[Rondec]

Good points. I think there are some great possibilities that open source software could bring to camera platforms, it's wonderful seeing features being developed for software like RawTherapee and Darktable as they happen. Out in the open, with anyone able to contribute, not endlessly waiting for some corporation to release even a list of what's planned. Go to pixls.us and you can see Pentaxians like heckfloss discussing how he's developing open source software to benefit us.

Android specifically on a camera? I don't know, there are probably limitations and risks as discussed here that could make that a less than optimal choice.

Personally I just want some better connectivity so that I can post a really good picture of my vacations before someone else I'm with posts a horizon-tilted, blurry, low-dynamic-range version of the same from their phone.

Open source camera firmware is way different from "going Android." Honestly, I don't know how much benefit Pentaxians would get from something like this anyway. All of the pie in the sky requests -- focus peaking in video, mechanical SR in video, better video codecs, etc -- never seemed to pan out. The best we got was a little better implementation of wifi via the Wifi Commander that Andrea on the Forum has done.

As to having actual apps on your camera -- even with a touch screen capability -- I wouldn't particularly be interested.

[BruceBanner]

Computational photography is not an Android exclusive.
Pentax cameras already have basic computational photography functionality.

Correct, Dynamic Pixel Shift on the K-1mkii I believe is an example of one trait, it's just sadly an awful experience compared to the same process being used on smartphones (and I think this is really the point of the thread), phones do dynamic pixel shift too, and quicker, faster and instant with far less post waiting time).

Really I hate the fact I mentioned 'Android' now. I think those connotations that many have with that word are fairly reserved and unhealthy. What I really meant was that their exists a platform (OS/Android), that has massive attention in terms of app developers and software and where a lot of the tech is fine tuned to ending up in. The computational power and range of features that exists (already) on that specific platform is huge, and at least one other industry that I have had previous experience with has 'come across' to it and apparently successfully (as in multiple brands adopting Android as their choice of OS vs one or two brands that tried and it failed).

I wondered if Cameras would also port that way due to several of those advantages vs navigating the disadvantages that could also exist. What I feel we lack right now is;

1) Frequent firmware updates of new features. There is no place to ask for a feature request, or even report a bug. When you buy your camera that is really the end of support (bar a few new lens support firmware releases that would be seen as absolutely mandatory).

2) A future camera on a different OS might improve the experience and negate the necessity of certain existing features that struggle and do not do so well on. Examples would be that Dynamic Pixel Shift from a specific app developer may be far superior and quicker than the stock feature (a little like RawTherapee being an excellent choice of software for various post processing tasks least of all pixel shift motion correction).

3) By adopting smartphone platforms of tech would we see a leap in terms of computational power due to a lot of the leg work having already been completed (we can see what phones have used x chip with y processor/boards bla bla bla, it works good combo etc).

I think too many have thought what I would like is a camera that 'boots up', has interaction of a screen at the expense of our beloved dials and buttons, nothing could be further from the truth.

[Kunzite]

Correct, Dynamic Pixel Shift on the K-1mkii I believe is an example of one trait, it's just sadly an awful experience compared to the same process being used on smartphones (and I think this is really the point of the thread), phones do dynamic pixel shift too, and quicker, faster and instant with far less post waiting time).

That is the first implementation, and I'm expecting some progress on the hardware and software side.
Are the smartphones truly so much better?

Really I hate the fact I mentioned 'Android' now. I think those connotations that many have with that word are fairly reserved and unhealthy. What I really meant was that their exists a platform (OS/Android), that has massive attention in terms of app developers and software and where a lot of the tech is fine tuned to ending up in. The computational power and range of features that exists (already) on that specific platform is huge, and at least one other industry that I have had previous experience with has 'come across' to it and apparently successfully (as in multiple brands adopting Android as their choice of OS vs one or two brands that tried and it failed).

The issue here is quite a classic: someone presented a "solution" instead of the problem. In other words, Android instead of faster hardware, better connectivity, more features...
It's not my fault; it truly isn't. Android doesn't solve MY problems, and is actually detrimental from many points of view. I'm not an unreasonable hater, but pragmatic and informed.
If there's something unhealthy, is presenting a "solution" then make up excuses to adopt it

I wondered if Cameras would also port that way due to several of those advantages vs navigating the disadvantages that could also exist. What I feel we lack right now is;

1) Frequent firmware updates of new features. There is no place to ask for a feature request, or even report a bug. When you buy your camera that is really the end of support (bar a few new lens support firmware releases that would be seen as absolutely mandatory).

2) A future camera on a different OS might improve the experience and negate the necessity of certain existing features that struggle and do not do so well on. Examples would be that Dynamic Pixel Shift from a specific app developer may be far superior and quicker than the stock feature (a little like RawTherapee being an excellent choice of software for various post processing tasks least of all pixel shift motion correction).

3) By adopting smartphone platforms of tech would we see a leap in terms of computational power due to a lot of the leg work having already been completed (we can see what phones have used x chip with y processor/boards bla bla bla, it works good combo etc).

1) Those would still have to be done by the camera maker (now, in collaboration with Google who would actually control the thing). So what on Earth do you think you will gain?
And way more updates would be required, the security and OS bugfixes releases! A lot more effort for the same result. And the camera will get slower with newer Android versions, and eventually updates will just stop, sooner than you think. There's a major Android version released each year, chances are you'll be 1-2 versions behind when you buy the brand new camera...

By the way, my smartphone is stuck with Android 8 Oreo, and it's quite some time since the last security update.

2) So you're assuming developers would magically create many versions of the apps you want.
Yet they're writing the same BS apps over and over again. This will not change just because a tiny camera maker adopted Android.

3) Any hardware that's supported by Android is supported by any Linux-based OS. Android is thus unnecessary.
The Image Accelerator Unit, though, is not supported by Android (support could be implemented, but Android has nothing at all to make it easier).
Also, power efficiency is a must - which means the software must be efficient (i.e. not Java) and using or requiring the higher-end processors might not be a good idea.

I think too many have thought what I would like is a camera that 'boots up', has interaction of a screen at the expense of our beloved dials and buttons, nothing could be further from the truth.

We shouldn't ignore the consequences.
And if we remove too much from the Android, so we won't have the Java apps, long start-up times, the interface - we're left with the Linux kernel and get what Ricoh did with the GR III

[ThorSanchez]

That is the first implementation, and I'm expecting some progress on the hardware and software side.
Are the smartphones truly so much better?


The issue here is quite a classic: someone presented a "solution" instead of the problem. In other words, Android instead of faster hardware, better connectivity, more features...
It's not my fault; it truly isn't. Android doesn't solve MY problems, and is actually detrimental from many points of view. I'm not an unreasonable hater, but pragmatic and informed.
If there's something unhealthy, is presenting a "solution" then make up excuses to adopt it


1) Those would still have to be done by the camera maker (now, in collaboration with Google who would actually control the thing). So what on Earth do you think you will gain?
And way more updates would be required, the security and OS bugfixes releases! A lot more effort for the same result. And the camera will get slower with newer Android versions, and eventually updates will just stop, sooner than you think. There's a major Android version released each year, chances are you'll be 1-2 versions behind when you buy the brand new camera...

By the way, my smartphone is stuck with Android 8 Oreo, and it's quite some time since the last security update.

2) So you're assuming developers would magically create many versions of the apps you want.
Yet they're writing the same BS apps over and over again. This will not change just because a tiny camera maker adopted Android.

3) Any hardware that's supported by Android is supported by any Linux-based OS. Android is thus unnecessary.
The Image Accelerator Unit, though, is not supported by Android (support could be implemented, but Android has nothing at all to make it easier).
Also, power efficiency is a must - which means the software must be efficient (i.e. not Java) and using or requiring the higher-end processors might not be a good idea.


We shouldn't ignore the consequences.
And if we remove too much from the Android, so we won't have the Java apps, long start-up times, the interface - we're left with the Linux kernel and get what Ricoh did with the GR III

As Bruce said in his last post, he wishes he hadn't mentioned Android at all. I think this conversation would be more productive if the focus was on "wouldn't there be some potential gains if at least some of the software/firmware in the camera were open sourced and a community of dedicated enthusiasts could attempt to innovate in ways that might be infeasible for a camera OEM's small engineering team?"

If open-sourced right now someone could be working on new features, bug fixes, updates, lens corrections, etc for Pentax cameras, even ones that Pentax no longer supports. I assume it's not done right now because of intellectual property concerns, and risk of people installing buggy or poorly-written software on their cameras and that reflecting negatively on the OEM.

[blues_hawk]

To OP: -- Simple answer. Greed.

[blues_hawk]

As an opensource guy I can understand wanting more control over your firmware but it's simply not going to happen in today's business climate...as if Android isn't just as bad anyway. They go to great lengths to ensure THEY have root control over YOUR hardware. There are now open source alternatives on phones but big corp. goes to great lengths to make it tough... including our beloved Pentax (ricoh).
End rant mode(or try anyway)

[blues_hawk]

I'd settle for a working APK/SDK development package for tethering. Even the new flagship apk release is next to useless and requires developers to work with fully binary closed "drivers" that only work for a few high end cameras. On top of that they hamstrung many consumer models and have traps on tethering that have made the situation much worse. Also, if they would...opening the system to an SDK would make it easy for something akin to Magic Lantern or CHDK to be developed by community along with those great options discussed in thread. --note Canon did not do this, and I think it would be a leg up for PK.

[Kunzite]

As Bruce said in his last post, he wishes he hadn't mentioned Android at all.

Because we're reserved and unhealthy

I think this conversation would be more productive if the focus was on "wouldn't there be some potential gains if at least some of the software/firmware in the camera were open sourced and a community of dedicated enthusiasts could attempt to innovate in ways that might be infeasible for a camera OEM's small engineering team?"

I don't think there is anyone who would seriously answer anything than with a yes!

But, see, we're falling into the same trap as with assuming Android solves our camera problems: there is no such community of dedicated enthusiasts!
Such a community would be very difficult to create; to attract people towards the project, make them contribute, keep them. And we're talking about a specialized field, that of image processing (you wouldn't care about 1000 versions of Flappy Bird!)
Sorry, there would be basically no community development for Pentax cameras.

If open-sourced right now someone could be working on new features, bug fixes, updates, lens corrections, etc for Pentax cameras, even ones that Pentax no longer supports. I assume it's not done right now because of intellectual property concerns, and risk of people installing buggy or poorly-written software on their cameras and that reflecting negatively on the OEM.

Sorry but this is just dreaming; in reality nobody would do that. How many took the SDKs and built some useful apps on top of that? Firmware development is more specialized than desktop apps; you were right to notice there are risks.
The Pentax Hack project would get a revival and slight boost, probably. I suspect that would be all.

And making a software open source goes far beyond simply deciding on it and publishing the sources. IP-protected parts should be isolated (once again something you noted), code should be clarified and documented, tools made available (who would buy those, for some old unsupported cameras?), people's contributions managed... it's a huge project IMO.
Particularly with the existing cameras, where firmware is tightly integrated; I doubt it would work at all.

Perhaps we should pause a little and see what Ricoh is actually doing: the GR III is using open source software, that is Linux. There are no apps, no Java with its world-stopping garbage collector and ridiculous resource demands, you can't branch your own version of the firmware - and the camera works great.
I hope Pentax cameras would follow the same path (to 1. share an unified software platform and 2. allow more powerful yet efficient hardware)

---------- Post added 12-11-19 at 06:36 PM ----------

I'd settle for a working APK/SDK development package for tethering. Even the new flagship apk release is next to useless and requires developers to work with fully binary closed "drivers" that only work for a few high end cameras. On top of that they hamstrung many consumer models and have traps on tethering that have made the situation much worse. Also, if they would...opening the system to an SDK would make it easy for something akin to Magic Lantern or CHDK to be developed by community along with those great options discussed in thread. --note Canon did not do this, and I think it would be a leg up for PK.

Yes, I hope there will be such a much improved SDK. I don't think we'd see too many useful apps though, after all I myself couldn't be bothered to write one...

[Rondec]

Pentax's community is a lot smaller and I would be surprised if there was a lot of development done on the firmware, even if the software was completely open source. Canon seems to be the only company that is totally there, but they have a lot more photographers shooting with their gear as well.

[blues_hawk]

Yes, I hope there will be such a much improved SDK. I don't think we'd see too many useful apps though, after all I myself couldn't be bothered to write one...

Hmm. Having actually contributed my time to exactly that I think it's safe to say that ship has already sailed. Also evidenced by the huge amount of public support the canon firmware tinkering community has gotten. I think opening the Pentax API would result in similar efforts, and I would be cheering them on myself, eager to play with every new trick we came up with.

