setting frame size to 96*96 failed

[Farzinkh]

I am using ESP32_CAM and ESP_IDF v4.4.1, there is no problem,except when I set frame size to 96*96 error below shows up and other frame sizes are just fine.

`W (28923) cam_hal: NO-EOI

W (28955) cam_hal: FB-OVF

W (28955) cam_hal: NO-EOI

W (28995) cam_hal: FB-OVF

W (28995) cam_hal: NO-EOI

W (29035) cam_hal: FB-OVF

W (29035) cam_hal: NO-EOI

...

W (32923) cam_hal: Failed to get the frame on time!

E (44423) camera: Camera capture failed

`
how can i fix this?
regards,

[WangYuxin-esp]

Maybe the current camera driver does not allow this size to be configured.
Could you tell me what model sensor you are using?

[Farzinkh]

Maybe the current camera driver does not allow this size to be configured. Could you tell me what model sensor you are using?

I am using default camera sensor which is OV2640.
I have to say this problem only exist if pixformat is set to PIXFORMAT_JPEG , I have tried PIXFORMAT_GRAYSCALE without any problem.

[devellison]

I ran into similar. I think the root of the problem is that the PIXFORMAT_JPEG doesn't allocate enough space in some circumstances.

Changing this line from / 5 to / 4 worked for me.
https://github.com/espressif/esp32-camera/blob/master/driver/cam_hal.c#L376

Another option is possibly to increase your quality value into the 14+ range.

I'm haven't played with JPEGs enough to know a better estimate of space right off, but it might be something to look into.

[github-actions]

This issue appears to be stale. Please close it if its no longer valid.

[AgainPsychoX]

I can't get it to work reliably, sometimes it works even for a while, sometimes it stops working randomly...

I tried:

• using lower JPEG quality (24+),
• using higher cam_obj->recv_size,
• using .xclk_freq_hz = 10000000 (instead 20M),

It always fails with cam_hal: Failed to get the frame on time! sooner or later.

[AgainPsychoX]

I'm currently testing with 96x96 with forced minimal size of recv_size of 4096 bytes, normal XCLK of 20MHz, still the same ESP32 / OV2640 and I found weird thing. It works more reliability with high JPEG quality (<12) than lower quality (>16). What's more, I get errors and weird frame capture time issues when I set lower quality (screen from logs when I was using Q=21).

The lower quality (so, higher Q number), the more issues there are for some odd reason, only for 96x96.