FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-23-2008, 03:37 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 21:05 +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On 5/23/08, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> wrote:
> > See:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport
>
> I don't see any webcam applications mentioned on this page but
> have you seen ucview package in fedora? I have tested it with old
> "Logitech QuickCam Messenger " and its working fine. Its using v4l
> kernel module.
> You should give a try to ucview application with webcams available
> with you. I think with ucview you should be able to view video from
> webcams using v4l and v4l2 kernel modules.
> More you can check at
> Regards,
> Parag.

See also 'cheese'

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-23-2008, 04:20 PM
Bastien Nocera
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl) said:
> > See:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport
>
> Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2?

Same question here. There's a good number of applications that are
either obsoleted by a v4l2 version, or support both versions. Which
applications were you thinking of supporting with this scheme?

Unless there's tens of open source apps that would need changing, or a
couple of (useful) proprietary ones that don't support v4l2, the library
is probably not very useful to have (especially as you probably wouldn't
be able to port _all_ the v4l1 drivers to v4l2).

You might also want to see what can be done to remove GStreamer's V4L2
plugin's experimental status:
http://tinyurl.com/4ft7ej

Cheers

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-23-2008, 08:16 PM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl) said:

See:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport


Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2?



Because most v4l1 apps expect to say things to the webcam like gimme rgb data
please, whereas the raw format on the usb wire may be something completely
different with v4l1, the conversion used to be done in the kernel, but with
v4l2 this is (rightfully) no longer done.


Also there are quite a few v4l1 apps.

So its not just API conversion, but also image format conversion. Alternatively
a v4l2 library could be written which offers a higher abstraction layer could
be written and apps ported to that, I guess thats the golden way. But so much
todo in so little time.


The shim also has the advantage of working with abominations like flash and
skype, which although abominal are also quite popular.


Regards,

Hans



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-23-2008, 08:17 PM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

Bastien Nocera wrote:

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl) said:

See:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport

Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2?


Same question here. There's a good number of applications that are
either obsoleted by a v4l2 version, or support both versions. Which
applications were you thinking of supporting with this scheme?

Unless there's tens of open source apps that would need changing, or a
couple of (useful) proprietary ones that don't support v4l2, the library
is probably not very useful to have (especially as you probably wouldn't
be able to port _all_ the v4l1 drivers to v4l2).



See my reaction to Bill's question, and yes there are a few usefull proprietary
apps in the mix unfortunately.



You might also want to see what can be done to remove GStreamer's V4L2
plugin's experimental status:
http://tinyurl.com/4ft7ej



That definitely the plan as I want cheese to be working 100% out of the box.

Regards,

Hans


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-23-2008, 11:38 PM
Bastien Nocera
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 22:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl) said:
> >>> See:
> >>>
> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport
> >> Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2?
> >
> > Same question here. There's a good number of applications that are
> > either obsoleted by a v4l2 version, or support both versions. Which
> > applications were you thinking of supporting with this scheme?
> >
> > Unless there's tens of open source apps that would need changing, or a
> > couple of (useful) proprietary ones that don't support v4l2, the library
> > is probably not very useful to have (especially as you probably wouldn't
> > be able to port _all_ the v4l1 drivers to v4l2).
> >
>
> See my reaction to Bill's question, and yes there are a few usefull proprietary
> apps in the mix unfortunately.

Do you have a list of those apps? Both the proprietary ones and the Open
Source ones. For the latter, it could be more interesting to create a
guide for the conversion from V4L1 to V4L2, and see whether Fedora
maintainers of those projects can help out with the conversion, or at
least submit it upstream for consideration.

> > You might also want to see what can be done to remove GStreamer's V4L2
> > plugin's experimental status:
> > http://tinyurl.com/4ft7ej
> >
>
> That definitely the plan as I want cheese to be working 100% out of the box.

Great stuff.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-24-2008, 05:34 AM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

Bastien Nocera wrote:

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 22:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

Bastien Nocera wrote:

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl) said:

See:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport

Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2?

Same question here. There's a good number of applications that are
either obsoleted by a v4l2 version, or support both versions. Which
applications were you thinking of supporting with this scheme?

Unless there's tens of open source apps that would need changing, or a
couple of (useful) proprietary ones that don't support v4l2, the library
is probably not very useful to have (especially as you probably wouldn't
be able to port _all_ the v4l1 drivers to v4l2).

See my reaction to Bill's question, and yes there are a few usefull proprietary
apps in the mix unfortunately.


Do you have a list of those apps? Both the proprietary ones and the Open
Source ones. For the latter, it could be more interesting to create a
guide for the conversion from V4L1 to V4L2, and see whether Fedora
maintainers of those projects can help out with the conversion, or at
least submit it upstream for consideration.



No list atm, noteworthy closed source ones are flash (adobe version) and
skype. Opensource v4l1 viewers I know about are camomara, spcaview. But
quite a few v4l2 apps also don't work with all v4l2 cams due to not
supporting all needed colorformats, examples of these are for example
xawtv and luvcview.


I must say my primary focus at the moment is getting drivers cleaned up
and merged in the mainline, but the userspace side of things definetely
needs work too.


Regards,

Hans

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-24-2008, 07:51 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

Le Sam 24 mai 2008 07:34, Hans de Goede a crit :

> I must say my primary focus at the moment is getting drivers cleaned
> up
> and merged in the mainline, but the userspace side of things
> definetely needs work too.

ivtv is not fully v4l2 BTW. It needs some v4l2 love

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-26-2008, 09:51 AM
"Callum Lerwick"
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> wrote:


So its not just API conversion, but also image format conversion. Alternatively a v4l2 library could be written which offers a higher abstraction layer could be written and apps ported to that, I guess thats the golden way. But so much todo in so little time.


Like, say, XVideo? We have the xf86-video-v4l driver, which gives you all kinds of nice acceleration if you're displaying directly to screen. Has the advantage of being not Linux specific. On the down side it ties you to X, which may be a deal killer depending on the app.


Though gstreamer is really the way to go. Which means we need proper gstreamer plugins to wrap v4l/v4l2 and/or XVideo and whatever else.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-26-2008, 01:23 PM
Robert Scheck
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

On Mon, 26 May 2008, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> Though gstreamer is really the way to go. Which means we need proper
> gstreamer plugins to wrap v4l/v4l2 and/or XVideo and whatever else.

Well, v4l/v4l2 was "yum install ucview -y && ucview" in the past for me -
such as on Asus Eee PC.


Greetings,
Robert

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-27-2008, 10:25 AM
"Valent Turkovic"
 
Default Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 22:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>
>>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl) said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport
>>>>>
>>>>> Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2?
>>>>
>>>> Same question here. There's a good number of applications that are
>>>> either obsoleted by a v4l2 version, or support both versions. Which
>>>> applications were you thinking of supporting with this scheme?
>>>>
>>>> Unless there's tens of open source apps that would need changing, or a
>>>> couple of (useful) proprietary ones that don't support v4l2, the library
>>>> is probably not very useful to have (especially as you probably wouldn't
>>>> be able to port _all_ the v4l1 drivers to v4l2).
>>>>
>>> See my reaction to Bill's question, and yes there are a few usefull
>>> proprietary apps in the mix unfortunately.
>>
>> Do you have a list of those apps? Both the proprietary ones and the Open
>> Source ones. For the latter, it could be more interesting to create a
>> guide for the conversion from V4L1 to V4L2, and see whether Fedora
>> maintainers of those projects can help out with the conversion, or at
>> least submit it upstream for consideration.
>>
>
> No list atm, noteworthy closed source ones are flash (adobe version) and
> skype. Opensource v4l1 viewers I know about are camomara, spcaview. But
> quite a few v4l2 apps also don't work with all v4l2 cams due to not
> supporting all needed colorformats, examples of these are for example xawtv
> and luvcview.
>
> I must say my primary focus at the moment is getting drivers cleaned up and
> merged in the mainline, but the userspace side of things definetely needs
> work too.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans

Is there something that Fedora users with few webcams that aren't
recognised under Fedora because of non-existing drivers can do to
help? Is there some way that we can give you feedback about webcams we
have so that they get supported? I know that that is a lame question
but I had to ask it.

Cheers,
Valent.



--
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org