Canon May 'Bring the Might of Its Legal Team' if You Modify 1DX or 1DC Firmware

[Jay Birch]

Why aren't people crying that the 1D-C is criplled then? Surely the software guys could just type in "image - write size = 8000px" and we could have 8K for $12k? What about the "480fps" line of code in a GH3? What a scam Panasonic are...

I hope someone like EOSHD does hack their 1D-X and it burns up on the 1st try. Would make all these experts realise that it is worth paying for professional development and that $5 heat sinc that everyone is so clued up about.

 

[Gillvane]

Why would charging for "firmware" be any different than charging for Windows OS, or Adobe CS6, or any other software? Apple OS only runs on an Apple, but people pay for it just the same. You could say your Macintosh is "crippled" if you don't buy the upgraded OS when it comes out, but really you're just paying for software, and maybe the software won't run on your lower model Mac. You can buy a PC already fully loaded with CS6 and a bunch of other software editing goodies, but no one says their computer is "crippled" if it doesn't come with that or you buy a PC that can't run CS6.

Cameras have the specs they have and they compete in the market place. Buy one that does what you want it to in your price range. Who cares how they make their money? If they make a bunch of money they make more cameras, if not they go out of business, simple as that.

 

[David Jimerson]

This thread reminds me of all the threads where people were incensed because a blank DVD cost $1, but a DVD with a movie on it cost $20. How dare they charge differently when it's the same physical thing!

 

[Simon Shasha]

Why aren't people crying that the 1D-C is criplled then? Surely the software guys could just type in "image - write size = 8000px" and we could have 8K for $12k? What about the "480fps" line of code in a GH3? What a scam Panasonic are...


I hope someone like EOSHD does hack their 1D-X and it burns up on the 1st try. Would make all these experts realise that it is worth paying for professional development and that $5 heat sinc that everyone is so clued up about.

Why on Earth would you hope that on anyone? I hope for the best quality for all - regardless of what means they pursue to get there!

And people ARE crying that the 1DC is crippled...because it doesn't shoot 4K @ 25P/30P!

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...as/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_1d_c#Specifications

Canon's Tim Smith says 25P "might be looked at": http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/4/16/Dan-Chung-Canon-4K-Cinema-EOS-presentation-Las-Vegas

"Might be looked at." - might be looked at? Are you friggin' kidding me!?

But hey, I guess by the logic that's been thrown around here, 25P is gonna require an army of low-level software engineers, the training up of Canon reps and support staff, and billions of dollars for Canon to give a $12,000 camera 25P...right?

And you know, before indie filmmakers embraced the Canon DSLRs for film production, Canon had no real reputation in the cinema industry - that was all Panavision, Arri and RED - and how do they repay the very community that gave them legs to stand on in that industry? The very community that gave them a reason to create a "cinema" series of cameras? By releasing a $12,000 camera that can't even do 25P...wow. Thanks Canon. So damn generous of you.

Didn't Canon realise that the MAJORITY of those who were embracing and championing their DSLRs were doing so because they couldn't afford the likes of RED and so on?

Canon apologists, and the supposedly "logical" ones among us, will say "okay, don't buy it then", "no one is forcing you to buy it", so on and so forth. Give me a break! I'm so sick of that rhetoric! Haven't you guys ever supported a team, or a brand with a passion? Don't be so damn cold and calculated - have some heart! Didn't some of you prefer Sega over Nintendo? Or perhaps Apple over Andriod? A lot of people's bitterness towards Canon steams from their love for the brand - but that's only part of it - more importantly, a lot of us, like me, wanted to stick with Canon - we have a lot of full-frame Canon glass, we like Canon's colours and ISO performance - I'm sure the 1DC would have made these legacy lenses shine - but for $12,000?

But that's where the 5DMKIII comes in, right? Three years in the making and virtually no resolution increase and minimal dynamic-range increase over it's predecessor. The 5DMKIII, the camera to cater for those that support and like Canon, but don't have the money to buy the C300/1DC. The 5DMKIII, which at first Canon only allowed to do 720P via it's uncompressed HDMI-out...but then, all of a sudden, they said it could magically do 1080P via a firmware update (that's not coming until April 2013).

Why the hell couldn't the 5DMKIII do uncompressed 1080P out of the box like the D800 did? Why was that feature omitted? To protect the C300 of course. The same way 25P and 30P have been omitted from the 1DC to protect the C300.

I'm sorry, but the reality is that Canon's attitude towards filmmakers, especially indie filmmakers, ESPECIALLY those on very small budgets - those that embraced their DSLRs more than any - is rather heartless.

Forget this whole "1DC is the same as the 1DX debate" - look at how there isn't a single brand out there that cripples their cameras as harshly as Canon does.

There is no heart in this company. RED/Jannard has heart. Blackmagic/Grant Petty has heart. They want to give the filmmaker every avenue to push their cinematography to its highest potential. It's a damn shame Canon has gone down this path.

And I'm sorry, but unlike you, I don't hope, nor wish people break their cameras whilst attempting to pursue more performance - the same way I don't hope or wish people melt their CPUs in the computers while over-clocking them - I hope they succeed. And what's more, I hope they embrace a company like Blackmagic, a company with heart - not some ungrateful cold and calculated corporate giant that has lost it's sense of respect for the very people that helped it stand in an industry it had no footing in prior.

Now cue the condemnation and Canon apologists in three...two...one...

 

[David Jimerson]

Haven't you guys ever supported a team, or a brand with a passion? Don't be so damn cold and calculated - have some heart!

"Heart" should be put into the art, not into misplaced loyarlty to the company which makes tools. The tools are not the art. If a company which gave you a tool you liked doesn't anymore, then move on. Your energy, IMO, is misplaced.

Not that I don't understand, but ultimately, you're just wasting time and "passion" which could be put into more productive things.

 

[Simon Shasha]

"Heart" should be put into the art, not into misplaced loyarlty to the company which makes tools. The tools are not the art. If a company which gave you a tool you liked doesn't anymore, then move on. Your energy, IMO, is misplaced.

Not that I don't understand, but ultimately, you're just wasting time and "passion" which could be put into more productive things.

You quote the one line in my entire post that is the least crucial and paramount...

I do put my energy into productive things, mate. Believe me. Just debating a point here.

 

[Postmaster]

Well, because it's not your software, and you didn't buy it.

Hacking downloaded software with a KeyGen is something totally different, since you did not buy the software.

But of course Canons software development is factored into the price you payed.
Canon runs a business not a charity organization, they not give you the software for free.
Heck you even founded R&D, by buying the last Canon.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Maybe Canon should worry about coming out with consistent t stops in their new cne lenses, completing the set, and then coming out with them in standard pl mount like everyone else.

How about that.

 

[David Jimerson]

You quote the one line in my entire post that is the least crucial and paramount...

I do put my energy into productive things, mate. Believe me. Just debating a point here.

Actually, you're not so much "debating" as berating anyone who disagrees with you.

I just don't see how that's constructive, especially when it's about some company not giving you what you think you should have at the price you think you should pay.

So why not just "embrace" Blackmagic, as you say, and let Canon do what Canon's going to do?

 

[Barry_Green]

hence canon saying - "dont go there" very loudly

Okay, look -- can someone please point out where Canon actually said "don't go there" (loudly or not)? Or where Canon said they would bring their "full legal might" down on anyone?

All I can find is a post on a rumors site that says "I was told by someone at Canon that they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level". Someone who? A salesman? A product manager? A lawyer? The president? The janitor? Or was it a customer standing in the lobby? Heck, that'd be "someone at Canon", wouldn't it?

What did Canon themselves, as a statement of policy, actually say? Not a thing.

Seriously, why do people put any credence at all in stuff like this? If this were a courtroom (which, by the way, is where "the full might of its legal team" would play out) any judge in the world (even a kangaroo court in a third-world dictatorship) would throw this out on its ear at first mention.

People here have tried and convicted Canon of malfeasance, of unfair business practices, of evil intent towards their customers, of profiteering, and of all manner of bad behavior, based on what? Based On What? On some rumor site saying that some unnamed person of unnamed capacity said a statement that they may or may not have been authorized to say!

Good Lord.

Anybody remember Edgar Allan Poe? He said "Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see." Whatever happened to that? Why do people actually believe this stuff they read?

 

[Jay Birch]

Why on Earth would you hope that on anyone? I hope for the best quality for all - regardless of what means they pursue to get there!

and i hope the camera industry doesn't go the same way as music, film, software, games and any other "soft" products..... Where people feel that once they buy the hardware, they don't really need to bother paying for said software/music/films/games.

i find it quite bizarre that the goal of most people on sites like this will be to make a living from film making, an industry that is suffering so badly from copyright infringement, yet are so quick to embrace the idea that people should hack Canon's software engineering and install it on a cheaper model, purely because they feel a camera is overpriced.

 

[Barry_Green]

But hey, I guess by the logic that's been thrown around here, 25P is gonna require an army of low-level software engineers, the training up of Canon reps and support staff, and billions of dollars for Canon to give a $12,000 camera 25P...right?

Ah, I see that's where the discussion is headed. Thanks for the warning.

And you know, before indie filmmakers embraced the Canon DSLRs for film production, Canon had no real reputation in the cinema industry - that was all Panavision, Arri and RED - and how do they repay the very community that gave them legs to stand on in that industry? The very community that gave them a reason to create a "cinema" series of cameras?

Okay, forgive me, but it's time to write a reality check. "indie filmmakers" had zero to do with Canon gaining a reputation in the cinema industry. It was adoption by real filmmakers -- guys with "A.S.C." after their names -- that got Canon a reputation in the cinema industry. And Canon repaid that community by building their Cinema EOS line -- a lineup aimed specifically at guys with ASC after their names (or those who will someday have ASC after their names). They built their Cinema EOS line for those folks, they priced it at that level, they built support and service centers in Hollywood to service those people.

Canon doesn't know who the "indie filmmaker" is. Canon doesn't care about the indie filmmaker. Canon has a very specific plan that they have followed quite meticulously. It's all available for you to see, if you'll only open your eyes.

Just because you (collectively, the no-budget indie filmmaker) loved Canon, does not obligate Canon to love you back.

By releasing a $12,000 camera that can't even do 25P...wow. Thanks Canon. So damn generous of you.

And yet -- it does exactly what they intended it to do. It shoots 24p, for the hollywood cinema group that it is intended for. Why would it do anything else? It addresses the needs of who they built it for.

You may be disappointed that it doesn't ALSO address your needs, sure. But that's not Canon's problem, that's yours; Canon isn't even in that conversation.

Put more coldly: Canon isn't competing for your business because Canon isn't competing for your business! You're not on their radar. They're not pursuing you. You're not their customer. Rodney Charters is. Shane Hurlbut is.

Didn't Canon realise that the MAJORITY of those who were embracing and championing their DSLRs were doing so because they couldn't afford the likes of RED and so on?

No. Because those of you who embraced and championed their DSLRs, accounted for maybe a 1% spike in DSLR sales. A rounding error. DSLRs are sold to photographers and to photojournalists by the truckload; the addition of video shooters probably added maybe 1%, maybe 2% total sales increase. This was not a new business for them. Doesn't it puzzle you as to why Canon hasn't advanced the technology for their cheap cameras, and hasn't made huge strides in the last several years? Maybe it'll start to make more sense when you realize that while it may have been a big "revolution" to you, it wasn't a big deal to them at all. It was insignificant.

It hurts to find out that who you love, doesn't love you back. But that's the way it is with Canon and their bazillion-selling DSLR line; the filmmaker isn't their main market, or even an ancillary market, it's basically an incidental market.

I'm sorry, but the reality is that Canon's attitude towards filmmakers, especially indie filmmakers, ESPECIALLY those on very small budgets - those that embraced their DSLRs more than any - is rather heartless.

Yes, you're beginning to realize and to see. Open your eyes, grasshopper.

Now cue the condemnation and Canon apologists in three...two...one...

I don't know that I could be called a "Canon apologist" -- I don't give one flying fig about the company or, largely, its products. I've bought Canon DSLRs and point 'n' shoots before, when they were the right product at the right time, and if they made a good 1,000 fps camera today I'd buy it right now.

I'm not "apologizing" for the company -- I'm trying to clarify. Just look at what the company actually does. Forget the emotion and the zeal and all that, and just actually look at what the actual actions are. Stop wishing and believing, and start observing and responding. It's a lot easier that way. Stop "rooting" for a company that isn't competing for your business. Reward companies that compete for your business and who give you what you want. If a company doesn't give you what you want, don't reward it by buying its products.

 

[Barry_Green]

So why not just "embrace" Blackmagic, as you say, and let Canon do what Canon's going to do?

Exactly. Reward those who do what you want. Let Canon succeed or fail based on their merits, not on "zeal" or "heart".

 

[Simon Shasha]

Actually, you're not so much "debating" as berating anyone who disagrees with you.

I just don't see how that's constructive, especially when it's about some company not giving you what you think you should have at the price you think you should pay.

So why not just "embrace" Blackmagic, as you say, and let Canon do what Canon's going to do?

Well, the previous poster did say "why aren't people crying that the 1D-C is crippled then?", to which I countered with the point that people are complaining that the 1DC is crippled because the 1DC, at $12,000USD, can't do 4K at either 25P or 30P, just 24P - if that's not debating, then I don't know what is?

Yeah, I did go on a tirade about my feelings towards Canon and their "C" series - but it's not about Canon not giving me what I want - it's simply about what I believe Canon should of been and could of been, and what I feel that they owed the very community, mainly comprised of independent low-budget filmmakers, that gave them a footing in the the cinema industry. Canon didn't go out there and make their cameras look good, WE DID - the low-budget filmmakers everywhere that embraced Canon DSLRs did - I guarantee that the "C" series wouldn't even exist without this very community.

Does Canon give two s*%ts about my tirade - nope. Do they care about giving me the best quality at an affordable price - nope. But Blackmagic does. That's why I jumped ship to Blackmagic on June 2nd (and then again in September to their MFT BMCC). The BMCC isn't perfect, but it definitely isn't crippled - it gives everything it's got (and with CinemaDNG, you are literally getting everything it's got). If my work doesn't make the Blackmagic shine, then I really hope that at least the money I give to Blackmagic helps them further create astounding quality products, that aren't crippled, at affordable prices for filmmakers everywhere - especially the really low-budget filmmakers that want their films to look as close as possible to the aesthetic of film.

Blackmagic has heart. I can't help but honour and respect that.

 

[Jay Birch]

It's funny.... When the 5DII was out... People moaned about various things.

No 24p - fixed
No manual mode - fixed
Aliasing - Fixed in the 5DIII
Moire - Fixed in the 5DIII
Bit Rate - fixed in 5DIII

Canon gave the indie crowd a pretty damn good camera in the 5DIII..... Yet a new buzz word (4K) gives everyone a new reason to demand Canon "gives back to the community".

I don't remember everyone crying for low cost 4K even 12 months ago, so why is that now priority number 1?

 

[David Jimerson]

Yeah, I did go on a tirade about my feelings towards Canon and their "C" series - but it's not about Canon not giving me what I want - it's simply about what I believe Canon should of been and could of been, and what I feel that they owed the very community, mainly comprised of independent low-budget filmmakers, that gave them a footing in the the cinema industry. Canon didn't go out there and make their cameras look good, WE DID - the low-budget filmmakers everywhere that embraced Canon DSLRs did - I guarantee that the "C" series wouldn't even exist without this very community.

Canon had plans which didn't include you. Barry put it rather well -- you don't even exist in their world or in their business plan. They never meant to be a stop-gap fill-in for people who wish they could afford bigger and better cameras but can't. That just happened by accident, because some people who want to make Hollywood movies for nothing saw some pictures they liked. It was never Canon's plan. They're doing fine in the markets they want to be in, and your market isn't one.

I really, really don't know where you got the idea that they owe you anything. Heck, they were even your SECOND CHOICE. You'd rather have a RED or an Alexa, but you can't afford that, so you made do. So they owe you for making them your consolation prize? Really?

This sense of entitlement -- I simply don't understand it.

Blackmagic has heart. I can't help but honour and respect that.

Then "respect" it and cool your jets about Canon. It is what it is. Get over it.

 

[Simon Shasha]

Okay, forgive me, but it's time to write a reality check. "indie filmmakers" had zero to do with Canon gaining a reputation in the cinema industry. It was adoption by real filmmakers -- guys with "A.S.C." after their names -- that got Canon a reputation in the cinema industry. And Canon repaid that community by building their Cinema EOS line -- a lineup aimed specifically at guys with ASC after their names (or those who will someday have ASC after their names). They built their Cinema EOS line for those folks, they priced it at that level, they built support and service centers in Hollywood to service those people.

