all the other filmmakers, artists, consumers and enthusiasts who happen to make up 80% of your business.

[Bruno]

Yes clearly some management guy has said "how can we extract added value from our mass produced 1D X camera and L series of lenses". The answer is - modify them in a minimal way, double the price and sell them in lower quantities to a bloated film industry where price is no object, and forget about all the other filmmakers, artists, consumers and enthusiasts who happen to make up 80% of your business.

 

That's probably true, but still doesn't make it legal or give you the right to port one camera's firmware to another camera.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

If someone else releases such a camera at half the price Canon will be forced to do something about it, but until then, no matter how outrageous it might seem to you, it's their product and they're the ones who decide the pricing.

[Andrew Reid]

And I am the one who will decide not to buy it. Great arguing with you Bruno, have you thought about a career in business?

 

Do you realise you are defending the indefensible and also voting against your own interests??

[tomekk]

This stuff about CPUs and graphics cards being differentiated by firmware switches and clocking is hardware related. The chips that don't pass quality control perfectly are put into the under-clocked boards. It is not the same as what Canon is doing here and the prices between different CPUs and graphics boards is minuscule compared to the huge $6000 Canon wants for your 1D C firmware and heat sink.

 

 

This is not true. Some of them probably yes. However, it's a tiny percentage. Rest is just marketing b*shit. If this was true, they wouldn't lock the multiplier because what would be the point?? In the past I used to sell overclocked CPUs (for extra money when I was a student). 95% of CPUs you could overclock to the fastest version.

In case of GPUs it is similar + obviously they cripple consumer cards to protect PRO cards like quadros. 1) Drivers in quadros are superior. they include instructions that are not available in consumer cards improving performance in some instances.

2) Top pro card will have more RAM than top consumer card.

Same principle: slightly better drivers + a little bit more memory == double the price ?

Soo, what is the price difference between pro and consumer?

[Sean Cunningham]

...

Same principle: slightly better drivers + a little bit more memory == double the price ?

Soo, what is the price difference between pro and consumer?

 

Except the irony here is NVIDIA pro drivers aren't as good as their consumer drivers.  Not in Windows or Linux.  They have more features but my experience with them is they're quite flaky.  Not as bad as ATI's pro drivers but one of the dirty little secrets about professional, expensive computer stuff (both hardware and software) is that it loves to crash, takes a long time to configure and once you get it functional enough you can actually get work done with it you don't want to ever touch it again for fear it'll stop working.

[tomekk]

...

 

Except the irony here is NVIDIA pro drivers aren't as good as their consumer drivers.  Not in Windows or Linux.  They have more features but my experience with them is they're quite flaky.  Not as bad as ATI's pro drivers but one of the dirty little secrets about professional, expensive computer stuff (both hardware and software) is that it loves to crash, takes a long time to configure and once you get it functional enough you can actually get work done with it you don't want to ever touch it again for fear it'll stop working.

haha lol, I assumed they would be better. don't own any pro cards. Funny stuff.

[Maxine]

[attachment=363:R1060046.JPG]Do you think Canon will be upset looking at my heavily modified/hacked mirrorless M42 mount 5DII ? :D

[OverCranked]

Just by repeating it you cannot turn it to truth. There are no laws for that. Have you ever legally agreed to anything at the time of purchasing your cameras ?- anything! Aside from paying for it for sure there are no legal agreement about what you will do with it and it's content.

 

If you go copy it and sell it - or copy it modify it and sell it then you are infringing on copyright laws ( with many holes in them ). If you copy it - improve or degrade it and make it available to others to get it " FREE of charges " and " VOLUNTARILY " while the original item does not exist as an identifiable commercial product you have not infringed any law. Especially when the copy is being used inside an item that was purchased from the same vendor. Use  the free consultation time legal offices provide and learn. Please come back here and apologize for wasting people's time after getting some education.   

 

Stop playing the devil's advocate. It's really wearing off quickly around here. Or at the least put your full name and contact info at the bottom of your postings for potential rewards from the Canon. See, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt  that your are not on Canon's payroll trolling around here. Let's just hope for that because if you were, you are doing a banged-up job.

 

...  but still doesn't make it legal or give you the right to port one camera's firmware to another camera.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

 

[Leang]

again an opened hardware comparison of both models would justify Canon's pricing.  whatever add-ons or added controller (chipset) you see on the new board of the 1DC saves Canon from any political gossip.  such as a different cooling design for example.  these supposed justifications for 4K stability or coding comes manufactured from Canon.  if the 1DX is probably short of some new parts (because it's older)  then would you invest in 6k just to hardware modify it and risk Canon's warranty?  where's Canon's disclaimer about this?  hoax bluff

[Bruno]

Stop playing the devil's advocate. It's really wearing off quickly around here. Or at the least put your full name and contact info at the bottom of your postings for potential rewards from the Canon. See, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt  that your are not on Canon's payroll trolling around here. Let's just hope for that because if you were, you are doing a banged-up job.

 

That was hilarious... yeah you got me! 

Keep bashing Canon and you'll go far around here Mr. OverCranky.

[Bruno]

Do you realise you are defending the indefensible and also voting against your own interests??

 

I'm not voting against anything, I'm speaking my mind, which is a problem around here every time the opinions differ from your own.

 

Having an online community that promotes hacking cameras to "steal" features from higher end cameras without paying for them is what will hurt our community's interests and credibility. As was mentioned by many different people before, that's a common practice with so many different pieces of hardware, but you're biased against Canon as usual and you won't listen.

 

I never said I think the price is right, I've mentioned several times before they should lower the prices on all their C series of cameras to at least half if they want to be taken seriously by the indie community, but that's a different story, and maybe it does show they don't care much about the indie community, and we should just move on, but these rants about missing features are pointless.

[chauffeurdevan]

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/firm-e/eosdigital7/firmware.html and others...

 

You shall not assign, sublicense, sell, rent, lease, loan, convey or otherwise transfer to any third party, or copy, duplicate, translate or convert to another programming language the Software, except as expressly provided herein. You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so. You shall not modify, remove or delete a copyright notice of Canon contained in the Software.

Except as expressly provided herein, no license or right, express or implied, is hereby conveyed or granted by Canon to you for any intellectual property of Canon.

2. OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT:

The Software is copyrighted and owned by Canon. You agree and acknowledge that Canon transfers neither ownership interest nor intellectual property in the Software to you under this Agreement or otherwise, and that Canon retains all right, title and interest to the Software.

 

 

Just by repeating it you cannot turn it to truth. There are no laws for that. Have you ever legally agreed to anything at the time of purchasing your cameras ?- anything! Aside from paying for it for sure there are no legal agreement about what you will do with it and it's content.

 

If you go copy it and sell it - or copy it modify it and sell it then you are infringing on copyright laws ( with many holes in them ). If you copy it - improve or degrade it and make it available to others to get it " FREE of charges " and " VOLUNTARILY " while the original item does not exist as an identifiable commercial product you have not infringed any law. Especially when the copy is being used inside an item that was purchased from the same vendor. Use  the free consultation time legal offices provide and learn.

[Bruno]

There are no laws for that. Have you ever legally agreed to anything at the time of purchasing your cameras ?- anything! Aside from paying for it for sure there are no legal agreement about what you will do with it and it's content.

 

Can't you understand that's not the point here? The point is not what you do with the camera you buy, it's the features you're stealing from a camera you DIDN'T buy.