CHDK PTP multiple instances - page 11 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum supplierdeeply
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19   Go Down

CHDK PTP multiple instances

  • 180 Replies
  • 65682 Views
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #100 on: 19 / November / 2013, 12:45:50 »
Advertisements
Quote from: Karmaschinken on 19 / November / 2013, 12:19:34
Ah, okay, this is why I couldn't find any new release.

So, many more cameras are supported than the SDM webpage suggests.
In fact, there are a few more cameras recently ported than ASSIST is aware of.

Quote
I haven't been aware I could play games with CHDK too? I had a look at the menu, but could not find anything, where is that? 

I have no idea, I do not use CHDK :)

Quote
Is SDM open source, too?

Of course, under the terms of the GPL licence it is obliged to be    .... apart from any other considerations.

Quote
I think CHDK is so advanced and stable because so many people are working on it, testing it.


Future versions of SDM will have less features, only those I consider that are required for and do not get in the way of normal, creative photography.
It will not be a playground for 'geeks'.

If potential users do not like that they can use CHDK, it is just another .BIN and some modules.

EDIT:

I might add that one reason for me wanting to update the documentation is so that I know how SDM works and what all its features are.
That alone tells me things are just too complicated.

David
« Last Edit: 19 / November / 2013, 12:53:36 by Microfunguy »
Logged
*

Offline msl

  • *****
  • 1280
  • A720 IS, SX220 HS 1.01a
    • CHDK-DE links
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #101 on: 19 / November / 2013, 14:51:49 »
Quote from: Microfunguy on 19 / November / 2013, 12:45:50
Future versions of SDM will have less features, only those I consider that are required for and do not get in the way of normal, creative photography.
It will not be a playground for 'geeks'.

If potential users do not like that they can use CHDK, it is just another .BIN and some modules.

Nice statement.

That means  you are the one and only who knows what a photographer needs. And all CHDK users are 'geeks'. ::)

Thanks
Logged
CHDK-DE:  CHDK-DE links
*

Offline andrew.stephens.754365

  • ****
  • 461
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #102 on: 19 / November / 2013, 15:03:21 »
Quote from: waterwingz on 19 / November / 2013, 08:04:14
Probably some day when somebody wants to do a multi-cam rig and needs "CHDK only" features (like Lua)

Well i'm not adverse to some hard work but neither am I a glutton for punishment.

So please put me [2nd ?] on the list  :) 
« Last Edit: 19 / November / 2013, 15:07:20 by andrew.stephens.754365 »
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #103 on: 19 / November / 2013, 15:58:27 »
Quote from: msl on 19 / November / 2013, 14:51:49
That means  you are the one and only who knows what a photographer needs.

Certainly not, but SDM reflects what I think is important, not what a committee agrees between themselves  is important.
Potential users can take it or leave it, it is not compulsory.

Quote
And all CHDK users are 'geeks'. ::)

Not all, just a lot.

Some past code contributors have openly admitted they do not know anything about photography.
That includes the author of a major feature.

Logged
*

Offline msl

  • *****
  • 1280
  • A720 IS, SX220 HS 1.01a
    • CHDK-DE links
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #104 on: 19 / November / 2013, 17:37:29 »
Quote from: Microfunguy on 19 / November / 2013, 15:58:27
Not all, just a lot.
That is simply disrespectful.  >:(

Quote from: Microfunguy on 19 / November / 2013, 15:58:27
Some past code contributors have openly admitted they do not know anything about photography.
That includes the author of a major feature.
And what is the problem? The users can still decide whether to use this possibilities. And not you!
Logged
CHDK-DE:  CHDK-DE links
*

Offline Karmaschinken

  • ***
  • 198
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #105 on: 19 / November / 2013, 20:23:36 »
I can´t see the problem too. I think every feature of CHDK is worth it if somewhere is someone who wants it. As long as they don't disturb me in my work, who cares... I did not even recognize there are games in CHDK, and all the features implemented are well worth to have them. I used a lot of them.

Also I do not agree that people have to be photographers to be worth to contribute to CHDK or even more to use it. A photographer won't use cheap-o-cheap compact cameras either, I think. Okay, me, and some other nerds here... :-D

I can also understand that someone who needs absolute sync and is convinced that SDM does a better job goes for that. So no need to argue at all, imho.

Okay, back to the topic. Here is what I did tonight: I setup a line of ten LEDs running at 1/1000th of a second and took picture of them at 1/250th of a second. So most of the time four LEDs are visible. A lot of the shots are absolutely in synch, some are not, but as far as I can see they defer not too much.

However I will get 50 LEDs for a better testing tomorrow an retry the tests. But if someone already has an opinion to the results, I would love to hear it. The RESULTS

Thanks a lot!
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #106 on: 19 / November / 2013, 20:33:06 »
Normally I would expect about 70% of shots to have a synch of one msec or less.
Some or all of the other 30% could be up to 20 msec error.

Of course, that means the flash will not always synch (with SDM, no idea about CHDK).
Logged
*

Offline philmoz

  • *****
  • 3450
    • Photos
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #107 on: 19 / November / 2013, 20:35:47 »
Quote from: Karmaschinken on 19 / November / 2013, 08:35:30
40ms I consider to be 1/250th of a second, not 1/25th, no? 1/25th would absolutely not be acceptable, whereas 1/250th would be in most situations at least.

1/250th second = 1000/250ms = 4ms.

Phil.
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 waterwingz

  • ******
  • 12138
    • Waterwingz
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #108 on: 19 / November / 2013, 20:37:34 »
Quote from: Karmaschinken on 19 / November / 2013, 20:23:36
Here is what I did tonight: I setup a line of ten LEDs running at 1/1000th of a second and took picture of them at 1/250th of a second. So most of the time four LEDs are visible. A lot of the shots are absolutely in synch, some are not, but as far as I can see they defer not too much.
At 1/250th of a second,  you will unfortunately see four changes in the LED pattern (assuming you are using a binary counter at 1Khz) in each exposure.  If you crank up the ISO rating (who cares about noise) you might be able to get a 1/2000th of a second shutter speed to work.  That will assure you only capture one change in the LED counting at the most.   And you probably want to count using gray code rather that normal binary to assure that only one LED changes state at each count transition.

The code to do this looks like this :

Code: [Select]
        for ( i = 0 ; i<128 ; i++ )
        {
            update_leds((i >> 1 ) ^ i) ;
            delay_us(1000);
        }
Doing this will show you exactly how far apart the two camera are at each shot with about 1mSec resolution simply by comparing the counter value shown by the LED's in each shot.


« Last Edit: 19 / November / 2013, 20:42:22 by waterwingz »
Logged
Ported :   A1200    SD940   G10    Powershot N    G16
*

Offline Karmaschinken

  • ***
  • 198
Re: CHDK PTP multiple instances
« Reply #109 on: 20 / November / 2013, 05:27:07 »
Quote from: Microfunguy on 19 / November / 2013, 20:33:06
Some or all of the other 30% could be up to 20 msec error.

And this is due to the phenomenon overcome by vnd? 1/50th of second (thnx phil. :-)) is actually too long, especially when dealing with 50 cams. With such values it would be more probable to have failing shots than successful ones.

Is there any chance to improve that? Would applying vnds ingenious difference-removal-patch eliminate these differences?

@waterwingz

Don't understand that. I chose 1/250th because then I can see a pattern which might be better to see while "running", however I will rebuild the testing setup with 50 LEDs.

I am addressing the LEDs with dedicated channels from an Arduino Mega 2560, do I really have to use Gray Code then too? Nevertheless, I'll do that. This is the code I used for the test:

Code: [Select]
for(int i=0;i<AR_SIZE;i++)
{
  digitalWrite(led[i], HIGH);
  delay(1); // 1ms
  digitalWrite(led[i], LOW);
}


« Last Edit: 20 / November / 2013, 06:35:27 by Karmaschinken »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics