set_zoom_rel(+1)set_zoom_rel(+1)
set_zoom_rel(+1)set_zoom_rel(-1)set_zoom_rel(+1)
set_zoom_rel(+1)set_zoom_rel(+5)set_zoom_rel(+1)
set_zoom_rel(+2)set_zoom_rel(+2)
path C:/1ü2/1s
C:/1ü2/1.jpg
C:/12/1.jpg
1. question about zoom_set_relative(+1)
con 28> =set_zoom(get_zoom()+1) return get_zoom()29:return:6con 29> =set_zoom(get_zoom()+1) return get_zoom()30:return:6
con 30> =set_zoom(get_zoom()+2) return get_zoom()31:return:7con 31> =set_zoom(get_zoom()+2) return get_zoom()32:return:8
2. question about special (not A-Z) characters after the path command when in rsint modeWhat characters are supported after the path command? Could support be added for characters such as the german ü ?
This is a CHDK / Canon firmware camera specific issue. It shouldn't have anything to do with chdkptp.On old cameras with only a few steps, +1 works as expected.I'd suggest if you want to move zoom in small increments on cameras with a lot of steps, use something a bit bigger than 1.
luar click('zoom_in')
Unfortunately, chdkptp currently isn't unicode aware at all, so I'd recommend sticking to straight ANSI for now.
Thanks for the reply. In the latest TwoCamControl I work around the issue roughly by zooming in +2 increments if get_zoom() returns >100 and otherwise +1. Though the >100 criterion is just a hunch. For all I know there might be a 90 zoom step range camera out there with the same +1 problem.Do you know of a complete list of zoom ranges for the different CHDK supported cameras?
Code: [Select]luar click('zoom_in') doesn't always zoom the same number of steps.
Ok, I'll make users stick to A-Z 0-9 Space in paths for now.
For most cameras, NUM_FL in platform/<camera>/main.c should tell you. You can also find the sig finder detected value in a comment in stubs_entry.S. There may be some exceptions.
a1000 8a1100 8a1200 8a1300 64a1400 64a2000 15a2200 8a2300 64a2400 64a2500 64a2600 64a3000 8a3100 8a3200 12a3300 12a3400 64a4000 127a480 7a490 7a495 7a580 8a590 8a720 15a800 7a810 64d10 7d30 129d20 129g10 14g11 14g12 14g15 121g1x 101g9 14ixus1000_sd4500 101ixus100_sd780 7ixus115_elph100hs 10ixus110_sd960 10ixus120_sd940 10ixus125_elph110hs 64ixus132_elph115 101ixus130_sd1400 8ixus135_elph120 101ixus140_elph130 101ixus150_elph140 101ixus145_elph135 101ixus160_elph160 101ixus200_sd980 12ixus220_elph300hs 64ixus240_elph320hs 64ixus230_elph310hs 127ixus255_elph330hs 101ixus300_sd4000 64ixus310_elph500hs 64ixus80_sd1100 7ixus85_sd770 7ixus860_sd870 8ixus90_sd790 7ixus95_sd1200 7ixus960_sd950 8ixus970_sd890 12ixus980_sd990 8s100 121s110 121s90 10s95 10sx1 6sx10 6sx100is 23sx110is 23sx120is 23sx130is 128sx150is 128sx160is 127sx170is 127sx20 6sx200is 126sx210is 126sx220hs 126sx230hs 126sx240hs 101sx260hs 101sx280hs 101sx30 201sx400is 127sx410is 122sx40hs 201sx500is 127sx50hs 201sx510hs 127sx520hs 195sx60hs 201sx530hs 201
You might also get bitten by the other issue discussed in that thread: On some cameras, using set_zoom causes the Canon jpeg distortion correction to be applied incorrectly. We have a fix that can be applied in many cases, but it may not be applied to all cameras that need it, and IIRC there can still be some difference with the fix applied.
Ok. I quickly extracted this incomplete list of camera zoom range values from the source mirror at https://github.com/c10ud/CHDK
A lot of variation! I hope someone with access to a 64 zoom range camera reads this and reports back if it has the problem with two zoom_set_relative(+1)
old_zoom=get_zoom()set_zoom_rel(1)if old_zoom == get_zoom() then set_zoom_rel(2)code
Thanks, didn't know about that issue. Hm, I started out thinking using zoom_set_relative would be a general improvement over click('zoom_in'), but now I'm less sure about that.
I suspect it's something that may affect many other CHDK equipped cameras but has not been noticed yet.Unfortunately, this might be difficult to fix. The zoom and focus code controlling the lens mechanisms seems to vary a lot between camera models. Most likely somebody will need to do some serious debugging and reverse assembly - perhaps on a per camera basis - and that take time. A lot of time.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing comes up pretty often when you have a hack that covers > 100 platforms spanning over >12 years of hardware.
Am I missing some additional information/changes between 2014 and now or is that about it? No list of cameras where the problem is confirmed existing / not existing / effectively patched?
Started by reyalp « 1 2 ... 110 111 » General Discussion and Assistance
Started by waterwingz General Discussion and Assistance
Started by alex73 « 1 2 » General Discussion and Assistance
Started by dmitrys General Discussion and Assistance
Started by Caefix General Discussion and Assistance