CHDK PTP interface - page 24 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum
supplierdeeply
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 125   Go Down

CHDK PTP interface

  • 1244 Replies
  • 525248 Views
*

Offline mwarning

  • *
  • 16
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #230 on: 18 / July / 2010, 12:51:24 »
Advertisements
Quote
I guess liveview really needs USB 2.0.
Does chdk need to be fixed to use USB 2.0?
Anything I can do to help?
I did a little speed test for file downloading and got ~3.1MB/s.

Anyway, my camera turns off after some time (30s?).
This happens even while file transferring file.
Any idea what to do? (I use ptpcam on linux)

@mweerden: files seem to be loaded into RAM before written to disk.
This might cause problems for videos.
« Last Edit: 18 / July / 2010, 12:54:55 by mwarning »
Logged
SX200
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #231 on: 18 / July / 2010, 13:21:04 »
Quote from: mwarning on 18 / July / 2010, 12:51:24
Does chdk need to be fixed to use USB 2.0?

No, I mean that EWAVR mentioned liveview is slow on the cameras that do not have USB 2.0.


David
Logged
*

Offline mwarning

  • *
  • 16
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #232 on: 18 / July / 2010, 13:33:47 »
I see. I have used a Class 6 (6MB/s read speed) SDHC card.
So it's probably that some internals slow transfer down.
Maybe the card isn't as fast as advertised, too.
Logged
SX200
*

Offline mweerden

  • ***
  • 194
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #233 on: 18 / July / 2010, 14:29:27 »
Quote from: Microfunguy on 18 / July / 2010, 11:57:00
Unfortunately, none of the CHDK developers (whoever they are) took-up your suggestion to discuss a 'basic' PTP feature.
That's not entirely true, but I guess the point is that there is nobody with the authority and responsibility to make "real" decisions. That's just the nature of this project.

Quote
Do we know what aspects of PTP cause problems and which features are reported as working on all cameras tested ?
I'm not aware of any actual PTP problems. For something like "my" minimal extension I'd say the only difficult issue is possibly the mode switching. I don't really have a good overview of the different methods in use and whether there's one that works for all cameras (or for all cameras one, for that matter).

There might be some additional issues for the CHDKCAM extensions, but from what I've seen I don't think there really are any.

Quote
I see that you propose leaving-out mode switching, I assume there is no problem working in record mode, even for file uploading  ?
Well, I propose moving mode switching from the PTP code to scripting. Again, I'm not aware of any problems, but that doesn't mean much.

Quote
We have discussed Lua support previously and in my opinion it attracts a 'certain type' of individual to CHDK.

The general public would not even be happy with uBasic, but at least some would.
With my proposal both could be supported and easily made compile-time conditional. I can't really see this as an issue.

Quote
On your Wiki, many people would not understand the comments about disabling services.
I just took that from this thread as I know nothing about it. Also, it's not mine, it's everybody's.

Quote from: mwarning on 18 / July / 2010, 12:51:24
@mweerden: files seem to be loaded into RAM before written to disk.
This might cause problems for videos.
It's true that ptpcam stores the file in memory first. You should see the tool as a proof of concept; I just took whatever seemed easiest to make work. The original code only provided a function to get all data at once, so that's what I used.
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #234 on: 18 / July / 2010, 15:14:34 »
Quote from: mweerden on 18 / July / 2010, 14:29:27
I guess the point is that there is nobody with the authority and responsibility to make "real" decisions. That's just the nature of this project.


In that case, I vote for reyalp   :)
Logged
*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14118
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #235 on: 18 / July / 2010, 19:27:17 »
Quote from: Microfunguy on 18 / July / 2010, 15:14:34
Quote from: mweerden on 18 / July / 2010, 14:29:27
I guess the point is that there is nobody with the authority and responsibility to make "real" decisions. That's just the nature of this project.
In that case, I vote for reyalp   :)
I would love to get this in CHDK, just been really busy and haven't had time to digest the different variants or proposals. I keep thinking I see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it turns into a train every damn time.

As long as it's a compile time option and has the appropriate camera.h control telling which cameras implement it, I don't see any reason not to. It would be nice to have things done in a way that doesn't give us huge compatibility headaches later, but it would be better to get it in now IMO.

If mweerden wants to post the definitive patch and have fe50 or myself commit it, that's fine with me. I'd also support giving him commit access if he wants to continue developing this.

Logged
Don't forget what the H stands for.
*

Offline mweerden

  • ***
  • 194
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #236 on: 18 / July / 2010, 20:47:13 »
Quote from: Microfunguy on 18 / July / 2010, 15:14:34
Quote from: mweerden on 18 / July / 2010, 14:29:27
I guess the point is that there is nobody with the authority and responsibility to make "real" decisions. That's just the nature of this project.
In that case, I vote for reyalp   :)
Not really what I meant. ;)

Quote from: reyalp on 18 / July / 2010, 19:27:17
If mweerden wants to post the definitive patch and have fe50 or myself commit it, that's fine with me.
I'll look over it and make a patch, but I think it would be useful to have ewavr's opinion before adding anything. Especially w.r.t. the interaction with CHDKCAM - most likely the prime interface for most users - his view on the matter should have some weight.

Quote
I'd also support giving him commit access if he wants to continue developing this.
As I don't really see myself as an active party in this, I don't think that will be necessary.
Logged
*

Offline joseywales72

  • *
  • 3
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #237 on: 20 / July / 2010, 02:03:43 »
@mweerden

Quote
Downgrading seems like overkill to me. How about asking ewavr to include the 1.03a version? Should be almost the same as 1.02b.

Then, if it is not too impolite for me to ask, and if ewavr is reading this, I would be very happy to have a 1.03a version of your SX10 port of chdk-ptp.

Quote
Also, is there a list of pt-codes that describe which code does what? I use exclusively Linux, and downloaded and installed libptp2, and can query my SX10is, but it says all the properties are UNKNOWN.

Do you mean the general PTP codes or the ones added for CHDK? The latter are described in the ptp.h header in the source and the former (partially) in the PTP specification.

Thank you for the heads up mweerden. I'll check them out.

Sorry for possible mistakes, not a native speaker.
« Last Edit: 20 / July / 2010, 02:15:42 by joseywales72 »
Logged
*

Offline joseywales72

  • *
  • 3
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #238 on: 20 / July / 2010, 02:18:17 »
@ewavr,

If is it possible for you, can you port chdk-ptp for SX10is 1.03a firmware too? I like to try it on my cam.

Thank you in advance.

Logged
*

Offline mweerden

  • ***
  • 194
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #239 on: 20 / July / 2010, 18:03:25 »
Here's a patch with my proposed changes.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 125   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal