On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 09:17:24AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Marcus Glocker <mar...@nazgul.ch> wrote: > > > Instead of introducing the CLI parameter controls in video(1), we could > > introduce videoctl(1) in base, same as we have with audioctl(1). This > > also gives us the possibility to only display the current video > > parameters. > > I must have missed something. Why does it need to be a seperate comment. > Won't this produce confusion? Why can video do this? > > Is it really correct for the video hardware to have persistant settings? > Would it not be better if the required mode was always commanded when > a video is being recorded?
I've not followed UVC hardware too closely; it seems that some of the cameras are always fully automatically adjusting their parameters, while others allow for manual setting that remains between device open(). And some of the controls are not available when video(4) is used from a browser (for conferencing). On a 2nd thought having that integrated with video(1) allows to control the values with visual feedback so it makes sense to keep only one program. But ihmo it would be more user friendly if the command line syntax was more regular with audio or wscons control programs. -- Matthieu Herrb
