gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

[Thomas Kaiser]

I was thinking about updating my page [1] with the results I get with 
gspca V2. But I think it would be better to have this info on the 
LinuxTV wiki. Unfortunately, I did not find a page for gspca. So I 
thought I should start one, but I don't think this is the right thing 
because there are other drivers available for webcams.

Why not start a "Webcam compatibly page" similar to my page [1]?
- a photo of the webcam
- USB ID
- capabilities of the cam
- the chipsets when known
- driver + version (+ kernel version), at the time tested
- application used for testing (version)
- links with some information to other interesting pages
- and some more you can think of

What you guys think about it?


[1] http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams

Thomas

PS: the only reference I found about gspca on the LinuxTV wiki:
http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Reverse_Engineering_USB_Webcams#gspca

Re: gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

[Paul Thomas]

I like it. Can we add a section for tested architectures (i.e. x86,
x86_64, arm, sparc, etc...).

thanks,
Paul

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Kaiser <v4l@kaiser-linux.li> wrote:
>
> I was thinking about updating my page [1] with the results I get with gspca
> V2. But I think it would be better to have this info on the LinuxTV wiki.
> Unfortunately, I did not find a page for gspca. So I thought I should start
> one, but I don't think this is the right thing because there are other
> drivers available for webcams.
>
> Why not start a "Webcam compatibly page" similar to my page [1]?
> - a photo of the webcam
> - USB ID
> - capabilities of the cam
> - the chipsets when known
> - driver + version (+ kernel version), at the time tested
> - application used for testing (version)
> - links with some information to other interesting pages
> - and some more you can think of
>
> What you guys think about it?
>
>
> [1] http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams
>
> Thomas
>
> PS: the only reference I found about gspca on the LinuxTV wiki:
> http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Reverse_Engineering_USB_Webcams#gspca
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

[Thomas Kaiser]

Paul Thomas wrote:
> I like it. Can we add a section for tested architectures (i.e. x86,
> x86_64, arm, sparc, etc...).

Hi Paul

I think this is welcome, when it starts....

This is a suggestion, which does not mean that I do all the stuff.

I will get up the webcams from my page to the LinuxTv wiki with all 
information I can provide....

But I hope other people will contribute, too?

Thomas

> 
> thanks,
> Paul
> 
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Kaiser <v4l@kaiser-linux.li> wrote:
>> I was thinking about updating my page [1] with the results I get with gspca
>> V2. But I think it would be better to have this info on the LinuxTV wiki.
>> Unfortunately, I did not find a page for gspca. So I thought I should start
>> one, but I don't think this is the right thing because there are other
>> drivers available for webcams.
>>
>> Why not start a "Webcam compatibly page" similar to my page [1]?
>> - a photo of the webcam
>> - USB ID
>> - capabilities of the cam
>> - the chipsets when known
>> - driver + version (+ kernel version), at the time tested
>> - application used for testing (version)
>> - links with some information to other interesting pages
>> - and some more you can think of
>>
>> What you guys think about it?
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> PS: the only reference I found about gspca on the LinuxTV wiki:
>> http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Reverse_Engineering_USB_Webcams#gspca
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

[Paul Thomas]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Thomas Kaiser <v4l@kaiser-linux.li> wrote:
> Paul Thomas wrote:
>>
>> I like it. Can we add a section for tested architectures (i.e. x86,
>> x86_64, arm, sparc, etc...).
>
> Hi Paul
>
> I think this is welcome, when it starts....
>
> This is a suggestion, which does not mean that I do all the stuff.
>
> I will get up the webcams from my page to the LinuxTv wiki with all
> information I can provide....
>
> But I hope other people will contribute, too?
>
> Thomas
>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Kaiser <v4l@kaiser-linux.li>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was thinking about updating my page [1] with the results I get with
>>> gspca
>>> V2. But I think it would be better to have this info on the LinuxTV wiki.
>>> Unfortunately, I did not find a page for gspca. So I thought I should
>>> start
>>> one, but I don't think this is the right thing because there are other
>>> drivers available for webcams.
>>>
>>> Why not start a "Webcam compatibly page" similar to my page [1]?
>>> - a photo of the webcam
>>> - USB ID
>>> - capabilities of the cam
>>> - the chipsets when known
>>> - driver + version (+ kernel version), at the time tested
>>> - application used for testing (version)
>>> - links with some information to other interesting pages
>>> - and some more you can think of
>>>
>>> What you guys think about it?
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> PS: the only reference I found about gspca on the LinuxTV wiki:
>>>
>>> http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Reverse_Engineering_USB_Webcams#gspca
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>

There are a couple of webcams/composite devices, I can fill in for arm.

thanks,
Paul

Re: gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

[Theodore Kilgore]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Thomas Kaiser wrote:

>
> I was thinking about updating my page [1] with the results I get with gspca 
> V2. But I think it would be better to have this info on the LinuxTV wiki. 
> Unfortunately, I did not find a page for gspca. So I thought I should start 
> one, but I don't think this is the right thing because there are other 
> drivers available for webcams.
>
> Why not start a "Webcam compatibly page" similar to my page [1]?
> - a photo of the webcam
> - USB ID
> - capabilities of the cam
> - the chipsets when known
> - driver + version (+ kernel version), at the time tested
> - application used for testing (version)
> - links with some information to other interesting pages
> - and some more you can think of
>
> What you guys think about it?
>
>
> [1] http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams
>
> Thomas

Your web page looks nice, as a start. But it is, like most web pages which 
deal with Linux support for category X, Y, or Z of hardware, not up to 
date. Goes with the territory, I guess.

However, I do have one question. How are you going to list the various 
cameras?

Probably, one needs to list them by brand name and model and by USB ID, 
too, as Michel Xaard did with his list in the first place. But then it 
will become a mighty long list. For, the same camera gets recycled in lots 
of different "brands" and "models." This is the kind of information which 
someone needs who is buying a camera, because the camera does not come 
with the USB ID printed on the outside of the package.

But OTOH this causes a problem, too, because the manufacturers of cameras 
(probably some of them are not exactly manufacturers but rather packagers) 
are switching the electronics inside the device any time they feel like 
it, or if they get a large quantity of chips at a good price, or whatever. 
I have seen it happen several times that a certain camera keeps the make 
and model, but it gets a new USB Vendor:Product number. And, worst of all, 
it may have previously been well supported but now it is not. Someone who 
goes and buys the camera based upon the make and model which are 
stencilled on the outside of the camera and printed on the packaging 
material can end up being stung.

Therefore, I would recommend that all possible ways to identify a camera, 
however insignificant those ways might appear to be, should be preserved.

As one example of this kind of information, there is a cheap camera 
distributor in the US called sakar.com. Their cameras always come with a 
little, insignificant number on the outside of the package somewhere. It 
is usually five digits long, and is sometimes found associated with the 
UPC barcode on the package and is found nowhere else. If you want to know 
which camera it is, that number is essential. But it is too typical of all 
of us that we throw away things which appear insignificant. Who would 
think that the bubble-pack card which the camera is packaged in will 
contain information that can be obtained nowhere else, or otherwise only 
by good luck or by trial and error? But, alas, it is true.

Very specific example: The Sakar KidzCam (old version) was an SQ905 
camera and thus well supported. The Sakar KidzCam (new version) is a 
Jeilin JL2005B and uses a particularly nasty compression algorithm which 
has eluded all attempts to figure out. The packaging in the store looks 
identical for both of them. The cameras physically look identical. The 
only way you could tell them apart in the store is by those little bitty, 
insignificant-looking code numbers on the packaging material.

I could give several other examples, too.

Theodore Kilgore

Re: gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

[Thomas Kaiser]

Theodore Kilgore wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Thomas Kaiser wrote:
> 
>>
>> I was thinking about updating my page [1] with the results I get with 
>> gspca V2. But I think it would be better to have this info on the 
>> LinuxTV wiki. Unfortunately, I did not find a page for gspca. So I 
>> thought I should start one, but I don't think this is the right thing 
>> because there are other drivers available for webcams.
>>
>> Why not start a "Webcam compatibly page" similar to my page [1]?
>> - a photo of the webcam
>> - USB ID
>> - capabilities of the cam
>> - the chipsets when known
>> - driver + version (+ kernel version), at the time tested
>> - application used for testing (version)
>> - links with some information to other interesting pages
>> - and some more you can think of
>>
>> What you guys think about it?
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams
>>
>> Thomas
> 
> Your web page looks nice, as a start. But it is, like most web pages 
> which deal with Linux support for category X, Y, or Z of hardware, not 
> up to date. Goes with the territory, I guess.

That's the reason why I asked to do this on the LinuxTv wiki!

> 
> However, I do have one question. How are you going to list the various 
> cameras?

I really don't know. But when we start a page on the LinuxTv wiki, this 
could be a start, or not?

> 
> Probably, one needs to list them by brand name and model and by USB ID, 
> too, as Michel Xaard did with his list in the first place. But then it 
> will become a mighty long list. For, the same camera gets recycled in 
> lots of different "brands" and "models." This is the kind of information 
> which someone needs who is buying a camera, because the camera does not 
> come with the USB ID printed on the outside of the package.

Looks like you don't get it. When we provide pictures of the cam with 
the corresponding ID's and a reverence which driver will work, the folks 
know what can work......

> But OTOH this causes a problem, too, because the manufacturers of 
> cameras (probably some of them are not exactly manufacturers but rather 
> packagers) are switching the electronics inside the device any time they 
> feel like it, or if they get a large quantity of chips at a good price, 
> or whatever. I have seen it happen several times that a certain camera 
> keeps the make and model, but it gets a new USB Vendor:Product number. 
> And, worst of all, it may have previously been well supported but now it 
> is not. Someone who goes and buys the camera based upon the make and 
> model which are stencilled on the outside of the camera and printed on 
> the packaging material can end up being stung.

So, contribute to the wiki and correct this!
When you see a model which look the same at you saw on that page and 
your cam does not work in the real live it could be possible that the 
manufacture of the cam changed the chipset.

Why not write this in the wiki? I ave the same came but it looks not to 
be the same you have?
> 
> Therefore, I would recommend that all possible ways to identify a 
> camera, however insignificant those ways might appear to be, should be 
> preserved.

When the driver of your webcam is included in the main branch od the 
kernel, then it just should work|
> 
> As one example of this kind of information, there is a cheap camera 
> distributor in the US called sakar.com. Their cameras always come with a 
> little, insignificant number on the outside of the package somewhere. It 
> is usually five digits long, and is sometimes found associated with the 
> UPC barcode on the package and is found nowhere else. If you want to 
> know which camera it is, that number is essential. But it is too typical 
> of all of us that we throw away things which appear insignificant. Who 
> would think that the bubble-pack card which the camera is packaged in 
> will contain information that can be obtained nowhere else, or otherwise 
> only by good luck or by trial and error? But, alas, it is true.
> 
> Very specific example: The Sakar KidzCam (old version) was an SQ905 
> camera and thus well supported. The Sakar KidzCam (new version) is a 
> Jeilin JL2005B and uses a particularly nasty compression algorithm which 
> has eluded all attempts to figure out. The packaging in the store looks 
> identical for both of them. The cameras physically look identical. The 
> only way you could tell them apart in the store is by those little 
> bitty, insignificant-looking code numbers on the packaging material.
> 
> I could give several other examples, too.

Thedore

As far I did webcam development it was always re-engineering.
I offered always my help, did I not?

Thomas

Re: gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

[Thomas Kaiser]

Theodore Kilgore wrote:
> But OTOH this causes a problem, too, because the manufacturers of 
> cameras (probably some of them are not exactly manufacturers but rather 
> packagers) are switching the electronics inside the device any time they 
> feel like it, or if they get a large quantity of chips at a good price, 
> or whatever. I have seen it happen several times that a certain camera 
> keeps the make and model, but it gets a new USB Vendor:Product number. 
> And, worst of all, it may have previously been well supported but now it 
> is not. Someone who goes and buys the camera based upon the make and 
> model which are stencilled on the outside of the camera and printed on 
> the packaging material can end up being stung.

Ok, just a example. See 
http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams#Typhoon_Easycam_USB_330K

At the time I bought this cam it had a sn9c102 bridge and PAS202 and was 
working great with gspca. Some time later, somebody reported to me that 
he has the same cam but with a PAC7311. So I just updated my page with 
the new information. AS of coincident, I was working on the PAC7311 at 
the time I got this report!

Anyway, with a good and nice looking page on the LinuxTV wiki, you can 
get more interest from some other people and they may sign up and 
correct the page or ad new information (like this cam has now this chipset).

Thomas

Re: gspca in the LinuxTv wiki

[Theodore Kilgore]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Thomas Kaiser wrote:

> Theodore Kilgore wrote:
>> But OTOH this causes a problem, too, because the manufacturers of cameras 
>> (probably some of them are not exactly manufacturers but rather packagers) 
>> are switching the electronics inside the device any time they feel like it, 
>> or if they get a large quantity of chips at a good price, or whatever. I 
>> have seen it happen several times that a certain camera keeps the make and 
>> model, but it gets a new USB Vendor:Product number. And, worst of all, it 
>> may have previously been well supported but now it is not. Someone who goes 
>> and buys the camera based upon the make and model which are stencilled on 
>> the outside of the camera and printed on the packaging material can end up 
>> being stung.
>
> Ok, just a example. See 
> http://www.kaiser-linux.li/index.php/Linux_and_Webcams#Typhoon_Easycam_USB_330K
>
> At the time I bought this cam it had a sn9c102 bridge and PAS202 and was 
> working great with gspca. Some time later, somebody reported to me that he 
> has the same cam but with a PAC7311. So I just updated my page with the new 
> information. AS of coincident, I was working on the PAC7311 at the time I got 
> this report!


So, I see. You have had to face similar problems. Fun, isn't it?

>
> Anyway, with a good and nice looking page on the LinuxTV wiki, you can get 
> more interest from some other people and they may sign up and correct the 
> page or ad new information (like this cam has now this chipset).

Yes, perhaps this will help. Somehow we all have to figure out a way to 
keep on top of these things, and the information is always shifting 
around. The idea of doing things in Wiki style, and letting people sign up 
and add information, is probably good, too.

I mention a couple of other, similar efforts to keep track of various 
devices, hoping it is possible for some wise person to come up with a way 
to avoid the problems which are associated with those efforts:

Related to the Gphoto project, we have a similar information web page, 
listing Linux compatibility for still cameras. Unfortunately, it seems 
that the web page is maintained by one individual, and he is snowed under. 
He has plenty of other work, too, of course, and he works hard. So it is 
in no way a criticism of him if I say that the page is always hopelessly 
out of date, not even managing to keep up with a complete list of the 
cameras which are already supported in libgphoto2.

There is also the list of usb devices at qbik.ch and it is (again very 
naturally) always out of date, too. It does operate more in the Wiki 
style, in that everyone can start an account there, sign up and add 
devices. However, the model they use fails, to the extent that it is not 
possible to edit what someone else has entered, and it seems not possible 
to send a mail to someone in charge, who can repair a stale entry. I am 
thinking of such a thing as an entry which says that device soandso does 
not work. Then someone (me or you, for instance) succeeds in supporting 
the device. So, we can go and add the information that now it works, in a 
comment to the existing entry. But even before anyone looks at those 
comments, beside the entry is a big red X which indicates that it does not 
work. And the person who originally filed the report is the only one who 
can change that big red X, and that person has now disappeared. If by good 
luck you are the one who created that original entry, then you and only 
you can remove that big red X. But if it was not originally your entry, 
you can't even if you know better.

So, as I said, I mention these parallel attempts at documentation with the 
hope that their problems can somehow be avoided. Perhaps it is good to try 
to do that.

Good luck,

Theodore Kilgore