supplierdeeply
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 53   Go Down

G11 porting

  • 527 Replies
  • 118604 Views
*

Offline ERR99

  • ****
  • 339
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #370 on: 12 / February / 2010, 08:37:15 »
Advertisements
No, currently i dont know the adress for GetCurrentTargetDistance(). But i can try to find it. ;)
An yes, the G11 has a ND-Filter, but snapping the ND-Filter in/out via CHDK makes trouble. The ND-Filter
reacts as expected if activated/deactivated via CHDK, but after a 1-2 seconds the original canon software throws an
assert and the camera switches off. So it is currently not very usefull, and thats the reason why i removed the
ND_FILTER option for the G11 in camera.h
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #371 on: 15 / February / 2010, 17:08:42 »
@ERR99

Porting to SDM was reasonably easy apart from edge-outline which I am struggling with a little bit.
(I do it slightly differently than CHDK, including for the SX200IS .. which works).
You are allocating 720x240x3 bytes of memory for the live-image 'viewport'
That implies the viewport is 1440 pixels wide, is that really correct ?
Each row is incremented by 720x3 bytes and I guess it works.

When drawing to the bitmap buffer, you scale the 'x' value by 8/9 as the screen is 320 wide and the bitmap buffer screen width is 360.

This is a little confusing as the SX200IS bitmap screen width is 720 so in SDM I scaled 'x' by 9/8.

In camera.h, you have said that the viewport is 360x240.

This is getting a little complicated ... what area of the bitmap buffer does the Canon firmware render to the 320x240 screen ?
Is each pixel drawn twice, as with the SX200IS.

Apart from the viewport width, all other parameters for the G11 are the same as the SX200IS.

Logged
*

Offline zepp

  • *
  • 2
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #372 on: 18 / February / 2010, 02:53:11 »
Recently got a G11 (few hours ago) and did a vers.req and got   -  1.00H

Could this be a similar situation as the G9 where I can use chdk for 1.00X = FirmWare 1.00H

where X could be 'f' 'j' 'k'

A quick search of the forums didnt reveal a hit with G11 & my "H" firmware so I though I'd ask

Edit: I'll take the time to get a dump and post the resutls in the day or two. 


zepp
« Last Edit: 18 / February / 2010, 04:40:03 by zepp »
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #373 on: 18 / February / 2010, 04:40:34 »
Only you can answer that question, why don't you just try it ?


David
Logged
*

Offline zepp

  • *
  • 2
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #374 on: 18 / February / 2010, 06:32:23 »
Results of Beta with G11 with firmware 1.00H.

Both J & K seem to work with menus and splash. Splash screen shows 1.00j as the firmware for both.  I'll test further for operation and scripts with each.

CHDK for 1.00F will not power up.





Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2013
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #375 on: 18 / February / 2010, 07:01:31 »
@zepp

Congrats, you're a lucky person (statistically, the chance for this to happen is only 1 in 7)

Since the 'k' version is generated from the same source as 'j' it shows the same version;
I suppose the same will apply to your 'h' version - it should take a dev only minutes to
add this to the source tree.

cheers,

wim

Logged
*

Offline KaLi

  • *
  • 21
  • G11 CHDK, FinePix Real 3d W1, 2*A460 SDM, S50, S40
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #376 on: 18 / February / 2010, 08:41:53 »
A simple question for understanding RAW in chdk and G11 (chdk handbook and wiki hasn't enlighted me):

Does everything in the RAW menu of chdk is only supposed to work with the chdks own RAW files (and not the CanonCR2 which are produced by the camera itself)?

I tried to "develop" a CanonCR2 with the function in the chdks RAW menu and it didn't work. I guess... it will only work with ChdkRAW? Or is it a bug and it should work with CanonCR2s? (a late develop of RAW is interesting, because the camera only prints JPGs)

Therefore I guess, the badpixel function may only map the bad pixels in ChdkRAWs and DNGs and not in the CanonCR2s?

Please tell me... is that right or is that wrong?
Logged
any bad photo is much better than any photo not shot...
*

Offline cppasm

  • **
  • 92
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #377 on: 18 / February / 2010, 09:16:12 »
Quote from: KaLi on 18 / February / 2010, 08:41:53
I tried to "develop" a CanonCR2 with the function in the chdks RAW menu and it didn't work. I guess... it will only work with ChdkRAW?
Only CHDK RAW files supported by Develop RAW command.
Canon CR2 files have completely different format and they are compressed - it is impossible to develop them.
Quote from: KaLi on 18 / February / 2010, 08:41:53
Therefore I guess, the badpixel function may only map the bad pixels in ChdkRAWs and DNGs and not in the CanonCR2s?
There are two badpixel patching processes:
1. using badpixel.bin
2. using badpixel or badpixel.txt
First (badpixel.bin) is used only when saving DNG in camera.
Second (badpixel or badpixel.txt) is used to remap bad pixels.
Remapping is applied to RAW data directly after shooting before any camera processing - so this will have influence to all images: CHDK RAW, Canon CR2 and JPEG image.
Logged
*

Offline thanh

  • *
  • 4
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #378 on: 18 / February / 2010, 22:18:25 »
Hi everyone, thanks for all your work, great stuff. One question - I'm having trouble getting the shutter speed override to work correctly. The correct override values show up in the OSD, and while the aperture override seems to work well, I'm unable to get shutter speeds faster than 1/4000. I've tried increasing the aperture to the maximum value possible, but to no avail. Any ideas?
Logged
*

Offline KaLi

  • *
  • 21
  • G11 CHDK, FinePix Real 3d W1, 2*A460 SDM, S50, S40
Re: G11 porting
« Reply #379 on: 19 / February / 2010, 04:50:03 »
@thanh,

If I set 1/100k as Tv, the camera gives me a 1/4000 in the display... but I guess, this is conform to the chdks manual. There is written, that also the exif info would be wrong = set to the maximum value, which are just plausible for the camera.
If I take photos with 1/100k they are very dark -- therefore, the Tv is much higher than 1/4000... but to know the real Tv, one has to take test shots under constant lightning conditions with different TVs.

to know exactly the override values, you could display them with chdk in the display.
Logged
any bad photo is much better than any photo not shot...
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 53   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics