Porting A410 - help wanted - page 6 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum  

Porting A410 - help wanted

  • 67 Replies
  • 24892 Views
*

Offline tired

  • *
  • 14
Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #50 on: 12 / August / 2011, 22:41:13 »
Advertisements
list of some features i tested them and worked.
-usb remote
-some scripts(Ultra Intervalometer,Motion detection,fast Motion detection,Zoom Shoot,remote,...)
-manual focus & focus bracketing

Thank you srsa_4c

and
-CHDK PTP
« Last Edit: 14 / August / 2011, 00:59:57 by tired »

Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #51 on: 15 / August / 2011, 08:19:09 »
Hi from Luebeck!

I managed to dump the firmware 1.00e from my A410. Who is interested in the file? Or: Which common upload place shall I use?

Some days ago (before I made it accidentally unusable), I could start the chdk extension in my camera and, as far as I overlooked it, it worked. At the moment, the display is disconnected, so I cannot make further tests. Sorry!

Greetings from Luebeck, Germany! Ruediger
Ixus 115 HS / firmw.1.01b - using and testing the new beta - CHDK-beginner - Europe

*

Offline srsa_4c

  • ******
  • 4447
Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #52 on: 15 / August / 2011, 13:43:17 »
Hi!

I managed to dump the firmware 1.00e from my A410. Who is interested in the file? Or: Which common upload place shall I use?

I'm certainly interested. You could use any upload site that allows free/unregistered download (for example zshare, ...).
A question: which method worked for you? I haven't tried dumping my A410 because somebody else (mastodon) already did it. The new canon basic method didn't work for the A420, had to use udumper in that case.

Some days ago (before I made it accidentally unusable), I could start the chdk extension in my camera and, as far as I overlooked it, it worked.

You probably mean the 1.00f version. That means the difference between these firmware revisions is probably negligible and there may be no need for a seperate port.


list of some features i tested them and worked.
-usb remote
-some scripts(Ultra Intervalometer,Motion detection,fast Motion detection,Zoom Shoot,remote,...)
-manual focus & focus bracketing
-CHDK PTP
Thanks for your efforts!

Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #53 on: 16 / August / 2011, 10:48:52 »
Hi, srsa!

the file in question is now uploaded and can be received:

Canon_PS_A410_1.00e.zip - 1.47MB

it's 1.5 MBy, the md5 for the file inside the zip is

 8d66224eec5d3efd8149bf8a8b4d95f2 (PRIMARY_Canon_PS_A410_1.00e.bin)

zshare writes, that "files not downloaded for more than 60 days are automatically deleted", so from now on the file can - as minimum - found there until middle of october

> A question: which method worked for you?
I used CardTricks 1.44 for the dumping. Please check, if the file is the complete firmware, as I did the dumping "blind" (without functioning display). If I remember correctly, there is anyway no visual or acoustic feedback. Shall I also upload the stripped strings?

>> Some days ago (before I made it accidentally unusable), I could start the chdk extension in my camera and, as far as I overlooked it, it worked.
> You probably mean the 1.00f version. That means the difference between these firmware revisions is probably negligible and there may be no need for a seperate port.

This is right: it's been inside a410_beta5_release_chdk_0.9.9-r1283_2011-08-08.7z

Happy coding! Ruediger
« Last Edit: 16 / August / 2011, 11:10:25 by RueLue »
Ixus 115 HS / firmw.1.01b - using and testing the new beta - CHDK-beginner - Europe


*

Offline srsa_4c

  • ******
  • 4447
Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #54 on: 16 / August / 2011, 15:28:51 »
Hi, srsa!

the file in question is now uploaded and can be received:

Canon_PS_A410_1.00e.zip - 1.47MB

it's 1.5 MBy, the md5 for the file inside the zip is

 8d66224eec5d3efd8149bf8a8b4d95f2 (PRIMARY_Canon_PS_A410_1.00e.bin)

Thank you very much. The dump is perfect.  :)

The 1.00e version was built 12 days earlier than the 1.00f one. The differences are mostly above 0xfff00000, the code and data addresses used in the port are below that. The changes below 0xfff00000 affect the build string and the fw revision string only. So I think there is a good chance that the 1.00f port will work for those cameras with the 1.00e firmware (there may not be a lot of them, only 12 days of difference...).

Quote
> A question: which method worked for you?
I used CardTricks 1.44 for the dumping. Please check, if the file is the complete firmware, as I did the dumping "blind" (without functioning display). If I remember correctly, there is anyway no visual or acoustic feedback.

Yup, udumper works like that.

Quote
Shall I also upload the stripped strings?

