New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add controls for image effect parameters #143

Closed
waveform80 opened this Issue Aug 5, 2014 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@waveform80
Owner

waveform80 commented Aug 5, 2014

As per this forum post from 6by9 (former post has structure required)

@waveform80 waveform80 added this to the 1.7 milestone Aug 5, 2014

@waveform80 waveform80 self-assigned this Aug 5, 2014

@waveform80

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waveform80

waveform80 Aug 6, 2014

Owner

This seems rather buggy. In 6by9's post the maximum number of parameters is 6, but the MMAL headers define MMAL_MAX_IMAGEFX_PARAMETERS as 5. After attempting to query parameters for an active effect with MMAL_PARAMETER_IMAGE_EFFECT_PARAMETERS, we seem to get garbage back in the MMAL_PARAMETER_IMAGEFX_PARAMETERS_T struct; the mp.effect field is random, yet num_effect_params and the effect_parameter array always seem to be 0. Furthermore, the query seems to lock up the camera requiring a reboot (a second query simply doesn't return); nothing pertinent in the vcdbg log either.

For now, I'll remove this from the 1.7 target and come back to it when I can figure out either what I'm doing wrong or whether this is really an upstream bug.

Owner

waveform80 commented Aug 6, 2014

This seems rather buggy. In 6by9's post the maximum number of parameters is 6, but the MMAL headers define MMAL_MAX_IMAGEFX_PARAMETERS as 5. After attempting to query parameters for an active effect with MMAL_PARAMETER_IMAGE_EFFECT_PARAMETERS, we seem to get garbage back in the MMAL_PARAMETER_IMAGEFX_PARAMETERS_T struct; the mp.effect field is random, yet num_effect_params and the effect_parameter array always seem to be 0. Furthermore, the query seems to lock up the camera requiring a reboot (a second query simply doesn't return); nothing pertinent in the vcdbg log either.

For now, I'll remove this from the 1.7 target and come back to it when I can figure out either what I'm doing wrong or whether this is really an upstream bug.

@waveform80 waveform80 removed this from the 1.7 milestone Aug 6, 2014

@waveform80

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waveform80

waveform80 Aug 26, 2014

Owner

Ah ha! Getting parameters is only possible after a successful attempt to set them, as detailed in 6by9's forum post. Must test whether it's possible to set invalid nonsense as well as we should throw an exception if the user attempts to set silly things.

Owner

waveform80 commented Aug 26, 2014

Ah ha! Getting parameters is only possible after a successful attempt to set them, as detailed in 6by9's forum post. Must test whether it's possible to set invalid nonsense as well as we should throw an exception if the user attempts to set silly things.

@waveform80 waveform80 added this to the 1.8 milestone Aug 26, 2014

@waveform80 waveform80 closed this in 9cabc4a Sep 2, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment