oops, I have found the small bug thats not giving me bigger exposure, my mistake, sorry
2009/3/8 Stefan Krastanov <[email protected]> > Hi, > > First about those a, b, c coefficients - yes they were dynamically > calculated for every iteration, but they worked quite crappy - so here is > another idea that is extremely simple, already implemented and working quite > well. > > So what's the idea. We don't need to know the relation between exposure and > yavg ("linear", "square" or "linear with correction"). It's enough to know > that exposure goes up when yavg goes up. So if yavg is too low we add a > little bit to exposure and if yavg is too high we substract a little bit > from exposure. To get rid of the oscillations we keep track of the direction > of the last two chainges - if they are in opposite directions we make the > step smaller, if not we make it bigger. It's working with me, I tested it > all ready. I will be very happy to give you the sorce if you think it's > usefull, but I don't know how "patch" works. What should I do. > > There is a question left - when changing the exposure it seems that for my > chip the maximum is 83 (decimal) and not 0xFF. Is this normal. > > 2009/3/8 Vasily Khoruzhick <[email protected]> > >> On Sunday 08 March 2009 12:40:17 Stefan Krastanov wrote: >> >> > OK, my mistake, but still why min_stable and max_stable instead in >> between >> > ( (70+140)/2 if I am getting right the initialization function)? And I'm >> > writing it in the moment, I am a bit slow, sorry ;) >> >> Yep, that's better, I don't remember why I've chosen "double ranges" :) >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Lets make microdia webcams plug'n play, (currently plug'n pray) To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Visit us online https://groups.google.com/group/microdia -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
