Announcing a new F-10 Feature Proposal: Better Webcam Support

[Hans de Goede]

Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 22:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>>> Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl) said: 
>>>>> See:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport
>>>> Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2?
>>> Same question here. There's a good number of applications that are
>>> either obsoleted by a v4l2 version, or support both versions. Which
>>> applications were you thinking of supporting with this scheme?
>>>
>>> Unless there's tens of open source apps that would need changing, or a
>>> couple of (useful) proprietary ones that don't support v4l2, the library
>>> is probably not very useful to have (especially as you probably wouldn't
>>> be able to port _all_ the v4l1 drivers to v4l2).
>>>
>> See my reaction to Bill's question, and yes there are a few usefull proprietary 
>> apps in the mix unfortunately.
> 
> Do you have a list of those apps? Both the proprietary ones and the Open
> Source ones. For the latter, it could be more interesting to create a
> guide for the conversion from V4L1 to V4L2, and see whether Fedora
> maintainers of those projects can help out with the conversion, or at
> least submit it upstream for consideration.
> 

No list atm, noteworthy closed source ones are flash (adobe version) and 
skype. Opensource v4l1 viewers I know about are camomara, spcaview. But 
quite a few v4l2 apps also don't work with all v4l2 cams due to not 
supporting all needed colorformats, examples of these are for example 
xawtv and luvcview.

I must say my primary focus at the moment is getting drivers cleaned up 
and merged in the mainline, but the userspace side of things definetely 
needs work too.

Regards,

Hans