Should device manufacturers make their firmware open source?
Independent film makers have developed a firmware update to Canon's 5D Mark II digital SLR. What should Canon do about it?
Follow @SavioRodriguesVery cool news that a group of independent filmmakers (with programming skills) have developed a firmware update to the Canon 5D Mark II digital SLR. According to the team:
The software in video mode has limitations, even after the recent 1.1.0 upgrade from Canon that fixed the most glaring manual exposure "bug".That's where Magic Lantern comes in -- it turns your 5D Mark II into a 5D Mark Free. We've written extensions and widgets that fix many of the annoyances in working with the 5D Mark II on a film or video set. Our first set of fixes are targeted at the audio limitations of the camera, but there are some video enhancements included, too:
* On-screen audio meters
* Disabled AGC
* Manual gain control
* Zebra stripes (video peaking)
* Crop marks for 16:9, 2.35:1 and 4:3
They've released the Magic Lantern firmware under the GPL and are seeking donations, programmers with ARM assembly or embedded systems skills, and folks who don't mind risking their expensive 5D Mark II cameras.
[ Keep up with the latest open source news with InfoWorld's open source newsletter and topic center. ]
Reading the 5D-II forum, the response has been quite positive. I'm not a lawyer, but the EULA seems to have terms and conditions that restrict the work done by the Magic Lantern team. This begs the question, what should Canon do about, or as a result of, Magic Lantern?
