Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 18 Aug 2009 at 2:16
Simple search shows that AForge.NET framework does not have code like:
device.Mon.BindToObject(null, null, ref iid, out source)
This means you have modified source. Issues of modified sources are not out
issues.
So far I was unable to reproduce the issue on my camera. Will try later with
other
cameras. In the meanwhile, please, test with original unmodified sources.
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 19 Aug 2009 at 1:37
please see svn/ branches/ 2.1/ Sources/ Video.DirectShow/
VideoCaptureDevice.cs
method DisplayPropertyPage.
it calls method CreateFilter. See line:
//object sourceObject = FilterInfo.CreateFilter( deviceMoniker );
svn/ branches/ 2.1/ Sources/ Video.DirectShow/ FilterInfo.cs
method CreateFilter
moniker.BindToObject( null, null, ref filterId, out filterObject );
This is original break point.
I think that error occurs when we call CreateFilter second time.
First time we call it in method WorkerThread (class VideoCaptureDevice)
This problem reproduce only with one camera, with other one it's ok. I think it
depends on camera driver. If it is posible to create twice filter, it's work ok.
Original comment by dkolt...@gmail.com
on 19 Aug 2009 at 4:41
Was unable to reproduce the issue on any of my cameras. It looks like it really
depends on camera/driver.
I tried to create only one sourceObject and share it between two routines.
However
in this case OleCreatePropertyFrame() was always crashing with
AccessViolationException. Maybe it is caused by the fact that the object is
used
from two threads. Or maybe there another bug somewhere in intreop.
If you could try investigating the issue and fixing it like you've suggested,
it
would be nice. I would appreciate for SVN patch file.
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 4 Sep 2009 at 2:43
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 19 Sep 2009 at 7:12
Hello,
If I give a patch, which probably fixes the issue, would you be able to apply
it and
test it? There is one more report describing similar issue, so it seems it
would be
better to fix it somehow. I got one idea to try. Did not make code yet, but
will do
it soon and looking for somebody who could test on the system, which reproduces
the
bug.
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 5 Oct 2009 at 9:25
Yes, I can test it.
As I remember, in directshownet library (http://directshownet.sourceforge.net/)
there
is no such bug.
Original comment by dkolt...@gmail.com
on 5 Oct 2009 at 11:23
Please, try the attached DLL. It checks if video source object fails to create
twice, then it redirects request to background thread, so it could show
property
page using its own source object. I hope it will work ...
For safety we can even not trying to create second source object, but redirect
requests to background thread if it is running (such version worked on my side,
but
I would like to try this one first, since it is better not to pass requests to
background thread if driver can create two source objects).
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 5 Oct 2009 at 2:49
Attachments:
I'll try this dll as soon as posible, but may be it'll be next week.
Original comment by dkolt...@gmail.com
on 5 Oct 2009 at 9:10
This is fine. Just try it when you have a moment and access to that camera,
which
reproduces the issue.
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 6 Oct 2009 at 8:18
It needs to handle exceptions in FilterInfo.CreateFilter
You are waiting NULL after call FilterInfo.CreateFilter, but it fails with
exception.
For my needs I replaced string "object sourceObject = FilterInfo.CreateFilter(
deviceMoniker );" with "object sourceObject = null;". It works. Thank you!
Original comment by dkolt...@gmail.com
on 12 Oct 2009 at 6:13
In the case if camera's driver does not allow several copies of video source
object,
we pass the request for displaying property page to background thread, which
deals
with video capture. Otherwise we create second source object and use it as
before.
Committed in revision 1099. Will be released in 2.0.2 (or 2.1 - whatever
happens
sooner).
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 13 Oct 2009 at 2:20
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 13 Oct 2009 at 2:22
Original comment by andrew.k...@gmail.com
on 5 Nov 2009 at 2:03
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dkolt...@gmail.com
on 11 Aug 2009 at 4:41