USB 2.0, that bog standard version from 2000 that is assumed to be the lowest common denominator possible for any new hardware...
Edit: 4am math correction...
480Mbit/sec transfer; Uncompressed, that's ~333333 pixels per frame for 60FPS. Not even considering overhead, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class 1.1 support from 2005 includes Motion JPEG (low compression, all patents probably expired given it was developed in the 90s) and MPEG2 (also sufficiently old, to be unencumbered now).
However, if they'd use USB 3.0 ~ 5gbps, ideally over a USB-C port, the connection would be more modern, and easily able to handle even 4K video with now free from patents and well supported compression algorithms.
USB ${N}Gbps instead of the confusing old labels and operation mode classifications.
I'll assume you meant the 5Gbps version of the link, which ( 5000000000/8/3/60 ) can drive about 3.47M (24 bit) pixels at 60fps, even raw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_display_resolut... It looks like 4K mode would require the use of VP8 (likely no hardware included) or h264. Patent license issues are soon to expire, (though some BS one won't until 2030, not sure how that's even possible), but no remedy for older models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Licensin... drat.
Why should the manufacturer raise the price of the camera for you and me just to implement something extra OP wants that they can already do through HDMI?
It is already implemented, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enable it once the subscription is active.
Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera, that is a standard feature on other cameras and imposes no ongoing costs to the manufacturer¹? This is an example of gouging, pure and simple.
----
[1] unless they are forcing the user to use their hosted service for steaming the webcam output, in which case there is some bandwidth and perhaps other processing cost, but that is on them for having not just implemented a standard that enables local-only recording
Also why does it have to be a subscription in the first place. If it is a non standard use that requires extra software you don't and you want to separate those costs from users that don't need it, then make it a one time payment at least.
Subscriptions make sense when you have ongoing costs like significant load on servers that are needed for the service provided. But not for some piece of software you write once and are more or less done with (minus some small patches)
> Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera
Getting video into your computer through USB is _not_ built into the camera. Else why is OP downloading an app to do it?
The app is part of the implementation, and it costs money. I have no problem with the manufacturer charging separately for that. The rest of us can use a video cable to get video into our computers.
USB 2.0, that bog standard version from 2000 that is assumed to be the lowest common denominator possible for any new hardware...
Edit: 4am math correction...
480Mbit/sec transfer; Uncompressed, that's ~333333 pixels per frame for 60FPS. Not even considering overhead, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class 1.1 support from 2005 includes Motion JPEG (low compression, all patents probably expired given it was developed in the 90s) and MPEG2 (also sufficiently old, to be unencumbered now).
However, if they'd use USB 3.0 ~ 5gbps, ideally over a USB-C port, the connection would be more modern, and easily able to handle even 4K video with now free from patents and well supported compression algorithms.
the camera indeed has USB-C port, 3.2 gen1
I like the new marketing names they finally settled on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Connector_type_quick_refer...
USB ${N}Gbps instead of the confusing old labels and operation mode classifications.
I'll assume you meant the 5Gbps version of the link, which ( 5000000000/8/3/60 ) can drive about 3.47M (24 bit) pixels at 60fps, even raw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_display_resolut... It looks like 4K mode would require the use of VP8 (likely no hardware included) or h264. Patent license issues are soon to expire, (though some BS one won't until 2030, not sure how that's even possible), but no remedy for older models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Licensin... drat.
Why should the manufacturer raise the price of the camera for you and me just to implement something extra OP wants that they can already do through HDMI?
It is already implemented, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enable it once the subscription is active.
Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera, that is a standard feature on other cameras and imposes no ongoing costs to the manufacturer¹? This is an example of gouging, pure and simple.
----
[1] unless they are forcing the user to use their hosted service for steaming the webcam output, in which case there is some bandwidth and perhaps other processing cost, but that is on them for having not just implemented a standard that enables local-only recording
Also why does it have to be a subscription in the first place. If it is a non standard use that requires extra software you don't and you want to separate those costs from users that don't need it, then make it a one time payment at least.
Subscriptions make sense when you have ongoing costs like significant load on servers that are needed for the service provided. But not for some piece of software you write once and are more or less done with (minus some small patches)
1 reply →
> Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera
Getting video into your computer through USB is _not_ built into the camera. Else why is OP downloading an app to do it?
The app is part of the implementation, and it costs money. I have no problem with the manufacturer charging separately for that. The rest of us can use a video cable to get video into our computers.
10 replies →
They have already implemented it, otherwise it wouldn't work.
The app is part of the implementation. And they're apparently subsidizing the cost by charging separately for it.
Drop the fee and that's now baked into the camera's base price.