No need for that :)

Again, thanks.


Edit:
Don't want to "up" this thread unnecessarily, but the A410 port is now available from the autobuild server as beta.
« Last Edit: 01 / December / 2011, 18:57:08 by srsa_4c »

Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #55 on: 08 / November / 2011, 11:14:10 »
Hello,
today I've successfully uploaded and run CHDK soft on my A410 camera (GM.1.00E E18 Jul 22 2005). Soft I've used is a410_beta5_release_chdk_0.9.9-r1283_2011-08-08 (for 1.00F) and it's working with no glitches for features I was looking for: interval shots and histogram.
Anyway, just wanted to say, great job devs!

Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #56 on: 19 / January / 2012, 13:46:35 »
Greetings! First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to this build's progress. The A410 is a great little utility camera, and while I've recently begun to think about upgrading it (maybe to a A2200?), I believe I will wait, if I can get CHDK installed.

Mainly I use it for product shots (Ebay etc.), so the main features I'm interested in are the USB trigger and focus bracketing. 

- sd override is not able to set focus in the "supermacro" range, it's pointless to use it in that mode

@srsa_4c, would you mind clarifying whether you weren't able to get this working, or if you just didn't see a point in implementing it?

I haven't tried your port yet so I can't judge whether it will do everything I need, however I was hoping to be able to use bracketing in both focus ranges as I often shoot small parts (electronic PCBs and other components). Having manual focus control will help immensely so it probably won't be a big deal - I just wondered if it was a technical impossibility.

*

Offline srsa_4c

  • ******
  • 4447
Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #57 on: 19 / January / 2012, 17:06:25 »
Hi!
would you mind clarifying whether you weren't able to get this working, or if you just didn't see a point in implementing it?
It's simple: there is a certain way subject distance override is implemented in CHDK, my port just follows that practice.

Technical explanation:
SD override uses a function provided by the Canon firmware. It's called MoveFocusLensToDistance() . As its name says, this instructs the focusing hardware to set the focus to the given distance (measured from the sensor? I'm not sure). In case of the A410, the nearest possible focus roughly equals to the minimum autofocus distance in macro mode.
When used in super macro mode, it does the same (the focus leaves the super macro range).

While experimenting with my workaround I stumbled into another function, which is called MoveFocusLensToPosition(). This function does not care about the actual focus distance, it only instructs the focus lens to go to the given position (inside the lens assembly). When I tried to use this instead of MoveFocusLensToDistance(), I was able to set the focus to the super macro range (even when zoomed, IIRC), but I noticed strange noises coming from the lens. So I think, this has the possibility to break something inside (literally), when used uncontrolled.

If you use a self-compiled version of CHDK in which the so-called "native calls" are enabled, you may call MoveFocusLensToPosition() from a lua script (together with another function which is called GetCurrentFocusLensPosition() ). To call these, you need to know their address.

Conclusion: you may be able to do that, but only from a script, and it's dangerous.

If you ever want to use subject distance override from a script, I highly recommend to use the firmware's MFOn() and MFOff() functions. Without first calling MFOn(), an AF-scan is always attempted before the SD override.
And finally an old, related post: http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=396.msg3076#msg3076
« Last Edit: 19 / January / 2012, 17:15:34 by srsa_4c »


Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #58 on: 19 / January / 2012, 19:10:25 »
So, without knowing the limits of the lens assembly it's not a viable solution. And I guess that to find those limits, one would have to have a camera with a disassembled housing, and remove the whole lens after each adjustment to find where it starts binding. And then of course test it on each firmware revision (and hardware revision, assuming there are any). Doesn't sound like much fun.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I look forward to installing it tomorrow.

*

Offline srsa_4c

  • ******
  • 4447
Re: Porting A410 - help wanted
« Reply #59 on: 19 / January / 2012, 19:58:21 »
So, without knowing the limits of the lens assembly it's not a viable solution. And I guess that to find those limits, one would have to have a camera with a disassembled housing, and remove the whole lens after each adjustment to find where it starts binding.
That's not necessary :) Usually these functions are well protected against causing hardware damage. If you supply values which would cause trouble, the firmware usually shuts down the camera with an assert. But since this function is never in use in normal operation (it's meant to be used in service mode), you can never know. One could experiment by first reading the focus lens position, then applying some close value to MoveFocusLensToPosition().

In this camera, I had to circumvent one such protection to make SD override work.
I chose to do it, because:
- SD override always caused camera shutdown when no optical zooming was attempted before
- zooming a step in and then out cleared this condition, so I assumed, it had to be safe (this camera was not designed to allow manual focus)

 

Related Topics