Replace the usage of CameraConfiguration::transform with the newly
introduced CameraConfiguration::orientation.
Rework and rename the CameraSensor::validateTransform(transform) to
CameraSensor::computeTransform(orientation), that given the desired
image orientation computes the Transform that pipeline handlers should
apply to the sensor to obtain it.
Port all pipeline handlers to use the newly introduced function.
This commit breaks existing applications as it removes the public
CameraConfiguration::transform in favour of
CameraConfiguration::orientation.
Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: David Plowman <david.plowman@raspberrypi.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Change the parameter type of `generateConfiguration()` from `const std::vector&`
to `libcamera::Span`. A span is almost always preferable to a const vector ref
because it does not force dynamic allocation when none are needed, and it allows
any contiguous container to be used.
A new overload is added that accepts an initializer list so that
cam->generateConfiguration({ ... })
keeps working.
There is no API break since a span can be constructed from a vector
and the initializer list overload takes care of the initializer lists,
but this change causes an ABI break.
Signed-off-by: Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
[Kieran: Apply checkstyle fixups]
Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>
We are using pybind11 'smart_holder' branch to solve the Camera
destructor issue (see the comment in this patch, or the commit
that originally added Python bindings support).
As it would be very nice to use the mainline pybind11 (which is packaged
in distributions), this patch adds a workaround allowing us to move to
the mainline pybind11 version.
The workaround is simply creating a custom holder class
(PyCameraSmartPtr), used only for the Camera, which wraps around the
shared_ptr. This makes the compiler happy.
Moving to mainline pybind11 is achieved with:
- Change the pybind11 wrap to point to the mainline pybdind11 version
- Tell pybind11 to always use shared_ptr<> as the holder for
PyCameraManager, as we use the singleton pattern for the
PyCameraManager, and using shared_ptr<> to manage it is a requirement
- Tell pybind11 to always use PyCameraSmartPtr<> as the holder for Camera
- Change the meson.build file to use a system-installed pybind11
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
The JPEG color space is badly name, as the JPEG specification (ITU-T
T.81) doesn't define any particular color space:
The interchange format does not specify a complete coded image
representation. Application-dependent information, e.g. colour
space, is outside the scope of this Specification.
The JFIF specification (ITU-T T.871) is clearer as it requires ITU-R
BT.601 YCbCr encoding and a full quantization range:
The interpretations of Y, CB, and CR are derived from the E'Y, E'Cb,
and E'Cr signals defined in the 625-line specification of Rec. ITU-R
BT.601, but these signals are normalized so as to permit the usage of
the full range of 256 levels of the 8-bit binary encoding of the Y
component.
It however doesn't specify color primaries or a transfer function
explicitly. It only mentions the latter when describing the conversion
from YCbCr to RGB:
The inverse relationship for computing full scale 8-bit per colour
channel gamma pre-corrected RGB values (following Rec. ITU-R BT.601
gamma pre-correction and colour primary specifications) from YCbCr
colours (with 256 levels per component) can be computed as follows:
[...]
Given that ITU-R BT.601-5 (1995) didn't specify color primaries or a
transfer function, and that the later ITU-R BT.601-7 (2011) version
specifies color primaries for the 625-line variant that do not match
sRGB, the JPEG color space in libcamera is badly named. This is
confirmed by ITU-T T.871:
As this Recommendation | International Standard is based on the prior
informally-circulated JFIF version 1.02 specification that was
produced in 1992, which referenced Rec. ITU-R BT.601 (formerly CCIR
601), it references that specification for definition of the E'Y,
E'Cb, and E'Cr signals that correspond to the YCBCR values specified
herein. However, since the development of the prior JFIF version 1.02
specification, additional industry specifications have been developed,
Rec. ITU-R BT.601 has been updated, and common industry practice has
emerged which often follows the sYCC specification in IEC
61966-2-1/Amd.1. The difference between the use of the colour
interpretation specification in this Recommendation | International
Standard and that of the sYCC specification may be considered
negligible in practice.
Rename the color space to sYCC, as its definition matches the sYCC
standard, and indicate that it is typically used to encode JPEG images.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder@ideasonboard.com>
Wrap the CameraManager with a PyCameraManager class and move the related
code inside the new class.
This helps understanding the life times of the used-to-be global
variables, gets rid of static handleRequestCompleted function, and
allows us to simplify the binding code as the more complex pieces are
inside the class.
There should be no user visible functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
We always call CameraManager.read_event() and
CameraManager.get_ready_requests(), so to simplify the use merge the
read_event() into the get_ready_requests().
This has the side effect that get_ready_requests() will now block if
there is no event ready. If we ever need to call get_ready_requests() in
a polling manner we will need a new function which behaves differently.
However, afaics the only sensible way to manage the event loop is to use
select/poll on the eventfd and then call get_ready_requests() once,
which is the use case what the current merged function supports.
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Add ControlInfo class and change the controls related methods to
resemble the C++ API (e.g. no more string based control methods).
We don't implement ControlList or ControlInfoMap but just expose the
same data via standard Python dict.
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
The Python bindings controls generation was not very good. It only
covered the enums and they were in the main namespace.
This adds the controls somewhat similarly to the C++ side. We will have
e.g.:
libcamera.controls.Brightness
libcamera.controls.AeMeteringModeEnum.CentreWeighted
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
