Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture - page 2 - RAW Shooting and Processing - CHDK Forum supplierdeeply
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13   Go Down

Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture

  • 129 Replies
  • 44475 Views
*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14118
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #10 on: 23 / August / 2012, 16:56:21 »
Advertisements
Quote from: srsa_4c on 23 / August / 2012, 16:20:06
Quote
By the way, movie mode is not required by my application.
I understand, but that would be the only way to get higher res. live view (and it isn't implemented, as I wrote).
As I mentioned earlier, on some cameras, switching the camera to movie mode does change the resolution of the normal live view buffer, without any need to capture the movie buffers specifically. On the a540, 640x480 mode gets you 704x528 live view. I suspect this doesn't work on a digic III cam like sx110 but if it does, SticK could to movie mode when the live view was needed, and switch back to still to take the actual shots.

It's also worth noting that some recent cameras (e.g. the G12) have a 480 line live view.
Logged
Don't forget what the H stands for.
*

Offline SticK

  • *****
  • 779
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #11 on: 23 / August / 2012, 17:08:58 »
@srsa_4c
This camera uses a special USB male that has pins on both sides.  That means the AV cable plugs in where the USB cable does, and I don't have the AV cable // ebay logic.

@reyalp
Very very interesting, if it works that would be great ... because I have noticed that response of CHDKPTP is way faster than ptpCamGUI.   Would I be able to see the results, or at least a difference that points to a good direction in CHDKPTP right away?  If so, how can I make the camera go into movie mode from the command line in CHDKPTP, and back again to still mode?
Logged
*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14118
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #12 on: 23 / August / 2012, 18:03:21 »
Quote from: SticK on 23 / August / 2012, 09:35:44
Hence commercial scientific cameras cannot be used.
This seems quite incredible. Maybe you mean that the cost is more than you want to pay, or the engineering to integrate them is more difficult that you would like ?
Quote
It is a microimager, something like MAHLI on MSL, but much more sophisticated.
A lofty goal.

As an aside, have you verified you can operate the sx110 without the lens hardware ? If so, this is definitely something other members of the forum would be interested in. If not, then you might want to do that before you invest too much time in other stuff.
Quote
Because I have a publication pending, that is all I can say in a forum.  If we chat privately, I can tell you more.
You can PM me on the forum if you like. I have no specific need to know about it, but if I find the project interesting I might be more willing to spend time supporting it.
Quote
I did the scaling in the center panel to test a simple hypothesis and demonstrate the results to you (and to me too).  The final objective would be for the liveview to provide a crisp image, not to take CHDKPTP out.
I understand that. My suggestion was to take the scaling done by CHDKPTP out of the equation, so you can see if that is responsible for the image quality difference.
Quote
It is strange that Canon chose this archaic TV format.
Technically, I guess we should say YCbCr rather than YUV. It's very common in all sorts of digital video and imaging.
Quote
Nonetheless, could something in your routines related to the conversion have an impact on image quality, and give clarity a little boost?
Sure, it's possible. I'm not aware of any specific problems, but I'm not an expert in this sort of thing either. One question in my mind is how the UV pair relates to the four Y values. Currently each Y in a given UYVYYY chunk uses the same U and V values, but it's possible the Ys on the ends should blend the U and V values from the neighboring blocks (with special cases for the line ends...) However, this should only affect chroma, which doesn't really seem like your issue.
Quote
Would I be able to see the results, or at least a difference that points to a good direction in CHDKPTP right away?
If you enter
set gui_verbose=2
in the console, changes in the live view dimensions will cause the frame buffer description to be printed out in the console. You can set this in the same file as the contest plus option. If you are using viewport 1:1 the difference should also be fairly visible if you go from ~200 lines to ~400.
Quote
  If so, how can I make the camera go into movie mode from the command line in CHDKPTP, and back again to still mode?
In the gui, there's a dropdown on the right side that lets you change mode.

In the command line, you can get to manual still mode using something like
lua require('capmode').set('M')
and to movie with
lua require('capmode').set('VIDEO_STD')
You can get the exact names from the dropdown.

Note on the A540 at least, the low resolution video modes reduce the viewport width.
Logged
Don't forget what the H stands for.
*

Offline SticK

  • *****
  • 779
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #13 on: 23 / August / 2012, 18:16:28 »
This is what I was able to do ... I enabled the movie mode by using dial.  With [ ] Viewfinder 1:1 and
  • Scale A/R set, movie mode changed the size of the viewport to 1/2 the still mode size (looks like a large thumbnail).


With
  • Viewfinder 1:1 and
  • Scale A/R the viewport is 360x270, but image looks pretty bad, with rather gross horizontal artifacts.  The same artifacts are visible on the camera LCD.


MOVIE MODE ANSWER:  the movie mode on the SX110 seems to go in the other direction where we want it to.  Too bad.

@reyalp
G12 - thanks for the suggestion.  I looked at the tech specs and the 1/1.7" CCD is OK and would work perfectly in my instrument.  I read that Canon discontinued RemoteCapture operation and the G12 does not support it.  Thus CHDKPTP must be the only mechanism to see live view, correct, because it reads the same frame buffer as the camera LCD, right?

Is the 480 line view in still mode on the G12 ?

Do you know if G12 RAW files are 12-bit or more?

This is becoming interesting.

I will address your new message shortly.
Logged
*

Offline SticK

  • *****
  • 779
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #14 on: 23 / August / 2012, 18:42:46 »
Quote "This seems quite incredible. Maybe you mean that the cost is more than you want to pay, or the engineering to integrate them is more difficult that you would like ?"

Neither ... as I mentioned earlier .. "there are *other* [technical] drawbacks, in addition to being monochrome."

Quote "A lofty goal."

Yes, but it is already functional, and has been doing science for a few years.  Thus the lofty goal is behind me.   A paper is coming likely around January. 

Quote "have you verified you can operate the sx110 without the lens hardware ?

No, not with the SX110, that is why I am doing all this first.  Although I had checked out G12 before, I did not know then CHDKPTP would work live.  So my ears went up like a puppy when you mentioned it // looking fwd to your answers.

Quote "If so, this is definitely something other members of the forum would be interested in."

My instrument has been working with the S50 CCD for many years, but the job was horrendous, especially too when there is need to cool the CCD.  If we find a good potential camera for this "upgrade", then perhaps we can work together to get a great result.  More later on this topic, if all this pans out.

Quote, "If not, then you might want to do that before you invest too much time in other stuff."

Yes, that is what I doing now, in part with you.

Quote " However, this should only affect chroma, which doesn't really seem like your issue."

That's what I thought.  If you're worried about the different hues I was showing in my images, no need .. I had white set differently when connect to RemoteCapture.  In the recent figures I corrected that.

I will try your command suggestions after dinner.

Logged
*

Offline philmoz

  • *****
  • 3450
    • Photos
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #15 on: 23 / August / 2012, 19:07:26 »
Quote from: SticK on 23 / August / 2012, 18:16:28
G12 - thanks for the suggestion.  I looked at the tech specs and the 1/1.7" CCD is OK and would work perfectly in my instrument.  I read that Canon discontinued RemoteCapture operation and the G12 does not support it.  Thus CHDKPTP must be the only mechanism to see live view, correct, because it reads the same frame buffer as the camera LCD, right?

Is the 480 line view in still mode on the G12 ?

Do you know if G12 RAW files are 12-bit or more?


The G12 live view buffer is 720 x 480 YUV when shooting normal images in 4:3 aspect ratio.
It has a 12 bit, 1/1.7" CCD sensor.

If you need the best image quality possible then also look at the G1X.
It also has the same 720 x 480 YUV live view buffer; but it has a 1.5" (near APS-C size), 14 bit RAW sensor.

Neither is supported by Canon RemoteCapture; but both work with chdkptp for remote live view.

The best frame rate I have been able to get on both the G12 and G1X with chdkptp is 20fps.

Phil.

Edit: according to the current CHDK code other cameras with 480 line live view are G10, G11, IXUS310, S90, S95, S100, SX220, SX230, SX240, and SX260. Some of these are quite new and may not have complete ports of CHDK yet.
« Last Edit: 23 / August / 2012, 19:24:23 by philmoz »
Logged
CHDK ports:
  sx30is (1.00c, 1.00h, 1.00l, 1.00n & 1.00p)
  g12 (1.00c, 1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
  sx130is (1.01d & 1.01f)
  ixus310hs (1.00a & 1.01a)
  sx40hs (1.00d, 1.00g & 1.00i)
  g1x (1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
  g5x (1.00c, 1.01a, 1.01b)
  g7x2 (1.01a, 1.01b, 1.10b)
*

Offline SticK

  • *****
  • 779
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #16 on: 23 / August / 2012, 20:35:19 »
I have a new *very* encouraging result.  The balance has just tipped in favor of a good future here. 

Attached, center panel.

Here's what happened ...... after setting video mode with the camera dial and got the useless "thumbnail-size" live video I reported before dinner, I went on a tip from reyalp and saw that the dropdown was set to VIDEO_COMPACT.  I changed that to VIDEO_STD and result is *amazing*.  There are still some artifacts we can chat over, but that I think all is very doable and definitely on a good track.  If you can demonstrate that we can handle the minor artifacts shown in yellow, then it's downhill from here.

I will converge on a YES/NO for the SX110 through iteration, perhaps potentially investigate a G12, so we may revisit live view later if needed.  Next is to do some response and automation tests (script-driven I assume as I am just a week old with CHDK) and may need a bit of help.

@philmoz
Thanks for the useful additional info.  APS-C sized sensors are much too big for my instrument, and is one of the main reasons I can't use commercial cameras .. they are all large format.

Quote "Neither is supported by Canon RemoteCapture; but both work with chdkptp for remote live view."
Very nice.

Folks, you have my attention.
Logged
*

Offline SticK

  • *****
  • 779
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #17 on: 23 / August / 2012, 20:43:39 »
Sorry, scale for A/R must be checked for 360x270 in the center panel, not unchecked.  Two computer problem.
Logged
*

Offline reyalp

  • ******
  • 14118
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #18 on: 23 / August / 2012, 22:52:44 »
Quote from: SticK on 23 / August / 2012, 18:42:46
Quote "have you verified you can operate the sx110 without the lens hardware ?

No, not with the SX110, that is why I am doing all this first.  Although I had checked out G12 before, I did not know then CHDKPTP would work live.  So my ears went up like a puppy when you mentioned it // looking fwd to your answers.
Just to be clear, I was absolutely NOT stating that the the G12 would run with the lens hardware removed, these are two completely unrelated questions!
Quote
Quote "If so, this is definitely something other members of the forum would be interested in."

My instrument has been working with the S50 CCD for many years, but the job was horrendous, especially too when there is need to cool the CCD.  If we find a good potential camera for this "upgrade", then perhaps we can work together to get a great result.  More later on this topic, if all this pans out.

Quote, "If not, then you might want to do that before you invest too much time in other stuff."

Yes, that is what I doing now, in part with you.
I don't think you have understood. Nothing we have discussed related to making the camera work without the lens. Current Canon firmware has lots of error checking. When it encounters what it thinks is a hardware error, it stops. There is a very high chance that if you remove the lens hardware, the camera firmware will refuse to function. The electronics have almost certainly gotten more complicated over time, so even if you were able to spoof the s50, doing the same thing for a newer camera is likely more difficult.

Some uses have reported success on some models by dismounting the lens hardware but leaving it as unit with all the electronics attached. I believe some people have managed to override some errors in software (srsa_4c might know more about this), but I don't  recall anyone pulling this off for a complete lens removal.

If you don't have a solution for this, then jaggies in the live view are a quite minor issue...

Quote
Here's what happened ...... after setting video mode with the camera dial and got the useless "thumbnail-size" live video I reported before dinner, I went on a tip from reyalp and saw that the dropdown was set to VIDEO_COMPACT.  I changed that to VIDEO_STD and result is *amazing*.
A dump or the output from gui_verbose should provide a simple Yes/No answer about the viewport resolution. If you are getting higher resolution, but haven't checked viewport 1:1, then it will be downscaled which might be responsible for the jaggies.
Logged
Don't forget what the H stands for.
*

Offline SticK

  • *****
  • 779
Re: Comparison: CHDKPTP vs Canon's RemoteCapture
« Reply #19 on: 23 / August / 2012, 23:33:26 »
Quote "I was absolutely NOT stating that the the G12 would run with the lens hardware removed"

What I meant by "checking out G12," was in far in the past when I was selecting the best candidate for a higher density CCD, and never implied anything of the sort.  To clarify, now that I know you can drive a G12 with PTP live view, I will rekindle my search, because there may be a better candidate than the SX110.  Despite that, the SX110 is still an excellent CCD candidate.  I see I mixed the two thoughts in one place // oops!

Quote "When it encounters what it thinks is a hardware error, it stops"

I agree, there is no argument // well known here.

Quote "high chance that if you remove the lens hardware, the camera firmware will refuse to function"

That's definite.

Quote "Some uses have reported success on some models by dismounting the lens hardware but leaving it as unit with all the electronics attached."

Yes, that obviously works.

Quote "I believe some people have managed to override some errors in software (srsa_4c might know more about this), but I don't  recall anyone pulling this off for a complete lens removal."

This is the more guru zone and is where I felt I might ask your input in the future and we could chat.  But since you raised it ... why not?  Keeping the lens assembly on restricts access to both sides of the CCD because in my case, I have to cool it.  Thus the best solution is to in principle "cut the glass out" and leave the CCD mounted on the camera frame.  That way one gets a clear optical path to front, and TEC access to the back, wherein an accurate mechanical frame can be machined for alignment of the whole camera body.  For example, I might be able to track down and identify the error detector signals and for those that I could not provide an electrical state=good impostor for, perhaps you might know where the table is in firmware and disable the error detection for a specific signal.  That could possibly mean changing value(s) in Canon EEPROM.   Is that something in your sphere?

Quote "If you are getting higher resolution, but haven't checked viewport 1:1, then it will be downscaled which might be responsible for the jaggies."

If I check Viewfinder 1:1, then I get the attached.  Does this help?


Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal