Hi Yann, On Tuesday 14 June 2011 12:02:09 Yann Sionneau wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > Thanks a lot for your testing and report ! :) > > Your test and mine show that webcams seem to be implementing the UVC > spec correctly regarding timestamping. > > I mean : > > (*) Putting PTS for each packet > (*) Putting SCR for each packet > (*) Having the same PTS for each packet of the same frame > (*) Having different SCR for each packet of the same frame > > Well, about FID/EOF bugs, I guess a change of PTS can be interpreted as > "the beginning of a new frame", so it may be useful in case of a webcam > having troubles signaling new frames using the usual FID/EOF bits. > > I am new to this (UVC), so you may need to confirm with someone else > (Laurent ?) what I just wrote, but to me it makes sense to interpret a > change of PTS as a "new frame".
That could be done, provided that the camera sends correct PTS values. > Reading the code I noticed a few "quirks" used to workaround webcams not > implementing correctly the UVC spec regarding FID and EOF bits. > > Are there webcams which have both problems ? (not making FID toggle, and > not specifying EOF ?) Not that I know of. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ Linux-uvc-devel mailing list Linux-uvc-devel@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/linux-uvc-devel
