Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
This issue is being closed based on the following test data.
Hi Wei-Hao. I retrieved my Starfish camera from the observatory and just
finished running some timing tests here at home on Windows 7. Using PHD2, the
timing sequence for a 500mS exposure looks like this:
18:31:27.113 00.000 11796 Handling exposure in thread
18:31:27.114 00.001 11796 img.Init call
18:31:27.115 00.001 11796 Set ROI call
18:31:27.164 00.049 11796 Set duration call
18:31:27.251 00.087 11796 Start exposure call
18:31:27.256 00.005 11796 Waiting until near-end
18:31:27.658 00.402 11796 Start polling for completion
18:31:28.089 00.431 11796 Fishcamp says it's done
18:31:28.272 00.183 11796 Fishcamp image downloaded
18:31:28.273 00.001 11796 Exposure complete
So the end-to-end time is about 1.16 seconds. I then added diagnostic code in
the test application that Fishcamp ships with the camera. For the same 500mS
exposure, their timings are:
20:08:53:101 Set ROI
20:08:53:152 Set duration
20:08:53:252 Start exposure
20:08:54:064 Done exposing
20:08:54:248 Download complete
Again, the end-to-end time is about the same. Neither of these are using
sub-frames, so the download time is worst-case. But I don't see anything funny
about the PHD2 behavior. I think the delays are mostly due to the
communication traffic and the polling behavior. Changing any of this would
require changes in the underlying Fishcamp Windows static library, which we
don't have any control over. For any sort of normal guiding exposures, I
really don't see a problem here. The actual shutter-open times on the camera
look correct.
Original comment by bw_ms...@earthlink.net
on 11 Dec 2014 at 5:00
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
andy.gal...@gmail.com
on 24 Nov 2014 at 7:48Attachments: