Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firmware Hack Allows Video Analysis On a Canon Camera

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the turn-your-family-green-with-envy dept.

Hardware Hacking 115

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from the University of Liege in Belgium have been able to perform real-time video analysis on a regular Canon digicam (video link) without any hardware modification. The results are shown directly on the digicam's screen. They use a hacked version of a popular open-source alternative firmware for Canon cameras: CHDK. This is a proof-of-concept that computer vision algorithms can now be embedded on regular Canon digicams with little effort (CHDK is coded in C). What other popular vision algorithms could be implemented? For what purpose?" You can get some idea about ViBe from this abstract at IEEE; basically, it allows background extraction in moving images.

cancel ×

115 comments

tiysovyw (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513094)

doodely-doo
first post!

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513106)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Zoneminder (2, Interesting)

b0bby (201198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513228)

I've been playing around with Zoneminder a bit & this could be a way to use decentralized cheap cameras to send events to a ZM server. Pretty neat.

Re:Zoneminder (3, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513694)

I wrote code for this so that my camera would draw a little red box around the faces of terrorists. It seems I'm surrounded by them.

Re:Zoneminder (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31519130)

perhaps you could implement that with collision boundaries and gun turrets before they terrorize you. that would keep the status quo, right and proper, all the way.

CHDK (4, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513230)

I use CHDK [wikia.com] on my own Canon PowerShot. Good stuff.

Re: CHDK (2, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513270)

What's the 'newest' Camera that supports CHDK? Mine got stolen recently and I'd like something to replace it for times I don't want to lug around my SLR.

Does CDHK support the DIGIC IV (720p, better face recognition). I played around with one of my friends and face recognition, the fact that you can zoom in and scroll through all faces to make sure they're in focus. Lots of cool stuff, but CDHK seems to mostly support older stuff and Canon's numbering scheme sucks.

Canon S90 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513476)

The S90 has Digic IV and supports CHDK. I haven't used it personally, but I intend to do so in 5... 4... 3... brb

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/S90

Re:Canon S90 (1)

StarDrifter (144026) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513778)

The page you linked to claims that CHDK is not available for the S90. How about the PowerShot SD880 [wikia.com] ?

Re:Canon S90 (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513978)

That page says:

CHDK is NOT available for the Powershot S90.

Re:Canon S90 (1)

bograt (943491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514124)

As others have pointed out, CHDK isn't supported on the S90 (yet, but it's being worked on). It also doesn't support 720p; video resolutions are only up to 640x480 @ 30fps. (But it's a great camera otherwise, and is widely praised as having good image quality and manual control, while being compact enough to carry around very easily.)

Re:Canon S90 (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#31516284)

waITWAITWAitwait. is canon really bringing back real s series ? /me frantically searches da web.

ok, that looks pretty close, except the hard lens cover seems to be missing, which was pretty cool. from the few images i've seen, it also seems to have pop-out flash (not as robust), and i don't see where tripod mount is located (older models had it at the centre of the lens, thus making it easier to get some panorama material w/o panoramic head).

ok, a short explanation on why i was so excited initially... i've been an owner of some s series powershots since s45 (ok, i have that one still, it just died :/ ), and i have suggested lots of these to friends and businesses. when my last powershot s died, i wanted to purchase a new one. unfortunately, the latest models that were still available had serious problems (i believe lack of raw and misplaced tripod mount ? don't recall for sure).
i put off the purchase of a new camera of that lass for a looong time. hear me canon ? i mostly loved what you produced at the time of s45. DAMN YOU for abandoning that line :)
there were some rumours that it was done to make g series more attractive etc.

so the news that s series might have been resurrected really made me look for my wallet, but it looks like they haven't actually returned to the s series roots. still, this is promising, and i'll keep an eye out for this, hoping to give some money to canon for getting me the spiced up s45 :)

oh, but i'm not getting a new camera that is not supported by chdk anymore. or one that does not have an open firmware with chdk capabilities (or chdk as the firmware itself =) )

Re:Canon S90 (2, Informative)

bograt (943491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517368)

I just checked the tripod mount on my S90, and it looks like it's smack bang in the centre of the lens.

As for the pop-out flash, it's motorised. I don't know if that makes it more os less robust, but there you go.

I've read that the S90 is basically the same as the G11 but with a different body and lens, which gives me hope that CHDK will be available for the S90 soon, since it already is for the G11. It does shoot RAW out of the box, though. You won't need CHDK for that.

Re:Canon S90 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31516042)

Learn to read, you fuckarsed spazmo.

Re: CHDK (1)

Gruff1002 (717818) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513486)

Newest Canon to the best of my knowledge is a G11 that will support CHDK

Re: CHDK (2, Informative)

rhizome (115711) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513488)

Check the sidebar: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK [wikia.com]

I'm anxiously awaiting the SD1200 port.

Re: CHDK (1)

arh9623 (49521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514352)

Myself as well. I've been checking every month or so. It seems close.

Re: CHDK (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31514120)

What's the 'newest' Camera that supports CHDK? Mine got stolen recently and I'd like something to replace it for times I don't want to lug around my SLR.

I'm interested by that too as I've recently "acquired" a new camera.

Re: CHDK (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514200)

I played around with one of my friends and face recognition, the fact that you can zoom in and scroll through all faces to make sure they're in focus.

Maybe someone can explain the multi-focus thing to me.
Does the camera pick out all the faces and then pick an average focal point?
Or does the software (as opposed to the lens) actually tweak each face into focus?

Re: CHDK (2, Informative)

Trebawa (1461025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514946)

I have a PowerShot SX200, which is compact and DIGIC IV. It also shoots 720p. There's a beta of CHDK for it, and it's worked well so far.

Re: CHDK (3, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513832)

I use it on my S5 IS. I use the intervalometer, various grids (for composing level shots when it matters), the extended shutter modes (both slower and faster than the "stock" firmware allows) and of course the RGB histogram and on rare occasion raw. I don't use raw too often though because it slows the camere down a fair bit. However, CHDK is a wonderful tool and scripting it isn't too bad. The documentation is actually pretty good for a "young" open source project. In short, it makes point-and-shoot cameras usable where they otherwise wouldn't be, and where a point-and-shoot camera is preferable to a DSLR (such as when traveling), it can give you some of the capabilities you would normally turn to a DSLR for.

I hope they manage to port it to the DSLRs, particularly the EOS 7D.

Re: CHDK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31519066)

EOS 7D is not a tinker toy, its professional equipment, and the 5dmk2 is superior at video too. They do not need hacked firmware.

Re: CHDK (2, Insightful)

xxdinkxx (560434) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513908)

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/12087/1/Barnich2009ViBe.pdf [ulg.ac.be] There is the paper in question. I despise the fact that I still have to pay for papers in IEEE silos when I am in fact a member.
Yeah I could upgrade my subscription, but bah.

RANT.YML
rant:
information should be free

Re: CHDK (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31514432)

Does repeating a link in the summary really count as informative?
I know this article is only tangentially about CHDK but I've been looking into CHDK lately for a project so I thought I'd share some useful links.

Supported Cameras [wikia.com]

Note that a higher number doesn't mean it's a newer model. The A710 was released before the A590.
Canon PowerShot A series info [wikipedia.org]

CHDK Howto [hackaday.com]

Info on how to make a port [mweerden.net]

Info on implementing PTP in CHDK [mweerden.net]
This is still relatively new but it could allow using a computer to remotely control the camera, which isn't doable on many Canon cameras with the stock firmware. I'd love to see this mature so I can do remote capture in Linux.

Re: CHDK (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515216)

Wow! I didn't know people were doing this sort of thing. I have been leaning towards a Canon for other reasons, but this will weigh heavily in Canon's favour for my next camera purchase.

Re: CHDK (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517708)

>>I use CHDK on my own Canon PowerShot. Good stuff.

Ditto. When I get bored waiting for an animal to do something, I play Daleks on my camera. It's awesome.

Re: CHDK (1)

mctk (840035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31518354)

Also use CHDK, also consider it good stuff. And I love the fact that my powershot takes AA batteries and has a standard USB connector. They've gotten more money out of me because of this, not in spite of it.

CHDK is cool - more programmable cameras, please (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513274)

Subject pretty much says it all.

Unfortunately, it seems many camera manufacturers - including Canon when it comes to their SLR line - are far happier to put any new functionality in newly released camera models and put them on the bullet list for those, rather than making it available for older models as well and just letting the new model's technical (rather than software) advantages make their sales.

THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513280)

"Digicam"? What the fuck is that?

They're called "digital cameras". Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (0, Offtopic)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513442)

To add to the mix, everyone here calls it digi camera :-)

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (3, Informative)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513592)

I call it a Cami-DigiCam Camcorder. It's so important to get the terminology right when you don't know anything else.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513516)

I wholeheartedly agree! Oh I miss the days when I used a modulator-demodulator to aid in my reception of electronic mail...

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514086)

Right, the new word for "digital camera" is "camera." If you mention to a friend that your camera battery is dead, would they still ask whether you can advance the film manually? No. The vast majority of cameras made, sold, and used today are digital cameras, so that is what the word has come to mean.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515066)

I must have missed that memo from the English Academy. What day did that happen?

Yes, I'll agree if someone says 'camera' in a non-film/celluloid specific context I'll probably assume it's referring to a digital camera, but in what way are we damaging the language (moreso) by using digicam?

l8r

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515262)

In precisely the way you damage the language when you elide the space between the words "more so". You're creating a word where none is needed.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31516186)

I was once chased by ninjas but managed to elide the guy on point and the rest fell apart.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517954)

I don't mind if somebody says digicam, I just think it sounds a little old-fashioned, like "surfing the web."

Thank you, Lord of Language (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513648)

If we did not have you policing it for us, our language would have devolved into mutually incomprehensible babbling eons ago. Thank you for your continued vigilance.

However, I am confused by your use of the phrase 'the fuck,' and sentence fragments. Could you diagram your sentences for me? As you are the Lord of Language, I'm sure they are all grammatically correct, I just need a little help in seeing how...

Re:Thank you, Lord of Language (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513726)

I'm a Lexeme Nazi, not a Grammar Nazi, you faggot. I don't give a fuck about your sentence structure, as long as you're using real words. "Digicam" is not a real word.

Re:Thank you, Lord of Language (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513838)

Not that a Google fight is much of an arbiter on what words are in English, but there are nearly 10x more hits for digicam [google.com] than there are for lexeme [google.com] .

Re:Thank you, Lord of Language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31516210)

There are 14,500,000 hits for "their's". A tenth of that for "hermeneutics".

Conclusion: "their's" is a word, "hermeneutics" isn't, and you're a cock.

Re:Thank you, Lord of Language (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31516482)

Actually if you put "their's" in quotes (which avoids hits for "theirs"), you only get 474,000, a little over 1/4 of the hits as "hermeneutics." (And the first two hits are talking about how "their's" isn't a word, while there's no such apparent hit for "digicam" anywhere in the first five pages of results.)

Re:Thank you, Lord of Language (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513860)

Digicam is a perfectly cromulent word. You may want to look into the prescription [wikipedia.org] /description [wikipedia.org] debate to understand everyone thinks you are a ridiculous buffoon.

Also, I resent the implication that I ride a Harley.

Re:Thank you, Lord of Language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513906)

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513728)

Most photographers refer to a non-SLR digital camera as a "digicam" and a dSLR as a "digital camera", as a means of differentiating the two in conversation.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31515184)

Define "most" ... because I've never heard the distinction being used that way in my entire life.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31515302)

It seems fairly universal -- I was a professional photographer from 2003-2008, and the term was used quite often both in person and in forums I frequented.

"Digicam" just sounds more lightweight and limited, to me.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31516498)

how do you call my cannon G11 ?

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31517678)

"Here, G11, here boy! Come on, I've got a nice treat for you!"

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (2, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517620)

No, most photographers that refer to a non-SLR digital camera refer to it as a PnS (Point and Shoot) and dSLR as just "SLR" as in most digital forums it's automatically assumed you're running a digital camera opposed to film.

I still take superior pictures with my Minolta X-700, no Photoshop needed afterwards.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513804)

The "digital" part is superfluous. Nobody uses film any more.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515218)

Isn't this when somebody is supposed to chime in with a meme?

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (2, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515982)

Isn't this when somebody is supposed to chime in with a meme?

In Korea only old people use film?
In Soviet Russia film uses you?
Or maybe just imagine a Beowulf cluster of hacked Canon cameras ...

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

dotgain (630123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515566)

Tell that to the Lomography crowd.

Re:THEY ARE NOT CALLED "DIGICAMS". (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31516254)

... or the large format aficionados.

Video analysis (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513294)

Abstraction overload.

I'm sure "video analysis" means something more concrete to those in the know (or not), but I can't shake off the feeling that it's all blahblahblah with no meaning other than to generate more blahblahblah.

Guess it worked, too. Blah blah.

Blah.








Blah blha?

Re:Video analysis (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513470)

I'm sure "video analysis" means something more concrete to those in the know (or not), but I can't shake off the feeling that it's all blahblahblah with no meaning other than to generate more blahblahblah.

OpenCV [wikipedia.org]
Integrating Vision Toolkit [wikipedia.org]

Think these libraries but on the camera. You take an image, you process HSV, contrast, and a bunch of other data to do shape detections, motion detection, etc.

Re:Video analysis (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513736)

Boss, is that you?

Re:Video analysis (2, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513820)

I told you not to waste time on slashdot again. You on my list, now.

Re:Video analysis (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515622)

You said "blha" instead of "Blah" in the end. That makes no sense.

Re:Video analysis (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515892)

I was conjugating.

Interesting... (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513412)

What I find interesting about this is not so much that the code can be loaded(since the CHDK project already did that job, and has had it working for some time now); but that consumer digicams would have enough general purpose punch to run anything much more than trivial scripts that more or less emulate series of button presses(which can be extremely useful, for time lapse, auto bracketing, etc, etc.).

Given the sheer number that are produced, and the fairly tight battery life constraints, I would have assumed that most of the heavy lifting(crunching raw sensor data to .jpeg form, or encoding video) would be done with largely fixed function hardware, with just a little bit of general purpose computer slapped on to handle UI, user input, and tweak the settings of the encoder units. Apparently, the general purpose units have more punch than I thought.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513602)

Given the sheer number that are produced, and the fairly tight battery life constraints, I would have assumed that most of the heavy lifting(crunching raw sensor data to .jpeg form, or encoding video) would be done with largely fixed function hardware, with just a little bit of general purpose computer slapped on to handle UI, user input, and tweak the settings of the encoder units. Apparently, the general purpose units have more punch than I thought.

Yes, the general purpose units are there, but the moment you start taking advantage of them to do something like what's demonstrated in TFV, you dramatically kill the battery life.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517646)

That's okay, new nickel-zinc batteries are coming out.

Re:Interesting... (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513690)

What I find interesting about this is ... that consumer digicams would have enough general purpose punch to run anything much more than trivial scripts

Check the feature list of typical modern "consumer"-ish digital cams. Marketing has decided that the average moron needs to be able to filter pics to look like a faded photograph, or put the picture inside an ornate picture frame, or cover up parts of the image with heart and caption overlays like those stupid "reality-TV" dating shows. The enormous resources required for stupid marketing tricks can be re-purposed to do much more interesting things... Which probably pisses off the marketing guys. Which I like.

To a first approximation, the computing power required to store a pic is not much worse than the viewfinder display. And they don't seem to care about updating the video viewfinder continuously. So, it can't be too horrible of a computational task.

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513946)

The most computationally demanding onboard processing I've noticed (aside from video encoding, which surely uses a dedicated chip) is recognizing multiple faces in real-time, or tracking a moving object, to maintain focus. Far from the gimmicks you mention, these are very useful functions that just happen to require what amounts to video processing.

Re:Interesting... (1)

The Lerneaen Hydra (885793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514058)

Well, for what it's worth, the only thing the camera in the video seems to be doing is threshold compare on a pixel by pixel basis, ie if each pixel changes from the previous frame by more than a certain amount then it's highlighted, which is a pretty simple operation. Still, it's a cool proof of concept.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31514146)

Application-specific ICs are expensive. Both to design and produce. It tends to be cheaper to throw a whole microcontroller and DSP chip at the problem - even if it's way overkill - than it would be to build just the necessary circuitry, especially in consumer devices where you can afford slightly slower speeds.

Re:Interesting... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31518986)

This also may explain why there are no truly cheap digital cameras.

The cheapest that I can find nowadays costs still at least about USD 100. They all do zoom, fancy tricks, lots and lots of megapixels, whatever.

Maybe I have only looked in the wrong shops but I can't seem to find cheap, simple point-and-shoot style digicams. For my business I often have to shoot photos, and would like to have a cheap cam that I can keep in my bag, that has decent quality, no need to zoom, cheap enough to not hurt my wallet when it breaks. 2-4 MP is enough. No zoom. I like an LCD but not necessary. Should take SD cards for easy transfer of images. That's all. Oh and a price tag of under say USD 50 would be nice.

On the other hand maybe I should get a new phone, modern phone cams can do this. It's just that such a phone is quite expensive still.

Fun idea (-1, Offtopic)

Stephen Tennant (936097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513500)

Could someone please develop an open-source recognition algorithm for juicy teen asses? I'll be happy to write the UI if various visual parameters are supported, though I'm sure depth perception will be a challenge. Nothing worse than a fatty but a flatty...

Re:Fun idea (0, Offtopic)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513674)

Teenager or not, if their asses are 'juicy' I think there may be a medical or dietary problem involved.

Re:Fun idea (-1, Offtopic)

Stephen Tennant (936097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513802)

My apologies. I meant "juicy" as a metaphor calling to mind appealing round shape and desirability, not leaking of anus or pus lanced from infected tissue.

Re:Fun idea (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513932)

Ah, I see! You were writing in the Mix-a-lotian dialect, and positing that your anaconda don't want none unless she's got buns, hon. Sorry for my confusion, it must be the anal leakage.

Re:Fun idea (0, Offtopic)

Stephen Tennant (936097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514096)

Precisely. My use of metaphor might be difficult from a technical standpoint, but it will make for a stimulating challenge to anyone willing to create a visual analysis back-end for ghetto booties, sugar apples, badonkadonks, whale tails, laffy taffy, and backyard cheddarstacks.

Re:Fun idea (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514442)

I think we would need a control group, lacking in back-end development, in order to correctly highlight the visual differences. It is my understanding that someone like Jane Fonda, who lacks a motor in the back of her Honda, would be perfect in this regard.

Re:Fun idea (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517598)

Jane Fonda surely more than made up for that.

Re:Fun idea (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517734)

Yes, but Keira Knightley doesn't rhyme with any brand of vehicle I can think of.

Re:Fun idea (0, Offtopic)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517594)

Mmmmmmm......puss filled anal leakage

Re:Fun idea (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513760)

I'll get right on that as soon as you define "juicy" in a machine-readable format.

Re:Fun idea (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513782)

A neural network to emulate a CCTV security guard operator.
Because you know that's what they look at all day, instead of catching terrorists or whatever it is they're supposed to do.

Re:Fun idea (2, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513962)

If you need an algorithm to identify which girls are attractive, then you don't need an attractive girl.

Why Bother Rewriting the Wheel? (2, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513646)

OpenCV [sourceforge.net] has C interfaces [willowgarage.com] and there are more that have some C code libraries [cmu.edu] . Really the coding challenge would be building the wrappers to utilize those libraries with your camera's hardware (I assume provided through CHDK APIs). My vote is for a nifty KLT implementation that allows me to take a video and extract a huge wide pan image in post processing on the camera.

Re:Why Bother Rewriting the Wheel? (1)

xxdinkxx (560434) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513950)

because having multiple computer vision systems with different focuses is not a bad thing. For instance OpenCV has nothing in the way of Waldboost classifiers. Opencv seems to be mostly focused on haar-like feature classifiers.

Re:Why Bother Rewriting the Wheel? (1)

pdxp (1213906) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514924)

xxdinkxx makes some good points, and also I've learned from experience that OpenCV is too slow for mobile devices in its generic form. You'd end up needing to write optimized assembler code specific to the camera's processor anyway.

Re:Why Bother Rewriting the Wheel? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31518992)

I have seen exactly that demo'ed in an ad on TV not so long ago. I forgot which brand has it, but it exists.

For SLR's makes much more sense (1)

mynickwastaken (690966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513718)

I would like to have CHDK on my EOS-450d (Rebel XSi) and other Canon SLRs. There makes much sense. The FW dumps are available but I have no clue why nobody is starting porting?!

