The SX1 IS Porting Thread - page 4 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum supplierdeeply

The SX1 IS Porting Thread

  • 381 Replies
  • 163347 Views
*

Offline ewavr

  • ****
  • 1057
  • A710IS
Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #30 on: 07 / April / 2009, 12:05:52 »
Advertisements
Last Compiled ps.fi2 is here: 
All correct in this file, maybe problem is in other code ( in boot.c or loader/sx1/resetcode/main.c or something else).

Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #31 on: 07 / April / 2009, 15:18:15 »
Last Compiled ps.fi2 is here: 
All correct in this file, maybe problem is in other code ( in boot.c or loader/sx1/resetcode/main.c or something else).

Thanks for confirming ps.fi2, ewavr!

I checked again boot.c and found one other value to be corrected....despite using ps.fi2 still doesn't work, now I can start with the diskboot.bin method with the Play AND Power Button (couldn't before...just with Play button pressed for more than 1 sec). Also I do not need to push the Play/Power Button for more than 1 sec as I had to before....

Meanwhile i have also ported movie_rec.c with the adresses of the SX1.

main.c of /loader/sx1/... looks clean to me.


But still dying when taking a picture/movie....But: the override values entered (e.g. 2 sec shutter) do work. The shutter sound and then the shutter opens for the programmed time. But afterwards it seems that when processing/storing should be undertaken there is still a "bug"....the taken pictures are NOT stored on the memory card.

...my guess is it is somewhere in capt_seq.c ...however: For today I do not see it anymore :(



Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #32 on: 07 / April / 2009, 15:24:00 »
Yes, very good indeed, fboesch, congratulations on the progress :)

Regarding the display resolution, I also compared for the first time the display to my new Nokia 5800 (640x360), and I cannot believe how coarse the SX1 display now looks :/ It's a stupid thing of Canon to report that the display has "approx. 230000" "dots" in UK, "pixels" in US, Dammit. It must be, as you say, the amount of sub-pixels.

So, that would make the actual pixels to less than 77000, which would put the real res (16:9) to about 368x207, which I actually confirmed to be approx. true with a mm-ruler and magnifying glass (about 6 pix/mm), heh. It has one deviation from normal LCD monitors in that the pixels are aligned like a brick wall, not like a square grid.


Thanks for calculating some raw resolution sizes... I will try to use these values (e.g. instead of 480x240 - which perhaps causes the glitch with swapping CHDK upwards) with values of 360x200 (remember: for SX10 it has been set by ewvar to 360x240, which can be, because of the 4:3 display of the SX10)

:-) and thanks to confirm the low-res display in our SX1's   *lol*  However: They are special displays, also able to work quite well outdoors (sunlight)...perhaps also the special alignment of the pixels... :)


EDIT: ....tried several builds with values like 360x200 or 480x200 ....none is really good (either scrambled as with 360x240) or at a wrong position (only partly on screen). It seems that my first finding (480x240) is the right one in file "lib.c" for the SX1

« Last Edit: 07 / April / 2009, 18:33:12 by fboesch »

*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14039
Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #33 on: 07 / April / 2009, 22:20:38 »
On the screen resolution:

The bitmap resolution and the live view resolution aren't necessarily the same. On the SD990, the bitmap is 720x240, while the live view  (and jpeg playback etc) is the normal 360x240. Canon claims this LCD has "   Approx. 230,000 pixels" but it's not clear which this refers to (although really the live view is the important one IMO)

Don't we love marketing ;)

If the SX1 turns out to have this difference, you might find the patches in my sd990 thread helpful.
Don't forget what the H stands for.


Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #34 on: 08 / April / 2009, 02:25:35 »
If the SX1 turns out to have this difference, you might find the patches in my sd990 thread helpful.

Yes there is a difference: As said: I've tried out compiled versions with 360x200 (physical res?) but then CHDK shows up again completely scrambled... with width set to 480, there are no issues (on the "base" CHDK)....but I will investigate further: As said the overlay feature shows up "scrambled" (yellow dots) overlay similar to the CHDK Menu if using less than 480x240....so eventually the settings in lib.c should be as the SD990 even higher....

Thanks for this hint!


*

Offline pev69

  • **
  • 55
Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #35 on: 08 / April / 2009, 07:21:53 »
Some more things about resolution that came to mind:

1) If you aren't too tired, try one more for the screen size parameters: 384x216; don't know about the live-view resolution parameters though
2) Is there any consideration in CHDK for the change between wide/standard aspect ratio? As in SX1 this can be chosen, I just thought it might have some effects that should be considered in CHDK...
« Last Edit: 08 / April / 2009, 07:25:02 by pev69 »

Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #36 on: 08 / April / 2009, 08:30:33 »
1) If you aren't too tired, try one more for the screen size parameters: 384x216; don't know about the live-view resolution parameters though


2) Is there any consideration in CHDK for the change between wide/standard aspect ratio? As in SX1 this can be chosen, I just thought it might have some effects that should be considered in CHDK...



--> Will try, but as seen (on Screenshots) with 480x240 setting it looks good

--> I don't think that it is needed! You can switch between 4:3 and 16:9 format (during "Live-Cam" View) without impacting the CHDK Overlay! (--> I thought too that this could be an issue, but it isn't).
Simply the "black" Side-Frames will show or not....The Size of CHDK is always using the full "width".

P.S. Actually this is very cool....Using the Cam in "normal" 4:3 mode the black side-bars do show the CHDK Information clear and nicely (as seen: I've positioned the additional CHDK Info's to the left or right-side), without to impact the Live-Picture as much as it is on "standard" LCD Displays....





*

Offline pev69

  • **
  • 55
Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #37 on: 08 / April / 2009, 09:36:16 »
--> Will try, but as seen (on Screenshots) with 480x240 setting it looks good

OK. That just seems so strange, a 2:1 aspect ratio. But if it works, no reason to complain :)

Quote
P.S. Actually this is very cool....Using the Cam in "normal" 4:3 mode the black side-bars do show the CHDK Information clear and nicely (as seen: I've positioned the additional CHDK Info's to the left or right-side), without to impact the Live-Picture as much as it is on "standard" LCD Displays....

My thoughts exactly! It's nice to be able to use extra screen space.


Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #38 on: 11 / April / 2009, 07:41:58 »
....rehi....

It's Saturday, and after first "family stuff" yesterday, I'm back on the "Port"...

Hmm...actually I'm looking for the parameters

CAM_RAW_ROWPIX
CAM_RAW_ROWS 

of the SX1...

Interesting the CMOS of the SX1 seems either to have a much larger RAW Pixel size OR there is a change (not Bayer Matrix?) compared to the CCD's used in all other Canon Cams....

Out of FW of the SX1

ROM:FFAFE94C                 LDR     R1, =0x1076D90
ROM:FFAFE950                 ADR     R0, aCrawBuffSizeP ; "CRAW BUFF SIZE  %p"

is enourmous higher value than all other Cams....on the SX10 it is just EC04F0....

And there on the SX110 Porting Thread following arithmetics have been suggested...

0xEC04F0 =15467760
15467760/12*8=10311840
10311840/0,75=13749120
sqrt(13749120)=3708
3708*0,75=2781

However: ewvar used 3720x2772 on his SX10 Port....But does not explain how he came onto these values....

Now regarding the SX1....

0xx1076D90 =17264016
17264016/12*8=11509344
11509344/0,75=15345792
sqrt(15345792)=3917
3917*0,75=2938

3917*2938 (?)

That would be MASSIVELY more than 10MPix.....would point to a kind of 11.5MegaPix Sensor (Well always assuming that it is based on 12bit....)

...And what I think is interesting (out of the SX110 Port): Clearly the CHDK Wiki is missing a understandable Step-by-Step Guide FOR EVERYONE with a basic set of "Programming Language/ASM" Understanding....there are poeple around, but @current stage it is very time consuming, because searching for information in the forum/wiki as well short answers from developers is the time-eater....

*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: The SX1 IS Porting Thread
« Reply #39 on: 11 / April / 2009, 07:54:40 »
yes, it is very time consuming, finding all the neccessary information throughout the forum, and getting all the answers by the "experienced" developers.
this is a problem that is to be found in all projects in which there is no money involved. nobody wants to do the "[admin: avoid swearing please] jobs", for example writing a documentation. especially a documentation about porting, which is the hardest job of the dev jobs.
But, in the beginning of the wiki, there virtually was NO documentation, it is getting better gradually, and eventually we will have all the information gathered in a single point of "contact". this needs time, time and committment.
Since it is a wiki, everybody can join in on the fun and edit it. You are more than welcome to help out, especially since you now know what it means to do a port, and you already found all the information that you needed, etc.
i didn't port a cam yet, so i cannot really help here. there aren't a lot of "asm gurus" around here.

 

Related Topics