Joop wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2006 05:21:23 -0700, "Ric" <ricspam@mpc.com.br> wrote:

> The other thing you can do is use the Canon remote control. A quick
> search shows it can be had for $30. You could rig the buttons on this
> remote. Then your camera is still in one piece.

It was my first idea, but the remote control is very limited. As I
stated previously, I don't want just a triggering system. With Canon's
remote control you can't change shooting parameters as I want to (on
some camera/remote models you can't even control the zoom)...

[]s!

On 18 Aug 2006 05:21:23 -0700, "Ric" <ricspam@mpc.com.br> wrote:

>Hi Joop!
>
>Joop wrote:
>> I did something like that with a cheap pencam usb camera. But the USB
>> stuff is overkill. I simply opened the camera and made an external
>> connection to the camera buttons.
>
>At first, I was also planning to do the same, but I want good quality
>images and resolution, using a good compact camera (or even a SLR). And
>I really don't want to void warranty nor deface a good looking,
>expensive camera. ;-)
>
>[]s!
The other thing you can do is use the Canon remote control. A quick
search shows it can be had for $30. You could rig the buttons on this
remote. Then your camera is still in one piece.

Hi Joop!

Joop wrote:
> I did something like that with a cheap pencam usb camera. But the USB
> stuff is overkill. I simply opened the camera and made an external
> connection to the camera buttons.

At first, I was also planning to do the same, but I want good quality
images and resolution, using a good compact camera (or even a SLR). And
I really don't want to void warranty nor deface a good looking,
expensive camera. ;-)

[]s!

On 14 Aug 2006 11:01:27 -0700, "Ric" <ricspam@mpc.com.br> wrote:

>Hello, World!
>
>I want to remotely control a digital camera (Canon Powershot S60, and
>maybe others) for use in aerial photography (with kites, blimps, etc.)
>
I did something like that with a cheap pencam usb camera. But the USB
stuff is overkill. I simply opened the camera and made an external
connection to the camera buttons. 
My setup simply used a micro to "press the buttons" every 30 or 60
seconds. After bringing the kite down I transfer the images to a
laptop over USB.

There are older type digital cameras that also have a serial interface
(option), but these tend to be on the heavy side to get them airborne
when there is not a lot of wind.

Joop

Hello, Ulf!

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> "Simon Clubley" <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> skrev i
> meddelandet news:mS3EaYdgzZNR@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> > I had a quick look at the AT90USB64/128 datasheet and it appears that
> > things
> > have been simplified in this controller, but it appears there's still
> > quite
> > a bit of the housekeeping to do that you would have to do in a stack for a
> > more general purpose controller. Does Atmel provide a sample USB host
> > stack
> > for it's microcontrollers ?

> Yes.

But is this true for the AT90USB family? I couldn't find any USB host
stack sample on Atmel's web site (I only found sample sources for USB
devices)...

Is such stack available upon request?

> The AT43USB380 will be simpler to use though, since the complete host stack
> is running
> on chip, and it presents a high level API to the micro.
> Basically, no need to know anything about USB.

OTOH, the AT90USBKey is much more affordable than the AT43DK380 dev.
kit... ;-)  And the AT43USB380 seems to be a bit overkill for my
application.

"Simon Clubley" <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> skrev i 
meddelandet news:mS3EaYdgzZNR@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <_0iEg.20292$bo6.4994@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Michael N. 
> Moran" <mike@mnmoran.org> writes:
>>
>> The terminology is host/device which is essentially master/slave,
>> as the host/master is responsible for directing the communication
>> over the bus.
>>
>> A USB host software stack is non-trivial, but I have heard of
>> others doing a minimal implementation that may work for static
>> one-host-one-device systems. If you are so inclined, usb.org
>> is your friend for documentation.
>>
>
> I'm someone that has created his own minimal USB host stack, in this case
> for a UHCI controller.
>
> In my case, it's a one host to multiple device setup, but because the
> exact devices are known, I was able to use a static configuration table
> for the USB network.
>
> However, it's still quite a bit of work to write even a minimal USB host
> stack and I would not recommend it unless the person attempting this is
> very familiar with system/kernel level programming concepts.
>
> I had a quick look at the AT90USB64/128 datasheet and it appears that 
> things
> have been simplified in this controller, but it appears there's still 
> quite
> a bit of the housekeeping to do that you would have to do in a stack for a
> more general purpose controller. Does Atmel provide a sample USB host 
> stack
> for it's microcontrollers ?

Yes.
The AT43USB380 will be simpler to use though, since the complete host stack 
is running
on chip, and it presents a high level API to the micro.
Basically, no need to know anything about USB.

> BTW, I briefly considered porting the Linux or FreeBSD USB stacks, but
> decided that it was just as easy to write my own minimal stack (and as it
> was part of a embedded hobbyist project, much more fun. :-) )

The U-boot boot monitor has a USB stack which can access USB Mass Storage 
devices.

> Before buying hardware, the OP (if he has not done it already) should read
> through his intended USB host controller datasheets, the usb.org documents
> and the datasheets for his intended USB device(s) in order to get an idea
> of how much work is involved.
>
> Simon.
>



-- 
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB 

In article <1155653344.830800.131040@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ric" <ricspam@mpc.com.br> writes:
> Hi, Simon!
> 

Hello.

> 
>> PS: And before anyone asks, no, my code is not available. :-)
> 
> Ouch! :-(
> 
> Not even with a pretty pretty please, with lots of sugar on top? I can
> change the sugar for Xylitol, if you want...
> 

I'm sorry, but although the code works just fine, the documentation (and
to a lesser extent, the code) would need a significant cleanup before it
would be something that I would be comfortable releasing. The code is also
tied closely to the UHCI controller specification and my requirements. Don't
forget that this was a hobbyist project, not something intended for public
release.

There's also the fact that you would need to learn the USB 1.1 specifications
to understand the code anyway, at which point you are probably better off
looking at something like the FreeBSD USB code base to resolve any remaining
questions.

If you don't have access to a FreeBSD system, then the FreeBSD source code
is available in cvsweb format at the FreeBSD website. I suggest that you
start at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/usb/ if you are
interested in looking at it.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
If Google's motto is "don't be evil", then how did we get Google Groups 2 ?

Hi, Simon!

Simon Clubley wrote:
> In article <_0iEg.20292$bo6.4994@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Michael N. Moran" <mike@mnmoran.org> writes:
> In my case, it's a one host to multiple device setup, but because the
> exact devices are known, I was able to use a static configuration table
> for the USB network.

I need to control just one exact device, so there's even (a bit) less
work.

> I had a quick look at the AT90USB64/128 datasheet and it appears that things
> have been simplified in this controller, but it appears there's still quite
> a bit of the housekeeping to do that you would have to do in a stack for a
> more general purpose controller. Does Atmel provide a sample USB host stack
> for it's microcontrollers ?

Some software is available for the AT90USBKey demonstration board on
Atmel's site, but I'm still waiting for a reply from them to be able to
check the sources (they are on ZIP archives with passwords).

> Before buying hardware, the OP (if he has not done it already) should read
> through his intended USB host controller datasheets, the usb.org documents
> and the datasheets for his intended USB device(s) in order to get an idea
> of how much work is involved.

That's where I am right now.

> PS: And before anyone asks, no, my code is not available. :-)

Ouch! :-(

Not even with a pretty pretty please, with lots of sugar on top? I can
change the sugar for Xylitol, if you want...

Hi, David!

David M. Palmer wrote:
> I assume you will not be too upset if you lose this camera in a hard
> landing, or that you need the resolution or other capability that a $20
> digital (or even several of them with different focal lengths to
> replace the zoom function) wouldn't give you in a lower mass.

Actually, I want to usa a Canon camera (hardly $20), and I would be
very upset if I loose it! I already did several KAP sessions and got
several hundreds of pictures in total, with about a hundred of
excellent or very good ones.

> Apparently, being a USB host is a lot harder than being a client (or
> whatever terminology is used in the USB world).  And the
> microcontrollers are host only.
>
> (I could be wrong about this.)

The implementation of a USB host is more complex than the
implementation of a USB device (aka USB function), but the Atmel
AT90USB1287 is a "USB On-The-Go (OTG) Microcontroller".

In article <_0iEg.20292$bo6.4994@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Michael N. Moran" <mike@mnmoran.org> writes:
> 
> The terminology is host/device which is essentially master/slave,
> as the host/master is responsible for directing the communication
> over the bus.
> 
> A USB host software stack is non-trivial, but I have heard of
> others doing a minimal implementation that may work for static
> one-host-one-device systems. If you are so inclined, usb.org
> is your friend for documentation.
> 

I'm someone that has created his own minimal USB host stack, in this case
for a UHCI controller.

In my case, it's a one host to multiple device setup, but because the
exact devices are known, I was able to use a static configuration table
for the USB network.

However, it's still quite a bit of work to write even a minimal USB host
stack and I would not recommend it unless the person attempting this is
very familiar with system/kernel level programming concepts.

I had a quick look at the AT90USB64/128 datasheet and it appears that things
have been simplified in this controller, but it appears there's still quite
a bit of the housekeeping to do that you would have to do in a stack for a
more general purpose controller. Does Atmel provide a sample USB host stack
for it's microcontrollers ?

BTW, I briefly considered porting the Linux or FreeBSD USB stacks, but
decided that it was just as easy to write my own minimal stack (and as it
was part of a embedded hobbyist project, much more fun. :-) )

Before buying hardware, the OP (if he has not done it already) should read
through his intended USB host controller datasheets, the usb.org documents
and the datasheets for his intended USB device(s) in order to get an idea
of how much work is involved.

Simon.

PS: And before anyone asks, no, my code is not available. :-)

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
If Google's motto is "don't be evil", then how did we get Google Groups 2 ?