First Impression on NX300 (unpacked)

Started Mar 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,973
Re: First Impression on NX300 (unpacked)

Ariston wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Ariston wrote:

monkeybrain wrote:

Nice! Hope you enjoy your new camera. Obviously lots of requests in the thread, hope you don't mind me adding to them by asking for some shots that really test out the dynamic range.

Also, can anyone explain the significance of the Linux OS on the camera? Will this give us any new options, apps, hacks etc?

Linux OS, smaller, simpler, faster. it practically fully utilizes the camera's potential. it also, as mentioned opens up the camera for possible hacks or updates that would make the camera work better or perform certain tasks. e.g. magic lantern, video recording limit, shutterspeed,etc...

Nope. Whether it's implemented in the CPU's machine code or using a higher level language program running under the camera's operating system, hacks (like CHDK) rely on intentionally designed back doors. This could be a button sequence on the camera, initiated either when powering the camera on or pressing button combinations while inside the menu system, or looking for a specific language file at power-on at a particular location on the camera's memory card. If such a back door is available, the hack could be written in either the CPU's machine language or a compiled or interpreted that's compatible with the OS, which could be linux or any other OS. Well, maybe not Windows, unless it's a really old, lightweight, stripped version such as Windows 3.x that I once had running on an old HP 200LX DOS based palmtop computer. Like many more recent P&S cameras, it ran on two alkaline or Ni-Cd AA batteries, which could last for up to about 40 hours. For this to work, your hackable camera would probably need to use an Intel compatible CPU.

actually there is a backdoor with the NX cameras, although Samsung decided to disable the one on the newer NX cameras with their recent firmware updates. using an open-source software rather than propriety would open the possibility of using 3rd party mods.

There are backdoors and there are backdoors. I'm aware of and have used the kind that let you access normally hidden menus that allow you to enable or disable features and change default parameters. The type of backdoor that I'm talking about would allow you to have the camera execute external code that's designed to supplement or replace the camera's existing firmware and/or microcode. As far as you're aware, does this kind of backdoor exist for any of Samsung's cameras?

Although I no longer have the link to it, a couple of years ago I read that the CPUs used by Canon's cameras have hardware features that allow CHDK to work, but the CPUs used by Nikon's cameras don't. It's only an assumption, but it might be memory protection features that prevent code from executing outside of specified memory areas, the kind that are available for example with Intel's x86 CPUs.

In computer science, hierarchical protection domains,[1][2] often called protection rings, are mechanisms to protect data and functionality from faults (fault tolerance) and malicious behaviour (computer security). This approach is diametrically opposite to that of capability-based security.
Computer operating systems provide different levels of access to resources. A protection ring is one of two or more hierarchical levels or layers of privilege within the architecture of a computer system. This is generally hardware-enforced by some CPU architectures that provide different CPU modes at the hardware or microcode level. Rings are arranged in a hierarchy from most privileged (most trusted, usually numbered zero) to least privileged (least trusted, usually with the highest ring number). On most operating systems, Ring 0 is the level with the most privileges and interacts most directly with the physical hardware such as the CPU and memory.
Special gates between rings are provided to allow an outer ring to access an inner ring's resources in a predefined manner, as opposed to allowing arbitrary usage. Correctly gating access between rings can improve security by preventing programs from one ring or privilege level from misusing resources intended for programs in another. For example, spyware running as a user program in Ring 3 should be prevented from turning on a web camera without informing the user, since hardware access should be a Ring 1 function reserved for device drivers. Programs such as web browsers running in higher numbered rings must request access to the network, a resource restricted to a lower numbered ring.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow