-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
dFrameNumber in the firmware #5
Comments
Admittedly, I haven't looked very closely at this yet, but I don't think this solution would work since the contrast control value, according to the UVC specification, is a 2-byte unsigned integer and therefore has a maximum value of 65535 (unlike, for example, the exposure time control which is 4-byte unsigned). Because it's unsigned though, I wonder how you actually got a negative number out here.... |
This is one of many reasons why I am working on moving away from using UVC and instead working on implementing a more generic USB protocol. Will use the USB control channel for configuring the DAQ and Miniscope and a Bulk transfer endpoint (very similar to UVC) to transmit imaging data. Bulk transfer packets, and therefore, frames will be accurately timestamped. I am also working on a methods for synchronizing multiple DAQs over USB so all incoming data will be accurately timestamped. Hoping to have something running in the next week or two. |
I'm looking forward to hearing good news. Without the affect of UVC control, we can get stable timeStampes. |
I've actually fixed this in 6c9596c - by using |
Hi,
I think dFrameNumber of DAQ should sending 3 bytes. 2 bytes of dFrameNumber, sending from DAQ to PC software, has max number, 65535. When camera using more than 36 minutes, 2 bytes of dFrameNumber will lead to the negetave number of dropped frames, for example -65528.
I suggest to modify the firmware code like this:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: