Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Crash!, Apr 19, 2011.

  1. Crash!

    Crash! Guest

    Is Canon's CHDK Dead? ...only goofballs now "support" it?

    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.
    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.)
    (As expleined, if not for the CHDK feature, I would
    have bought the Panasonic DMC-ZS1 12X zoom.)

    But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta!
    (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?

    While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,)
    I do feel ripped off. 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.

    ....Or, have other people seen different results on
    all other cameras recently? ...is this mostly an
    sx120 problem?

    (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!)

    I posted the below 7 months ago!
    in rec.photo.digital, about: Year Later, CHDK coming SOON for
    Canon Ultra-Zoom SX120. - Motion Detection, Remote Shutter, Time
    Lapse, etc;
    ............snip
     
    Crash!, Apr 19, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Crash!

    ray Guest

    So - you bought a camera that did not have features you wanted, hoping
    that some third party would provide a hack to make it work for you. And
    now you feel ripped off. Wouldn't it have been much simpler to buy a
    camera with the features you wanted in the first place?
     
    ray, Apr 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Crash!

    ken d Guest


    You actually feel "ripped off" because someone didn't do something for you
    for free just because you demand it?

    Only "goofballs" expect someone else to do something for them for free
    while calling them names.
    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?
    *ALL* versions of CHDK for *ALL* supported cameras are in perpetual Beta,
    you MORON.

    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.

    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?

    If CHDK hasn't been fully ported to your particular camera, that's YOUR
    fault.

    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?

    Knowing that little fuckheads like you might benefit from CHDK in any way
    really makes it difficult for ANYONE to want to help on the project at all.
    NOBODY from Canon has EVER been involved in the CHDK project. There's no
    stupid "wink wink" about it.
    Let me get this straight, because YOU buy a camera, and someone didn't do
    something for you for FREE, which is clearly stated at the Wiki that there
    are NO GUARANTEES about anything, this makes YOU feel ripped off?
    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.

    Now unless your programming assembly skills are up to par, then go ahead!
    Buy that latest camera! Help add another model to the ever growing list of
    CHDK capable cameras.
    No, this is mostly a YOU problem. You think you are automatically entitled
    to something to which you are not.
    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.

    Then what's the whole point of your post?

    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.

    "Crash" for a nym, how very à propos.
     
    ken d, Apr 19, 2011
    #3
  4. Crash!

    Crash! Guest

    in rec.photo.digital, about: Re: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
    Yup. But the "hope" was more like an expectation, based
    on what was being pitched at the time...although not
    explicitly, I admit.
    I was gunna change that to "disappointed," ...forgot.
    Wrong question I think.
    Only silly people and a few of the very rich make major
    purchasing decisions based on simpleness. Wouldn't you agree?

    Would it have been "better" to buy a camera with the
    features I wanted in the first place?
    ....at $1,000+? Hell no.
    Do you know of one cheaper? 10X, 10 oz or under?

    Features I want in a car are wings, but I can't
    afford those either. This concept is called
    "simple economics." Value.

    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.
     
    Crash!, Apr 19, 2011
    #4
  5. Crash!

    ray Guest

    Probably 'simple' was a bad choice of words - 'reasonable' would have
    been better.
    Since I don't know exactly what you want, no. But evidently you do since
    you said: "if not for the chdk feature, I would have bought the panasonic
    dmc-zx1 12x zoom".

    There is a third party hack that adds wings to a car? I wasn't aware of
    that!
    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. Evidently that is not
    needed since folks still buy their equipment (well, some people do - I
    don't). 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 - rather a 'chicken and egg'
    question - isn't it.

    For the record, the chdk way of doing things seems rather obtuse to me.
    As I understand it, it's necessary to put a copy on every card you use in
    the camera. Much better if it came as a firmware upgrade - 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. However, I did not buy the camera with the expectation that
    someone would add functionality.
     
    ray, Apr 19, 2011
    #5
  6. Crash!

    ken d Guest

    Wrong. Then it would violate all warranties. And it would be much riskier
    to permanently brick all cameras through some simple coding typo. As it
    stands now it is a much more elegant solution for all parties concerned.
    Canon (nor any other company) is allowed to steal all the design features
    for their own camera firmware, that which was written by so many for free.
    This would be a direct violation of the GNU GPL licensing under which CHDK
    has been written and supported.

    What they COULD do, however, is to make their own firmware an open-source
    project so that anyone could author better firmware for their own cameras.
    Not unlike computers where you can install any operating system on it that
    you want. If a better OS becomes available then you simply install and use
    it.

    Don't hold your breath for them to ever get more wise nor more intelligent.

    Your comment just goes to prove that all these features should be available
    on all cameras. Though DSLRs will never get them all because they are still
    greatly crippled by slow and ancient mechanical mirror+shutter mechanisms
    that make many of the best CHDK features completely impossible.

    Perhaps one day all non-DSLR cameras might get these features, when
    corporate bean-counters are no longer a corporation's primary camera
    designers.

    Don't hold your breath for them to ever get more wise nor more intelligent.
     
    ken d, Apr 19, 2011
    #6
  7. Crash!

    ray Guest

    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.
     
    ray, Apr 19, 2011
    #7
  8. Crash!

    Crash! Guest

    about: Re: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
    Paste

    *-Straw man
    *-~~~~~~~~~
    *-The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's
    *-position so that it can be attacked more easily,
    *-then to knock down that misrepresented position,
    *-then to conclude that the original position has been
    *-demolished.
    *- ------------ It is a fallacy because it fails to
    *-deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

    Typically a highly Evil, Weak, or Silly straw man is
    constructed, vilified, beat on, feared, or scorned,
    then with much fanfare and bombast, publicly
    destroyed in a blazing pyre. My Hero.

    end Paste.

    Without it, there would be no Talk Shows Limbaugh&Co.

    Re: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
    Damn, I'll bet that feels good!

    Wouldn't you agree that the only thing with
    more feelsgoodism than rightous indignation
    is righteous indignation that can be used to
    justify a whipping or a lynching?
    Of course, the ULTIMATE feelsgoodism is a lynch mob!
    Wouldn't you agree?

    Can I suggest you abstain from parenthood?
     
    Crash!, Apr 19, 2011
    #8
  9. Crash!

    ken d Guest

    And therein lies the problem. No corporation will release their own tweaked
    source-code back into the community from which they have taken it. They
    exist, subsist, and survive on a "ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE"
    principle.

    [Not unlike the author of SDM who only takes from the CHDK project
    programmers and feature-inventors and never gives back one thing. He only
    he still survives today because he's still not selling his parasitic
    version.]

    This "ME & MINE" foundation of corporations makes them quite incapable of
    participating in or directly benefiting from any open-source project as a
    useful member of a worldwide community. All that we can do is try to fix
    and improve what their idiotic "ME & MINE" bean-counters have failed to
    provide to everyone in the first place.
     
    ken d, Apr 19, 2011
    #9
  10. Crash!

    ken d Guest

    And therein lies the problem. No corporation will release their own tweaked
    source-code back into the community from which they have taken it. They
    exist, subsist, and survive on a "ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE"
    principle.

    [Not unlike the author of SDM who only takes from the CHDK project
    programmers and feature-inventors and never gives back one thing. He only
    survives today because he's still not selling his parasitic version.]

    This "ME & MINE" foundation of corporations makes them quite incapable of
    participating in or directly benefiting from any open-source project as a
    useful member of a worldwide community. All that we can do is try to fix
    and improve what their idiotic "ME & MINE" bean-counters have failed to
    provide to everyone in the first place.
     
    ken d, Apr 19, 2011
    #10
  11. Crash!

    Crash! Guest

    in rec.photo.digital, about: Re: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
    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?
    If they had & advertised some of those features
    (for a nice cam under $200!!!???) they'd clean up!
    Yes, your obvious anti-Canon bias makes your required kneejerk
    negative comments difficult to take seriously and easy to
    reply in kind.
    HAHA!!! BINFUCKINGGO!!!! 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!??
    Clunky, slow, uncertain, unproffesional, inconvienient, yup.
    I'm about to install the beta, something that has me cringing
    and commiting procrastination.
    Yup. If I'm not mistaken, it also needs tweeking, customizing
    for many functions.
    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 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.....
    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?)
     
    Crash!, Apr 19, 2011
    #11
  12. Crash!

    ken d Guest

    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.
     
    ken d, Apr 19, 2011
    #12
  13. Crash!

    ASCII Guest

    I dont' think so
    Speak for yourself.
    WalMart now has (in stock) the SX30-IS 35X zoom
    and there's a CHDK available for it.
     
    ASCII, Apr 19, 2011
    #13
  14. Crash!

    Crash! Guest

    in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Re: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
    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.

    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.....
     
    Crash!, Apr 20, 2011
    #14
  15. Crash!

    Crash! Guest

    about: Re: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
    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?
     
    Crash!, Apr 20, 2011
    #15
  16. Crash!

    ASCII Guest

    Middle of month last September 2010
     
    ASCII, Apr 20, 2011
    #16
  17. Crash!

    Crash! Guest

    in rec.photo.digital, about: Re: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
    I didn't know that. How silly.
    However, it's still not on the "Supported Cameras" list.
    And ACID knows that too.
    How Santa Cruz, California!
    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.
    Oh brother. How Santa Cruz California, baby!
    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.
    Cheesh, as I said before, abstain from parenthood, dude!
    Can you imagine a child or wife trapped next to that?
    Oh really!? You seriously think they left that
    firmware accessable all these years BY ACCIDENT!?
    Perhaps you know something I don't? Like......?
    So if my suggestion is so reasonable, why are you getting so
    frantic and upset? :) Like is spittle running down your face?
    assembly!? Not BASIC!?

    Huh? Are you frothing?

    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?

    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?
    Re: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?
    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!
     
    Crash!, Apr 20, 2011
    #17
  18. Crash!

    ken d Guest

    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 FUCKING 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.
     
    ken d, Apr 20, 2011
    #18
  19. 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 20, 2011
    #19
  20. Feel free to donate money or time to the effort.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 20, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.