10:24 a.m.
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl) said:
Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2?
Bill
11:20 a.m.
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede(a)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
3:17 p.m.
Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede(a)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
6:38 p.m.
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(a)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.
12:34 a.m.
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(a)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
2:51 a.m.
Le Sam 24 mai 2008 07:34, Hans de Goede a écrit :
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
5:25 a.m.
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)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(a)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
5:51 a.m.
Hi ,
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Valent Turkovic
<valent.turkovic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Hans de Goede
<j.w.r.degoede(a)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(a)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.
you can report your feedback to that respective webcam
driver's
upstream project mailing list. e.g.
1) If you got your webcam working using uvcvideo driver then you
can report to uvc mailing list linux-uvc-devel(a)lists.berlios.de. also
check http://linux-uvc.berlios.de/
1) If you got your webcam working using gscpa driver then you can
report to gspca mailing list spca50x-devs(a)lists.sourceforge.net.
Regards,
Parag.
7:02 a.m.
> 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.
you can report your feedback to that respective webcam driver's
upstream project mailing list. e.g.
1) If you got your webcam working using uvcvideo driver then you
can report to uvc mailing list linux-uvc-devel(a)lists.berlios.de. also
check http://linux-uvc.berlios.de/
I sent them a nice thank you note because my webcam on HP laptop that
is working is using uvcvideo module.
Here is lsusb output:
Bus 001 Device 002: ID 0c45:62c0 Microdia Pavilion Webcam
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
6:10 a.m.
Valent Turkovic wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Hans de Goede
<j.w.r.degoede(a)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(a)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.
Well, there always is a chance it is supported but the usb id isn't registered
as such yet, do you know which usb controller / bridge the webcam uses and
which ccd sensor? Otherwise try installing the windows drivers (under wine for
example) and look through the .inf files / use strings on the binaries for hints.
Regards,
Hans
7:09 a.m.
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl> wrote:
Valent Turkovic wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)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(a)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.
>
Well, there always is a chance it is supported but the usb id isn't
registered as such yet, do you know which usb controller / bridge the webcam
uses and which ccd sensor? Otherwise try installing the windows drivers
(under wine for example) and look through the .inf files / use strings on
the binaries for hints.
Regards,
Hans
Thank you Hans,
I have opened them so I can see the chips and models of web cams. I
googled them before and found that there are no drivers that work for
them in Linux. Usb is working ok because it recognizes other usb
devices and it recognised that something got connected...
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
6:02 p.m.
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Valent Turkovic wrote:
>> 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.
For me tiny "ucview" (using unicap library) takes care of most v4l1, v4l2
webcams and als has support for v4l2-1394. So camomara and spcaview are not
the only OSS v4l1 viewers currently. Ucview also supports different formats
and upstream is very active and responsive.
Greetings,
Robert
10:22 a.m.
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>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.
skype works fine for me on F9 x86_64 with both my laptop's integrated
webcam (Dell XPS M1330 with the thinner screen and VGA webcam) as well
as a "Creative Live! Cam Video IM Pro" I picked up at Frys this
morning for my kids. I did have to upgrade skype to the latest beta
though.
Ekiga works fine with both too.
--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
11:35 a.m.
Skype is out of beta for a while already and works great with my
Logitech Pro9000 (uvc driver). RPMs from skype.com work great even on
x86_64 system
On 5/27/08, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch(a)dell.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >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.
skype works fine for me on F9 x86_64 with both my laptop's integrated
webcam (Dell XPS M1330 with the thinner screen and VGA webcam) as well
as a "Creative Live! Cam Video IM Pro" I picked up at Frys this
morning for my kids. I did have to upgrade skype to the latest beta
though.
Ekiga works fine with both too.
--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
http://scwlab.com
3:16 p.m.
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede(a)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
4:51 a.m.
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)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.
8:23 a.m.
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
10:35 a.m.
Hi Hans,
On 5/23/08, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl> wrote:
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.
10:37 a.m.
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(a)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!
10:38 a.m.
Hi,
On 5/23/08, Parag N(पराग़) <panemade(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Hans,
On 5/23/08, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)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
http://www.unicap-imaging.org/
Regards,
Parag.
5873
days inactive
5877
days old
20 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Bastien Nocera -
Bill Nottingham -
Callum Lerwick -
Hans de Goede -
Jesse Keating -
Matt Domsch -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Parag Nemade -
Pavel Shevchuk -
Robert Scheck -
Valent Turkovic