Re:For SLR's makes much more sense (2, Informative)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515146)

Because they are SLRs. Their firmware can do almost all CHDK can do. A lot of work and little gain, plus risk of bricking an expensive camera. The main focus of CHDK is cheapest idiotekameras, because the difference it makes is really huge.

Re:For SLR's makes much more sense (1)

Artemis3 (85734) | more than 4 years ago | (#31518696)

There is no "bricking" risk because CHDK does not alter the firmware, it gets booted from the memory card. Put another memory card without the CHDK file and its gone.

Nothing special, only motion detection (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31513842)

Meh, the video demonstrates simple motion detection, which is no surprise considering that these cameras do face and smile detection all the time.

I was hoping for more, something along the lines of object recognition, artificial horizon, being able to see a road...

Re:Nothing special, only motion detection (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515108)

Mine doesn't have any "detection" built in, but original CHDK has edge detection, "Zebra" (marking saturated or entirely black areas), several different options of histogram, and quite a bit more. Yeah, this hack doesn't do all that much comparing to what CHDK does... comparing what a Canon camera without CHDK does - it's impressive.

As for the other options you mentioned - they would be quite doable with the CHDK software. That wouldn't help much though, because all you'd get is the image with these features highlighted. The problem with these cameras is lack of any GPIO. The USB interface haven't been reverse-engineered, so there's no way to use the camera hacks with it either (the original Canon software pretty much gives all the control over the camera over USB... - as much as their proprietary app allows, which isn't anything beyond what the standard camera firmware allows...) So yes, you could detect all kind of stuff but the most you could do with the result is displaying it on the LCD or blinking a couple of LEDs on the camera.

Re:Nothing special, only motion detection (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517900)

The monolithic build for CHDK already has simple motion detection built in. It is only accessible from a script, however, but you can find the configuration options for it in the menus.

Not alternative firmware (5, Informative)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31513866)

It's worth pointing out that CHDK isn't a hacked firmware (that would probably not be legally redistributable), nor is it an alternative firmware (that would be too much work). CHDK is an add-on to the existing firmware, that works by piggibacking on its OS, hooking functions, and spawning off extra processes on the camera's RTOS. This is what makes it so great: you get the original funcionality of the camera plus extra stuff, and you don't have to wait for the developers to add what already came with your camera anyway.

Re:Not alternative firmware (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31514536)

CHDK is an add-on to the existing firmware, that works by piggibacking on its OS

If it would have been an Apple camera, ten thousand lawyers would have been busy suing the developers.

CHDK made me buy a Canon, and Canons approach of "live and let live" will make my next purchase a Canon 50D.

Thank you Canon!

Re:Not alternative firmware (1)

dropadrop (1057046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31515624)

If the camera was a networked device always running on the background Canon might react differently too. Maybe if Canon sold software packages to enhance the camera and this ate their sales they might also work against it. As is, I think this is really not very popular (all the people I know have a canon camera, none have installed CHDK vs. 25% of them have an iPhone and quite a few jailbroke them), so they have no reason to waste resources in fighting it.

Re:Not alternative firmware (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31518110)

>>As is, I think this is really not very popular (all the people I know have a canon camera, none have installed CHDK vs. 25% of them have an iPhone and quite a few jailbroke them), so they have no reason to waste resources in fighting it.

You must have a different group of friends. Once when I was hiking, a friend of mine started talking about his awesome hacked firmware, and all three of us whipped out our Canons and had CHDK installed. =)

Re:Not alternative firmware (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31514906)

It's an awesome project. On my Canons it allowed a range of extra picture tweak settings and allowed some better RAW image manipulation.

Re:Not alternative firmware (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31518238)

On the other hand, it also can't add back what Canon took out. One of the best photos I ever took (IMHO) was taken with the Color Accent mode accidentally turned on in my Canon A540. This feature was removed in the A570 that replaced it. It seems like trivial functionality to put back in, but CHDK can't.

Re:Not alternative firmware (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31518284)

CHDK can add plenty of things, though of course if the code is physically missing then it would have to be reimplemented. Consider that CHDK allows RAW mode in cameras that don't originally support it, for example.

If you are interested by testing ViBE... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31515918)

You can check our dedicated webpage [ulg.ac.be] .

It features downloadable binaries for windows and linux (thanks to wine).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...