W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Camera properties (Re: [sysinfo] draft ready for review)

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:39:11 +0100
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Max Froumentin" <maxfro@opera.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <82241426-61A6-4094-9455-B71AE3F776BA@w3.org>
To: "David Rogers" <david.rogers@omtp.org>
Like you, I expect to see any number of weird ways in which decent cameras and communications equipment might converge; hence I'm bringing up the question.

I suspect the properties I listed make sense only if they're settable -- if all we're interested in is finding out about them later on, then we'll typically find them in EXIF data anyway, and can consider that another problem solved elsewhere.  By that argument, I'm convincing myself that the early December thread was right, i.e., these belong in Capture, not sysinfo.

A few more issues with the current Camera property:

- maxZoomFactor refers to hasPhysicalZoom, which isn't defined
- to each max, there should be a min ;)
- note there are cameras that support distinct aspect ratios with subtly different pixel numbers on the sensor.  In that case, the sensorPixels property isn't very helpful 

Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

On 6 Jan 2010, at 12:29, David Rogers wrote:

> I think the majority of devices are going to be mobile, but who's to say that a decent camera isn't going to contain a 3G module in the future? I think the question is really whether we want to push this back to version 2.0 or not - at the moment, 99% of devices using this will be your average mobile phone cameras (and we're talking multi-millions of devices).
> David.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Max Froumentin
> Sent: 06 January 2010 11:19
> To: Thomas Roessler
> Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Camera properties (Re: [sysinfo] draft ready for review)
> On 05/01/2010 17:53, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>> The camera API looks like it's focused on a really cheap camera.  I
>> wonder whether we want to go down the route of describing things
>> like
>> - aperture - shutter - sensor dimension (both physical and pixel) -
>> ISO speed - focal length - camera orientation - flash on or off for
>> the next capture?
> Fair enough. After the discussion at [1] I didn't think much more about 
> what to put in there, and what to leave to the Capture API. The current 
> list (supportsVideo, hasFlash, sensorPixels, maxZoomFactor) contains 
> properties which are fixed, while I think that variable attributes 
> (zoom, aperture, ISO, etc.) should go to Capture. But it's a very fine 
> line, and the question is noted in an issue in the draft, awaiting 
> proposals.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec/0192.html
> Max.
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 11:39:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:41 UTC