CHDK PTP interface - page 62 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 125   Go Down

CHDK PTP interface

  • 1241 Replies
  • 487568 Views
*

Offline Mikjely

  • *
  • 7
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #610 on: 14 / November / 2011, 14:52:06 »
Advertisements
Sorry for the thousand questions, but has anyone tested the speed of this process? (Taking a shot, transferring the image then taking a photo again) I really hoped this method would have been faster than using an eye-fi card, but looks like I may be back to the drawing board. Thanks again guys!
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #611 on: 14 / November / 2011, 16:20:38 »
Quote from: Mikjely on 14 / November / 2011, 14:52:06
has anyone tested the speed of this process?

just over three seconds for a DNG or JPG on an A620.

On higher resolution cameras it may well be slower.

Your other question about downloading (to PC) a batch, ten of the above images download in 15 seconds.

Logged
*

Offline achillies

  • ***
  • 227
  • SX130IS
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #612 on: 14 / November / 2011, 18:50:54 »
With a 12.1 MP sensor, it takes around 4 secs to shoot and download DNG or JPG.  With a slightly different process, I can shoot 10 images at 2 secs per image, and then download all images in a batch in about 5 secs, so that's 25 secs to shoot and download 10 images.
Logged
Don't let the sands of time get in your lunch.
*

Offline Mikjely

  • *
  • 7
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #613 on: 14 / November / 2011, 22:41:46 »
Thank you very much for the numbers, they really help. So, in theory it would be ideal to upload in batches rather than in single uploads. I suppose that if we were to take a bigger batch, the time should decrease even more, correct? Are there any more numbers out there for other cameras?

Another question, could the receiving end of the image be nothing more than a minipc, where the whole loop wouldn't require a human to operate it? Of course, initial programming would be done, but is this feasible? For example, program the whole procedure to take 20 images, upload to the minipc, repeat, without any human interference inbetween. (1000 images total we would say)

Seriously, thanks again for all the replies.
Logged
*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14079
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #614 on: 14 / November / 2011, 23:19:38 »
Quote from: Mikjely on 14 / November / 2011, 22:41:46
So, in theory it would be ideal to upload in batches rather than in single uploads. I suppose that if we were to take a bigger batch, the time should decrease even more, correct?
I'd expect you will hit diminishing returns quite quickly.
Quote
Another question, could the receiving end of the image be nothing more than a minipc, where the whole loop wouldn't require a human to operate it? Of course, initial programming would be done, but is this feasible? For example, program the whole procedure to take 20 images, upload to the minipc, repeat, without any human interference inbetween. (1000 images total we would say)
Yes, with the caveat that CHDK as a whole is a hack, and the PTP stuff even more so. You should not assume that it will be 100% reliable and stable. It might work fine, or you might run into mysterious crashes, hangs or other difficulties. If it turns out to be unstable in your situation, you should not assume that someone here will be able to magically fix it for you. If further hacking is required to make it work for your project, that will be up to you.
Logged
Don't forget what the H stands for.
*

Offline Mikjely

  • *
  • 7
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #615 on: 17 / November / 2011, 17:02:29 »
Quote from: reyalp on 14 / November / 2011, 23:19:38
Quote from: Mikjely on 14 / November / 2011, 22:41:46
So, in theory it would be ideal to upload in batches rather than in single uploads. I suppose that if we were to take a bigger batch, the time should decrease even more, correct?
I'd expect you will hit diminishing returns quite quickly.
Quote
Another question, could the receiving end of the image be nothing more than a minipc, where the whole loop wouldn't require a human to operate it? Of course, initial programming would be done, but is this feasible? For example, program the whole procedure to take 20 images, upload to the minipc, repeat, without any human interference inbetween. (1000 images total we would say)
Yes, with the caveat that CHDK as a whole is a hack, and the PTP stuff even more so. You should not assume that it will be 100% reliable and stable. It might work fine, or you might run into mysterious crashes, hangs or other difficulties. If it turns out to be unstable in your situation, you should not assume that someone here will be able to magically fix it for you. If further hacking is required to make it work for your project, that will be up to you.

I apologize if I have came off as wrong to anyone. I was not looking for any free hand-outs. Simply questions for what is already in existence. I apologize again if I came across any differently. Looks like I will be purchasing a camera fairly soon to play with things. Thanks again everyone for your replies.
Logged
*

Offline Canonero

  • *
  • 8
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #616 on: 20 / November / 2011, 10:11:53 »
Please allow for little intrusion here, recently there was an ongoing discussion on the SX130 thread (page 62), about the possibly "ready made" solutions, how to include webcam driver functionality into the "live view" feature inside the CHDK universe. In addition to various freeware/shareware addons, which can in effect capture the preview frames generated by PTP GUI and transport it via webcam driver - finally, an open source webcam driver (named SCFH-DSF) working under winxp has been identified and briefly tested, anyone interested in the possibility making this an integral part of future PTP GUI versions is very welcome to join the musings. I guess this thread is more suitable to continue in this talk..

Original thread with more details and links here: http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=5691.msg75779#msg75779
Logged
*

Offline ntstatic

  • ***
  • 246
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #617 on: 29 / November / 2011, 06:48:18 »
Quote from: srsa_4c on 13 / November / 2011, 15:34:32
Quote from: Mikjely on 13 / November / 2011, 14:28:45
Or does reading occur directly from the SD card?
As far as I know, yes. The writing of the .jpg can't be prevented yet.
Some older PowerShots do have official remote capture capability, but Canon decided to remove this from all recent models. Some info: http://www.gphoto.org/doc/remote/

Just a thought as this topic is at hand - can the gurus of CHDK indicate if it is at all possible to take a picture and directly transfer it to the PC, without saving it to the card - in theory at least :) - meaning is it at least worth putting on the wishlist.
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #618 on: 29 / November / 2011, 13:05:17 »
Quote from: ntstatic on 29 / November / 2011, 06:48:18
is at all possible to take a picture and directly transfer it to the PC, without saving it to the card

Yes, with DNG.
I do it now.
For jpg and movies I simply delete the images from the card after download to the PC.

David
Logged
*

Offline ntstatic

  • ***
  • 246
Re: CHDK PTP interface
« Reply #619 on: 01 / December / 2011, 05:44:28 »
Quote from: Microfunguy on 29 / November / 2011, 13:05:17
Quote from: ntstatic on 29 / November / 2011, 06:48:18
is at all possible to take a picture and directly transfer it to the PC, without saving it to the card

Yes, with DNG.
I do it now.
For jpg and movies I simply delete the images from the card after download to the PC.

David

can you please explain in a little bit more detail how i can capture and transfer a DNG directly to the PC
ive been capturing in JPG - transferring - Deleting at the moment, and the whole process takes around 7 seconds. i know that getting the DNG directly is not likely to reduce the time, in fact increase the post processing on the PC.
but would definitely like to actually find out if it is any quicker.


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 125   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics