CHDK vs Altering firmware - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum

CHDK vs Altering firmware

  • 5 Replies
  • 1927 Views
CHDK vs Altering firmware
« on: 28 / July / 2011, 19:30:08 »
Advertisements

Re: CHDK vs Altering firmware
« Reply #1 on: 28 / July / 2011, 19:40:04 »
Ported :   A1200    SD940   G10    Powershot N    G16

*

Offline philmoz

  • *****
  • 3441
    • Photos
Re: CHDK vs Altering firmware
« Reply #2 on: 28 / July / 2011, 19:44:47 »
CHDK ports:
  sx30is (1.00c, 1.00h, 1.00l, 1.00n & 1.00p)
  g12 (1.00c, 1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
  sx130is (1.01d & 1.01f)
  ixus310hs (1.00a & 1.01a)
  sx40hs (1.00d, 1.00g & 1.00i)
  g1x (1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
  g5x (1.00c, 1.01a, 1.01b)
  g7x2 (1.01a, 1.01b, 1.10b)

*

Online reyalp

  • ******
  • 13827
Re: CHDK vs Altering firmware
« Reply #3 on: 29 / July / 2011, 00:02:03 »
It's worth noting that many other device hacks do require overwriting the factory firmware. CHDKs way is the exception, not the rule. We are very fortunate to have this option.

This could be done on CHDK cameras, but learning how to do it would probably involve bricking a few, and as phil says, supporting all the different models would be painful and probably expensive.

From a developer POV, I would be tempted to play around with it if I had an expendable camera (one with damaged hardware that still booted, for example), but I'd be very reluctant to ever put that functionality in a published build. Some people would inevitably brick there camera and get angry, no matter how many warnings and disclaimers you made.

On the plus side:
* many cameras seem to have large areas of unused ROM, you could easily load an entire CHDK binary and only make very minor changes to the factory ROM.
* you could store your own data and settings on the camera, rather than card
* you could change the boot code so no gymnastics were required to boot your own binaries from cards.
* you could speed up the CHDK boot process, since it wouldn't have to boot the canon firmware, and then reboot into CHDK
Don't forget what the H stands for.


Re: CHDK vs Altering firmware
« Reply #4 on: 29 / July / 2011, 14:14:30 »

Thank you for answers. I will again stress that I dont know anything about programming, but I would like a camera that has skipped every abundant detail that I dont use to get a camera that I know how it works and that I can set up fast to work for the present condition...

You all talk about risk and risk of ending up with a camera that doesnt work. Well if it is possible to make an update of the firmware, as it seems to bee, than it must be possible to make a download and backup of the firmware. So with that in mind, it would be easy to first make a backup and then just upload the backup if anything went wrong with the altered firmware... (?)

I have a dream and that is that all these machines would be for our sake, unfortunately, they arent... the economical system is manipulating us all to consume machines to boost the profits and to preserve the growth, but this is how I would like a camera to work...

I want to have access to the firmware to be able to change every detail and make a personally design of my cameras functions.
I want a design that has one function in one place, not in many places.
I want quality, speed and easy usage

But what you say here is that it is very difficult to alter the firmware? Or is it just that no one has tried it? My guess would be that if you have made a solution for one camera, than it would be easy to make the next cameras firmware update...

I can only contribute to the interaction design of the firmware, but a programmer has to do the job...

The updating of the firmware could also be to fix bugs and inconvenient functions and I would like to take an example from my SX230:
When I walk around and shoot butterflies (for an example)  I want my camera to be ready for use immediately when a chance occurs... I dont want to have the camera OFF, but in sleeping mode. As the screen is consuming most energy, I want, and also have set the camera to switch off the screen in 10 seconds... Now, the camera is awakaning the screen automatically when I walks, and the reason for this is as I have discovered, that there must be a gyro in the camera which primary function is to detect what is up, so it can turn the pictures taken in correct position. Now, even whith that function OFF, the camera wakens the screen when it it turned vertically or horisontically... that is annoying, and consumes energy. That is what I call a bug, and I would like to be able to alter the firmware to correct that faulty behavior... Does CANON come with firmware updates themselves. As I understand thet do only for the more expensive system cameras?


/jfk

/jfk


*

Online reyalp

  • ******
  • 13827
Re: CHDK vs Altering firmware
« Reply #5 on: 29 / July / 2011, 22:59:10 »
Thank you for answers. I will again stress that I dont know anything about programming,
Then you probably do not need to give any further consideration of this topic. As I said before, even if someone got this working, they would likely be reluctant to distribute it in a form usable by non-programmers. I know I would be.
Quote
You all talk about risk and risk of ending up with a camera that doesnt work. Well if it is possible to make an update of the firmware, as it seems to bee, than it must be possible to make a download and backup of the firmware. So with that in mind, it would be easy to first make a backup and then just upload the backup if anything went wrong with the altered firmware... (?)
If you damage the firmware sufficiently, then you have no way to boot the camera to re-flash your backup.
Quote
But what you say here is that it is very difficult to alter the firmware? Or is it just that no one has tried it?
I don't need to try it to know it would be difficult, although exactly how difficult is uncertain. But more to the point, I don't have any cameras I'm willing sacrifice to this kind of experiment.
Quote
My guess would be that if you have made a solution for one camera, than it would be easy to make the next cameras firmware update...
Speaking as a programmer who has spent hundreds of hours working on CHDK and reverse engineering the Canon firmwares, my guess is that this will not be the case.
Quote
I can only contribute to the interaction design of the firmware, but a programmer has to do the job...
That's like saying you have an idea for a custom car, and just need a mechanic to build it.
Don't forget what the H stands for.

 

Related Topics