So Canon built the entire Cinema EOS line because Shane Hurbult (who is, by the way, someone I look up to immensely) and a handful of other cinematographers used Canon DSLRs? The entire Cinema EOS line is just for them and future A.S.C people alone? So all the money Canon made by having their DSLRs embraced by the indie filmmaking community and videoographers/cinematographers, A.S.C or not, everywhere had nothing to do with the production of the Cinema EOS line? Nor the reputation of being a company capable of delivering a cinematic image? This was all done for, and by, A.S.C certified people?

Canon doesn't know who the "indie filmmaker" is. Canon doesn't care about the indie filmmaker.

Well, at least we agree there

And yet -- it does exactly what they intended it to do. It shoots 24p, for the hollywood cinema group that it is intended for. Why would it do anything else? It addresses the needs of who they built it for.

You may be disappointed that it doesn't ALSO address your needs, sure. But that's not Canon's problem, that's yours; Canon isn't even in that conversation.

Put more coldly: Canon isn't competing for your business because Canon isn't competing for your business! You're not on their radar. They're not pursuing you. You're not their customer. Rodney Charters is. Shane Hurlbut is.

So Canon built the entire Cinema EOS line without even a thought of selling it to prosumers/independent filmmakers/cinematographers, hobbyists? Not at all? It is strictly for Hollywood, et al?

Sorry, Barry, but 25P is used heavily in the Australian and European film industry as opposed to 24P - by your logic, Canon isn't interested in selling to these people at all - the omission of 4K 25P and 4K 30P has nothing to do with protecting C300/C500?

No. Because those of you who embraced and championed their DSLRs, accounted for maybe a 1% spike in DSLR sales. A rounding error. DSLRs are sold to photographers and to photojournalists by the truckload; the addition of video shooters probably added maybe 1%, maybe 2% total sales increase. This was not a new business for them. Doesn't it puzzle you as to why Canon hasn't advanced the technology for their cheap cameras, and hasn't made huge strides in the last several years? Maybe it'll start to make more sense when you realize that while it may have been a big "revolution" to you, it wasn't a big deal to them at all. It was insignificant.

I can't help but disagree there. A Canon rep in Sydney at Canon HQ (when having a conversation about the C300) told me that according to a Canon Australia survey, which was conducted via questionnaire on people that had purchased Canon DLSRs, that their main reason for purchasing a Canon DSLR was for its video features as opposed to its photography features. I can only give you my word and his, but I would love if anyone here has any data/statistics or anything in regards to this topic.

But if video shooters, as you say, only accounted for 1 - 2% of all Canon DSLR sales, then why the massive emphasis by Canon about the 5DMKIII's video features? Why bother with the ALL-I codec, HDMI out, audio-metering, headphone-jack, and so forth? If it's only 1% of their market, why put R&D and marketing into developing such features?

I'm not "apologizing" for the company -- I'm trying to clarify. Just look at what the company actually does. Forget the emotion and the zeal and all that, and just actually look at what the actual actions are. Stop wishing and believing, and start observing and responding. It's a lot easier that way. Stop "rooting" for a company that isn't competing for your business. Reward companies that compete for your business and who give you what you want. If a company doesn't give you what you want, don't reward it by buying its products.

Sorry if I came off harsh, angry or condescending at all, Barry, I've always worn my heart of my sleeve, especially when it comes to the only thing in my life that I enjoy - filmmaking and cinematography - but I guess the business antics of a camera maker isn't the time or place for such emotions.

 

[Simon Shasha]

They never meant to be a stop-gap fill-in for people who wish they could afford bigger and better cameras but can't. That just happened by accident, because some people who want to make Hollywood movies for nothing saw some pictures they liked. It was never Canon's plan.

Would you say the Cinema EOS line would exist if the "DSLR revolution" never happened?

 

[David Jimerson]

Would you say the Cinema EOS line would exist if the "DSLR revolution" never happened?

I think you have a faulty idea of what the "DSLR Revolution" really is to them. Barry, again, said it pretty well -- it was the guys with "A.S.C." after their names who employed it in their work whom Canon paid attention to. Without that, I doubt it very much.

 

[dustylense]

All I have to say is that if the Canon 5d Mark II never had video, the AF100 would probably be the big news at this years 2013 NAB.