Re: Success/failure?

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.960102125912.136H-100000@hamjudo.hamjudo.com>, Paul H
aas writes:
>On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Scott Laird wrote:
>It works for me.  I had no problems with the documentation.
>I have a couple of image problems:
> 1) The first 6 pixels on the first scan line are usually very wrong.  The
>first 6 pixels on following scan lines are sometimes a little light.

There's something odd with the first 8 pixels on each line for me --
it looks like there's a faint line down the side.  I'll try to fix it
tonight, but I don't make any promises.

> 2) At 80x60 6 bpp, every 4th pixel is darker than its neighbors.  Other 
>resolutions are fine, likewise 4bpp is fine.

I haven't noticed this, but I might have just not noticed.  It the
effect very pronounced?  There are a number of timing issues, and I
don't have a very good feel for when I need to put delays in the
system.  I guess I'll try adding a 100us pause before every I/O access
and see if it fixes anything.

>I'm guessing that 1) might be a timing problem or it might be in my camera. 
>I'm embarrassed to report that I'm still running Linux 1.1.59.  Does anyone
>else see similar problems? 

>My next project is to put the images on my web page.  Has anyone bolted 
>the software together yet.  I'm going to connect the camera to a couple 
>servos so I can do tilt and pan.

Hmm, try something like this (untested).  You might be better off with
a cron job taking pictures instead of a picture-on-demand system.
Also, remember that there's no locking done right now, and weird
things will happen if two programs try to access the quickcam at once.

-- cut and install as /cgi-bin/qcam --

echo image/gif

/usr/local/bin/qcam -x 320 -y 240 -B 6 | ppmtogif
-- cut --

Scott A. Laird   |  "But this goes to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615"
scott@laird.com  |                - Nigel on his new 64-bit computer

Follow-Ups: References: