|
Digital video is usually transferred direct by FireWire connection, and some digital still camers have direct USB connections. I would suggest researching digital camera websites, as they are likely to be trialling the latest options.
|
|
|
|
|
I found something called "tethered shooting" which seems like it does what I need. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
There seems to be efforts around standardizing BioMetric integrations, does anyone here have some first hand experience in this?
We are looking at using fingerprint scanners, would hate to have to code by manufacturer / vendor...
____________________________________________________________
Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
What exactly do you want to do with the fingerprint readers?
Most manufacturers / vendors have their own ways for doing things, but so far I haven't come across two or more manufacturers / vendors using the same standard for their API.
It would be nice though... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have "accidentally" uninstalled COM ports in Win2000 Device Manager ( please don't make jokes about me still using 2000). Next thing I see - windows found the "new" hardware and promtly activated it.
However, instead of having ports 1 2 3 I now have ports 4 5 6.
No big deal , but how do I get the numbers back to 1 2 3?
Thanks for reading.
Vaclav
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure about Win2k, but in XP you right click on the port in device manager and select "Properties". In the "Properties" form select the "Port Settings" tab. Click the "Advanced" button and the next window that appears should have a combo box with port name choices.
|
|
|
|
|
The numbering is controled by a value in the registry, I cant recall where it is, but if you reset this then do an uninstall of all your existing com ports you will get backl to where you were.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any Programming Language or Programming Plataform for E-Book Readers?
Thank you for the attention!
|
|
|
|
|
There's no standard if that what you're referring to. You'll have to check with the manufcaturer of the reader to see what it supports and if there is any SDK that you need.
|
|
|
|
|
The following is a snippet from an exe that is communicating with my driver.
I am trying to pass a buffer to my driver by using DeviceIoControl. The problem is I've never done this before, so I don't even know if I am on the right track. I guess I just need the starting address of my input struct.
(struct input {int a;int b;int c;};)
The problem seems to be that I cannot put the address of my bInput into a DWORD. Am I going about this right?
When I check out the contents of pInput, it seems to b a DWORD with the actual struct attached after... Im just confused
unsigned long Returned,*pReturned = &Returned;
input bInput;
bInput.a = 1;
bInput.b = 2;
bInput.c = 3;
int test = sizeof(bInput);
input *pInput = &bInput;
DeviceIoControl(
hFile,
IOCTL_MZ_READMEMORY,
NULL,
0,
NULL,
0,
pReturned,
(LPOVERLAPPED) NULL);
note: right now my DeviceIoControl call is not using any buffer. I plan on passing the starting address of bInput and the size of bInput.
|
|
|
|
|
The input and output buffers are defined here[^] as being LPVOID, which effectively means a pointer to something; what it really contains is between you and the driver. So to call this function passing your buffer address (suitably cast) all you need to code is something like:
DeviceIoControl(
hFile,
IOCTL_MZ_READMEMORY,
(LPVOID)&bInput,
sizeof bInput,
(LPVOID)&bOutput,
sizeof bOutput,
pReturned,
(LPOVERLAPPED) NULL);
And don't forget to check the return status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mattzimmerer wrote: my driver
You wrote a driver and you cant get devioctl to work! 
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks sir, your tons of help. No it works now... maybe you should try helpful comments instead of (in my perception) being boastful. Surely you have asked for help to understand certain things... Obviously in not doing this professionally, its a side project in developing a game hacking tool! 
|
|
|
|
|
I saw though that someone else had solved your problem and felt like having a bit of a dig! 
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
|
|
|
|
|
Yea, lol this stuff is pretty out there if you have only been exposed to userspace programming. Now onto assembly language!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please post your question in one forum only.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, I would like to check the throughput of the RAID controller and I need to avoid the bottle neck of HDD. So I would like to make sure all the test data is written to HDD's write cache. Could anyone know how to control the data to be written in the cache(not memory cache) only?
|
|
|
|
|
You should be able to disable the OS cache; but the behavior inside the HD itself is a black box to anyone outside. The best you can do is to leave the array idle for a while between test runs so that the controller should flush the on board cache and to limit your writes to slightly less than the maximum the cache can hold.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Dan. But is there any way to determine which size to write is suitable, i.e. if the HDD's cache is 16MB? I would like to flush the cache first then write some data but if the data is too small the throughput may still too slow. And if writing large data it may be written to disk instead if OS cache is disabled. How can I balance it to keep using the HDD's cache?
|
|
|
|
|
OS cache and the cache on the HD are completely independent. Disabling the former will have no effect on the latter. You'll have to experiment with various sizes to see what happens. I'd hope that the controllers in the drives would use the full xxMB of cache for writes if saving and not hold any in reserve for read use; but I don't know if that's actually the case.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
If I understand what you're trying to do, you have one very serious problem. Doing this while running under Windows, any process can use the drive at any time, including during your testing, screwing up the results.
I do believe that you cannot do what you want while running Windows. You'd have to do it under DOS or some other single tasking O/S.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I do believe that you cannot do what you want while running Windows. You'd have to do it under DOS or some other single tasking O/S.
I think you're overstating the difficulty of avoiding problem. I was benching several methods of reading large data files a few weeks ago, and while there were a number of high outliers roughly half to two thirds of the results came within about 30ms on 2.5ish second test runs. It was easy to see which runs got hammered by a different processes IO. (Probably WMP in my case since i was doing it on my dev system while listening to music).
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