BUT! It doesn't mean they would have an open OS or apps, a released API means people could introduce new routines and scripting such as focus/exposure stacking, or maybe even a WORKING intervalometer that would allow more than (gasp)30sec exposures --as an option.

I'll reference my original comment. [It's greed] and has nothing to do with an unwillingness for community involvement, lazy developers notwithstanding. The only thing stopping this easy change is their continued propensity for tiered pricing by way of firmware, and it really isn't necessary when you compare models. Compare this to Canon's stagnant mess of "new" models and horrible firmware (personal reference: t5i - horror, vs. an old G1x - great) and you start to wonder why people continue buying them, until you realize that like it or not, they have community support.

[blues_hawk]

Pentax has all the good stuff water seals, a huge array of compatibility, in body IS, and already good firmware, a long tradition of brand loyalty, etc. So I would ask THEM... why not let us tinker a bit too?

Excellent discussion btw.

[PDL]

So, you are proposing that a company (Ricoh) build a camera. To build that camera, they need a processor, mother board with the appropriate hardware components to communicate with guts of the camera, a shutter, a sensor, a memory interface (SD card/USB interface) and for you JPEG shooters a JPEG engine (currently a custom chip). Add in a "Accelerator" for custom processing.

Now Ricoh is going to open this all up to outside people because group think is better than having control over "THEIR" camera? Who is going to vet changes, where is the software version control going to be managed. Will the OS/processing be forked every time someone else decides to "add"/"remove" a feature? I believe that doing this would kill that camera and possibly turn the brand into a pariah.

If you look at Open Source projects they do tend to have a controlling structure behind them. They are not free for all's.

I have worked with several groups that create/maintain embedded systems. The choice of hardware is limited and in some cases (like cameras) custom designed and fabricated for the particular purpose of the device. The amount of resources is severely limited as is such as clock speed, memory, power consumption, heat dissipation and physical space. These constraints are just a small part of the equation. These systems are viewed as overall designs not just a additional "App" that is thrown into the system.

Phones have a great deal of "free" memory. That is where "Apps" go. Apps do not get into the guts of the base OS and redefine how the hardware/OS apportions resources. Embedded systems (cameras in this case) use the absolute minimum hardware to get the job done. You do not just "add a MicroSD" to get more system memory or create new buffers/data busses etc. out of thin air.

From what I have read here, I don't think any of you have the simplest idea of what it takes to work in embedded environments. Oh - and when your "tinkering" bricks your camera, who do you send it to for repair? Ricoh? Precision? Or do you have the capability to trivially pop the thing open (disrupting Weather Resistance) find the correct pins and re-flash the system.

[ThorSanchez]

But, see, we're falling into the same trap as with assuming Android solves our camera problems: there is no such community of dedicated enthusiasts!
Such a community would be very difficult to create; to attract people towards the project, make them contribute, keep them. And we're talking about a specialized field, that of image processing (you wouldn't care about 1000 versions of Flappy Bird!)
Sorry, there would be basically no community development for Pentax cameras.

You may be right, I might be completely off-base here. But I do know that RawTherapee is free and open-source, I use it, I really like it, and it has some of the best Pentax-specific pixel shift support of any RAW development software. Darktable also has good support for Pentax cameras and files. Yes, there's a significant leap from a RAW developer to embedded applications.

[Kunzite]

You may be right, I might be completely off-base here. But I do know that RawTherapee is free and open-source, I use it, I really like it, and it has some of the best Pentax-specific pixel shift support of any RAW development software. Darktable also has good support for Pentax cameras and files. Yes, there's a significant leap from a RAW developer to embedded applications.

Those are very different things from an open sourced firmware; and e.g. Pixel Shift support just isn't on the same level.
I expect a single developer would've been able to both add Pixel Shift support and support for various Pentax DSLRs (it seems most of the recent work was done by 2-3 people, with infrequent commits).

By the way, here's a first version of PixelShift support:
Pentax pixelshift v0.0 · Beep6581/RawTherapee@f27241a · GitHub

[y0chang]

Android may be open source, but you also have to license a processor, license the protocols to interface with other chips, license other chips, and finally spend a lot of work interfacing it with a custom sensor. Although someone mentioned elsewhere, if someone made a computational photography camera but the form factor of Pentax Q, it would be amazing. Imagine google night sight on a 1" sensor compact camera, it would out perform dslrs in low light.