Now I have tested with steps of 50 ms. A pulse length < 150 ms was not counted. Pulse lengths of 150 and 200 ms are counted but not always safe. With a pulse length of 200 ms and more is all ok.
If you read through this thread, there have been several people who have had problems with pulse width (and probably pulse count) accuracy. But every time I've
tested with my scope and small stable of cameras, its always been bang on.
Which leads me to two theories.
The first theory is that the keyboard task in some cameras is not actually running every 10 mSec. With the data msl posted above, it would seem his keyboard task runs on a 20 mSec? Should be easy to test that.
The other theory is tied to the problems we have with recent cameras getting good "remote sync". It appears sync is affected by interrupts that take considerably longer in recent cameras than in older ones. If so, then USB pulse detection accuracy must suffer too.
@msl : what camera are you testing with ?
I have read the news of srsa_4c about the timer interrupt code. This sounds very good. Smaller pulse length with a improve the precision of reading the pulse length would be a great step for a remote control with µC support.
There waterwingz mentioned:
The attached patch changes that to 1 mSec resolution.
Is it already considered here?
Working on it. If I could just get the MF stuff put to bed that is.
Current plan is to provide a new function that enables "precision measurement". If it's not called, you get the 10 mSec default count rate so existig scripts will not be affected.
I'll try to get a testing release out this weekend.