I've had quite a few requests for the code, so I'm posting it to the list.
SHARP IR FORMAT.
The remote control format currently used in Sharp products consists of 250uS
pulses of 40KHz (10 cycles), the actual signal is carried in the gaps between
these pulses, where a 500uS gap is a '0', and a 1500uS gap a '1'. The format
uses 15 bits, which is then repeated with 10 of the bits inverted to enable
validation of a correctly received code.
As is obvious from the above discription, the actual length of each word is
dependent on the data it contains - the second word always appears 62ms after
the start pulse from the first word, this means the time from the end of the
first word to the beginning of the second varies with the data.
The codes consist of 4 parts.
The first 5 bits are the system code, this distinguishes between TV, VCR, etc.
The next 6 bits are the actual data code, eg '1', '2', 'Vol Up' etc.
The next 3 bits are extension bits, these are used if more than 63 commands are
required.
The last bit signifys wether the current word is inverted or not, '0' for a
normal word, '1' for the inverted version.
During the inverted word, only the last 10 bits are inverted, the system code
remains identical.
HARDWARE REQUIRED.
The hardware is very simple, it uses an IR preamp IC from a TV. This is a
three pin device which has connections for Earth, Power, and IR out (requires
a pull-up resistor). The version I'm using is a replacement for a Tatung 190
series, although any should be suitable - the IR out connection is normally
high, and goes low when 40KHz modulated Infrared is detected.
Power to the IC should be fed through a small resistor (220 ohms or so), and
decoupled with a 10uF capacitor. The IR out pin is connected to the 5 volt
supply via a 4.7kohm pull-up resistor.
I've got this built on a piece of vero-board along with 4 switches connected
to PortA and 8 LED's connected to PortB. This then connects via ribbon cable
to Don McKenzie's PICEX board, and from there to Don's programmer board, this
allows fairly rapid in-circuit programming and testing.
The IR input is connected to the RTCC input, but it can be used on any of
the input ports - just alter the constant IR_In at the beginning.
SOFTWARE.
This is the first PIC project I've tried to write, the initial idea was to
be able to use an RC to turn on or off 8 'devices', for testing purposes these
are LED's connected to PortB via 330 ohm resistors. At the present the
software also checks the keys on PortA, it then toggles the relevent LED, I
started adding this on the assumption that local keys would be useful.
As it stands, it uses codes from a Sharp Audio RC, I have also tried it using
remotes for Sharp TV's, VCR's, and CD players - in these cases just alter the
System code, examples are provided commented out.
I don't claim that the design is finished yet, but it does work, and should
make a useful starting point for anyone wishing to receive IR remote controls.
If anyone has any helpful comments, I'd be more than pleased to receive them.
;Read Sharp IR remote & turn LED's on or off.
LIST P=16C84, F=INHX8M
include "P16Cxx.inc"
Data_Hi Equ 0x10 ;buffers for first IR data
Data_Lo Equ 0x11
Data1_Hi Equ 0x12 ;buffers for second (inverted) IR data
Data1_Lo Equ 0x13
Num_Bits Equ 0x14 ;register for number of bits to read
Delay_Count EQU 0x15 ;used in key de-bounce routine
Delay_2 EQU 0x16 ;ditto
Count EQU 0x17 ;register for count of pulse width
Check Equ 0x18 ;Error Flags register
Key_Code Equ 0x19
IR_In Equ 4 ;bit position of IR sensor in PORTA
IR_Error Equ 1 ;Incorrect system flag
IR_Timeout Equ 2 ;Timed out flag
IR_System EQU 0x24 ;Sharp audio RC
;IR_System Equ 0x14 ;Sharp CD player RC
;IR_System Equ 0x40 ;Sharp TV RC
;IR_System Equ 0x60 ;Sharp VCR RC
Power Equ 0x68 ;individual key values for Audio RC.
XBass Equ 0x74
Ch_Up Equ 0x88
Ch_Down Equ 0x48
Vol_Up Equ 0x28
Vol_Down Equ 0xa8
CD Equ 0xd8
Tuner Equ 0x98
Tape Equ 0x58
Band Equ 0x6c
Vid_Aux Equ 0xf9
ORG 0000
Start CALL Init_Ports
Main_Loop CLRF Key_Code ;clear returned key value.
CALL Check_ForIR ;see if IR key pressed.
CALL Check_ForKey ;see if key pressed
CALL Display ;update display
GOTO Main_Loop
;Subroutines
Init_Ports BSF STATUS , RP0
CLRF TRISB
MOVLW 0xFF
MOVWF TRISA
BCF STATUS , RP0
CLRF PORTA
CLRF PORTB
RETURN
;Display subroutine, actions value in Key_Code
Display MOVLW 0x00 ;0, no key match found.
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
Return ;so return, no action
MOVLW 0x01 ;Power - turns LED 0 on
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BSF PORTB, 0
MOVLW 0x02 ;XBass - turns LED 0 off
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BCF PORTB, 0
MOVLW 0x03 ;Ch_Up - turns LED 1 on
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BSF PORTB, 1
MOVLW 0x04 ;Ch_Down - turns LED 1 off
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BCF PORTB, 1
MOVLW 0x05 ;Vol_Up - turns LED 2 on
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BSF PORTB, 2
MOVLW 0x06 ;Vol_Down - turns LED 2 off
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BCF PORTB, 2
MOVLW 0x07 ;CD - turns LED 3 on
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BSF PORTB, 3
MOVLW 0x08 ;Tuner - turns LED 3 off
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BCF PORTB, 3
MOVLW 0x09 ;Band - turns LED 4 on
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BSF PORTB, 4
MOVLW 0x0a ;Vid_Aux - turns LED 4 off
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSC STATUS, Z
BCF PORTB, 4
MOVLW 0x11 ;First Key pressed, toggle LED 0
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSS STATUS, Z
Goto Try_Second
MOVLW 0x01
XORWF PORTB, f
RETURN
Try_Second MOVLW 0x12 ;Second Key pressed, toggle LED 1
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSS STATUS, Z
Goto Try_Third
MOVLW 0x02
XORWF PORTB, f
Try_Third MOVLW 0x13 ;Third Key pressed, toggle LED 2
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSS STATUS, Z
Goto Try_Fourth
MOVLW 0x04
XORWF PORTB, f
Try_Fourth MOVLW 0x14 ;Fourth Key pressed, toggle LED 3
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSS STATUS, Z
Return
MOVLW 0x08
XORWF PORTB, f
RETURN
;IR subroutines
Check_ForIR BTFSC PORTA, IR_In ;look for IR start.
Return ;return if no signal.
CALL Read_IR ;Get first IR signal
BTFSC Check, IR_Timeout ;check if timed out.
Return
MOVFW Data_Hi
MOVWF Data1_Hi ;move first readings to buffer
MOVFW Data_Lo
MOVWF Data1_Lo
Wait_Negative BTFSC PORTA, IR_In ;look for second IR start.
Goto Wait_Negative
CALL Read_IR ;get second IR signal
BTFSC Check, IR_Timeout ;check if timed out
Return
;validate the IR data
Check_IR BTFSS Data_Lo, 0
Goto Flip_First ;invert the reversed data
MOVLW 0x03
XORWF Data_Hi, f
MOVLW 0xff
XORWF Data_Lo, f
GOTO Chk_Valid
Flip_First MOVLW 0x03
XORWF Data1_Hi, f
MOVLW 0xff
XORWF Data1_Lo, f
Chk_Valid BCF Check, IR_Error ;clear the error flag
MOVFW Data1_Hi
XORWF Data_Hi, w ;make sure hi bytes match
BTFSS STATUS, Z
BSF Check, IR_Error ;else set error flag
MOVFW Data1_Lo
XORWF Data_Lo, w ;same for lo byte
BTFSS STATUS, Z
BSF Check, IR_Error
MOVFW Data_Hi
ANDLW 0xFC ;mask off lower 2 bits
XORLW IR_System ;check if correct system
BTFSS STATUS, Z
BSF Check, IR_Error ;set error flag if wrong system code
RRF Data_Hi, f ;shift data word to correct place
RRF Data_Lo, f
RRF Data_Hi, f ;Move all data to Data_Lo
RRF Data_Lo, f ;ignore the ninth bit
;Search index for key match.
MOVLW 0x0b ;number of valid commands in table
MOVWF Key_Code
Try_Next MOVF Key_Code, W ;Move index value to W
CALL Table ;Get Key value in W
XORWF Data_Lo, W
BTFSC STATUS, Z
GOTO Key_Matched ;match found, exit routine
DECFSZ Key_Code, f ;try next code
GOTO Try_Next
Key_Matched RETURN ;return key in Key_Code, 0 for no-match
Read_IR Clrf Data_Hi ;Clear data buffers
Clrf Data_Lo
BCF Check, IR_Timeout ;clear timeout flag
MOVLW 0x0f ;set number of bits to read.
MOVWF Num_Bits
Bit_Loop Call Count_Pulse ;returns value in Count
BTFSC Check, IR_Timeout ;Quit if timed out
Return
MOVLW 0x54 ;load W with mid Count value
SUBWF Count, W ;subtract from Count value
BTFSC STATUS, C ;was returned Count equal to
Goto One_Pulse ; a '1'
BCF STATUS, C
Goto Zero_Pulse ;or a '0'
One_Pulse BSF STATUS, C
Zero_Pulse RLF Data_Lo, f ;rotate bit into buffers
RLF Data_Hi, f
DECFSZ Num_Bits, f ;done all bits?.
Goto Bit_Loop ;else go fetch next bit
CALL Wait_Positive ;wait for end of last IR pulse
Return
Count_Pulse Clrf Count
CALL Wait_Positive ;wait till end of pulse.
Pulse_Loop BTFSS PORTA, IR_In ;count space until next negative
Goto Pulse_End
MOVLW 0x03 ;use a loop for delay
MOVWF Delay_Count ;to keep Count in one register
Count_Loop DECFSZ Delay_Count , f
GOTO Count_Loop
INCFSZ Count, f ;check if timeout!
Goto Pulse_Loop
BSF Check, IR_Timeout
Pulse_End RETURN
Wait_Positive BTFSS PORTA, IR_In ;look for end of IR pulse.
Goto Wait_Positive
Return ;return after positive going.
;key reading routines.
Check_ForKey MOVLW 0x00 ;not 0, IR key match already found.
XORWF Key_Code, w
BTFSS STATUS, Z
Return ;so return, don't check keys
Key_Zero BTFSC PORTA, 0 ;check for key press
GOTO Key_One ;Try next key
Call Bounce_Delay ;key pressed, de-bounce.
Key0_Pressed BTFSS PORTA, 0 ;wait for key release
Goto Key0_Pressed
MOVLW 0x11 ;set key_code value for first key
MOVWF Key_Code
Return
Key_One BTFSC PORTA, 1 ;check for key press
Goto Key_Two ;Try next key
Call Bounce_Delay ;key pressed, de-bounce.
Key1_Pressed BTFSS PORTA, 1 ;wait for key release
Goto Key1_Pressed
MOVLW 0x12 ;set key_code value for 2nd key
MOVWF Key_Code
Key_Two BTFSC PORTA, 2 ;check for key press
Goto Key_Three ;return if not pressed
Call Bounce_Delay ;key pressed, de-bounce.
Key2_Pressed BTFSS PORTA, 2 ;wait for key release
Goto Key2_Pressed
MOVLW 0x13 ;set key_code value for 3rd key
MOVWF Key_Code
Key_Three BTFSC PORTA, 3 ;check for key press
Return ;return if not pressed
Call Bounce_Delay ;key pressed, de-bounce.
Key3_Pressed BTFSS PORTA, 3 ;wait for key release
Goto Key3_Pressed
MOVLW 0x14 ;set key_code value for 4th key
MOVWF Key_Code
Return
I wondered if any one of you have had a subroutine handy for PIC(16C74 in
particular) to interface with an 4 or 8-bit LCD display. The one that I
think I'd like to use is SHARP 16155, 1 line x 16 char. Please help me
out if you do have anything.
Thanks in advance.
- Lauren
| Lauren Kwan-Kit Leung email : .....lleungKILLspam@spam@ee.ubc.ca
| www : http://www.ee.ubc.ca/~lleung
| University of British Columbia tel : 733-3098
| Faculty of Applied Science pager : 1-604-978-7657
| Electrical Engineering (Computer) callsign: VE7IPC <145.270MHz->
At 09:37 96/06/25 -0700, you wrote:
>I wondered if any one of you have had a subroutine handy for PIC(16C74 in
>particular) to interface with an 4 or 8-bit LCD display. The one that I
>think I'd like to use is SHARP 16155, 1 line x 16 char. Please help me
>out if you do have anything.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>- Lauren
I have an example that of a 4bit interface to the industry standard LCD
display. Let me know if you want it and I will e-mail the source directly
to you (A little large for the list.)
>Hi, all,
>
>I wondered if any one of you have had a subroutine handy for PIC(16C74 in
>particular) to interface with an 4 or 8-bit LCD display. The one that I
>think I'd like to use is SHARP 16155, 1 line x 16 char. Please help me
>out if you do have anything.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>- Lauren
>
>| Lauren Kwan-Kit Leung email : .....lleungKILLspam.....ee.ubc.ca
>| www : http://www.ee.ubc.ca/~lleung
>| University of British Columbia tel : 733-3098
>| Faculty of Applied Science pager : 1-604-978-7657
>| Electrical Engineering (Computer) callsign: VE7IPC <145.270MHz->
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norm Cramer Work: EraseMEcramerspam_OUTTakeThisOuTdseg.ti.com
Texas Instruments Home: cramerspam_OUTiamerica.net
Software Engineering Voice: 214-462-4923
Embedded Real Time Systems aka WD2AEM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I used to had a 4 bit interface program for LCD from the list
but it got lost. Would it be possible to receive yours over e-mail ?
Thanks
Carlos Lopez-Reyna
I have received several requests for the code, should I go ahead and post it
to the list, or e-mail each person? The text is about 900 lines long.
Norm
At 10:17 AM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Norman,
>
> Hi, I used to had a 4 bit interface program for LCD from the list
>but it got lost. Would it be possible to receive yours over e-mail ?
>Thanks
> Carlos Lopez-Reyna
>
>
You will also need the p16c84.inc file (or variant for your PIC) from
Microchip. I think these come with MPLAB. Let me know if there are any
questions.
Thanks,
Norm
At 10:01 AM 6/26/96 -0500, you wrote:
>I have received several requests for the code, should I go ahead and post it
>to the list, or e-mail each person? The text is about 900 lines long.
>
>Norm
>
Hi, I purchased the SHARP 16155 16 x 1 line lcd panel and I'm working on
my first PIC project, when I connect up power to the lcd panel (4 AA's) and
pull the contrast pin low, only the first 8 (leftmost) characters are fully
dark and the last eight are slightly dark, my question is: is this display
fried or is this normal behavior for this display without any type of
initialization routine?,
thanks in advance,
-Russ, (CS student who's new to electronics)
That's normal. You have to initialize the controller before it will multiplex
(and therefore scan all 16 digits). I don't think I like hooking it up to 4 raw
AA batteries, though. Check the voltage specs.
It sounds like your display, although it is visually a 16x1 line display,
is configured hardware wise as an 8x2 line display (two 8 character lines,
horizontally laid out).
The first 8 characters are at addresses 00h - 07h, the last 8 characters
are addresses 40h-47h.
The powerup default for the Hitachi chip is a one line display, so since
yours is hardware wise an 8x2 line display, only the first line shows up,
the first 8 characters. You need to send the display the instruction code
for 2 line display and you will see the other half.
Dave
At 09:27 AM 7/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
> Hi, I purchased the SHARP 16155 16 x 1 line lcd panel and I'm working on
>my first PIC project, when I connect up power to the lcd panel (4 AA's) and
>pull the contrast pin low, only the first 8 (leftmost) characters are fully
>dark and the last eight are slightly dark, my question is: is this display
>fried or is this normal behavior for this display without any type of
>initialization routine?,
> thanks in advance,
> -Russ, (CS student who's new to electronics)
>
>
> when I connect up power to the lcd panel (4 AA's) and pull the
> contrast pin low, only the first 8 (leftmost) characters are fully
> dark and the last eight are slightly dark, my question is: is this
> display fried or is this normal behavior for this display without
> any type of initialization routine?,
I have a Sharp ZQ-1250 organiser with an option port and would like to build
a PC interface so I can download information from it. Does anybody know of
the protocol involved and whether this interface could be accomplished with
a PIC based solution ?
I'm working on a circuit whit a pic16c84 and a Sharp IS1U60.
This circuit must receive a signal form a television remote control and
tourn on the right relay. There is someone that's now which television
remote control is compatible whith the Sharp IS1U60 and the transmission
protocol?
Thank you.
===================================================
Alboni Giorgio
Faenza (Ra) ITALY
E-Mail: TakeThisOuTrac1337EraseMEspam_OUTracine.ravenna.it
www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/5444
===================================================
The Sharp IS1U60 just a standard 38khz opic sensor. If the remote you
are using is just somewhere near 38khz the sensor will still work. I
don't know what the data looks like coming from your remote, but it must
meet certain specs. On the IS1U60 you need a burst of 38khz IR light
for at least 600us. When the sensor sees the correct burst it will pull
pin one low. If you can't get close to 38khz and need a little more
range try the GP1U58X series. They are have many diffrent center freq
to choose from.
>
> I'm working on a circuit whit a pic16c84 and a Sharp IS1U60.
> This circuit must receive a signal form a television remote control and
> tourn on the right relay. There is someone that's now which television
> remote control is compatible whith the Sharp IS1U60 and the transmission
> protocol?
> Thank you.
> ===================================================
> Alboni Giorgio
> Faenza (Ra) ITALY
> E-Mail: rac1337EraseME.....racine.ravenna.it
> www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/5444
> ===================================================
Does anyone have experience with the Sharp GP2D02 IR ranging module? I am
trying to make one work with a PIC and finding that
its not quite like the data sheet.
Nick Taylor wrote:
>
> Can someone please point me toward a source for
> the Sharp GP1U581Y IR detector?
> TIA,
> - - - Nick - - -
Nick, it needs to be the Sharp part?
Digikey has some smaller in a TO-92 format (almost),
and... cost less...
The Digikey equivalent to Sharp is the p/n 160-1033-ND,
cost $3.45 (32.7kHz) or p/n 160-1060-ND, $2.88 (40 kHz),
while the TO-92 (almost) format has two versions, with
side or top pins, from 33,36,38,40,56.8kHz, everyone
cost $2.50 each. Take a look at catalog Jan-Mar99,
page 575 bottom right. This miniaturized styles are
just like a molded chip, different from the Sharp style
in a small metal box.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wagner Lipnharski - UST Research Inc. - Orlando, Florida
Forum and microcontroller web site: http://www.ustr.net
Microcontrollers Survey: http://www.ustr.net/tellme.htm
Just a note, they are considerably larger than a T0-92, but still small.
also, they have discontinued the bigger ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the PI-100 Club:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751
058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
> Nick Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Can someone please point me toward a source for
> > the Sharp GP1U581Y IR detector?
> > TIA,
> > - - - Nick - - -
>
> Nick, it needs to be the Sharp part?
> Digikey has some smaller in a TO-92 format (almost),
> and... cost less...
>
> The Digikey equivalent to Sharp is the p/n 160-1033-ND,
> cost $3.45 (32.7kHz) or p/n 160-1060-ND, $2.88 (40 kHz),
> while the TO-92 (almost) format has two versions, with
> side or top pins, from 33,36,38,40,56.8kHz, everyone
> cost $2.50 each. Take a look at catalog Jan-Mar99,
> page 575 bottom right. This miniaturized styles are
> just like a molded chip, different from the Sharp style
> in a small metal box.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Wagner Lipnharski - UST Research Inc. - Orlando, Florida
> Forum and microcontroller web site: http://www.ustr.net
> Microcontrollers Survey: http://www.ustr.net/tellme.htm
>
Thanks to all for your responses ... but I still haven't been
able to locate a supplier for the GP1U581Y IR detector.
A search of B.G.Micro's and DigiKey's web sites produced
no results. The two local Radio Shacks stock a similar
unit by Everlight, but the IR window is on the top of the
box instead of the front. DigiKey does stock a unit by
LiteOn that is similar, but the supplier of my IRPD PIC
says that the LiteOn unit will not work with the 12508 as
programmed.
Any more ideas?
- - - Nick - - -
>
> Nick Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Can someone please point me toward a source for
> > the Sharp GP1U581Y IR detector?
> > TIA,
> > - - - Nick - - -
>
> Nick, it needs to be the Sharp part?
> Digikey has some smaller in a TO-92 format (almost),
> and... cost less...
>
> The Digikey equivalent to Sharp is the p/n 160-1033-ND,
> cost $3.45 (32.7kHz) or p/n 160-1060-ND, $2.88 (40 kHz),
> while the TO-92 (almost) format has two versions, with
> side or top pins, from 33,36,38,40,56.8kHz, everyone
> cost $2.50 each. Take a look at catalog Jan-Mar99,
> page 575 bottom right. This miniaturized styles are
> just like a molded chip, different from the Sharp style
> in a small metal box.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Wagner Lipnharski - UST Research Inc. - Orlando, Florida
> Forum and microcontroller web site: http://www.ustr.net
> Microcontrollers Survey: http://www.ustr.net/tellme.htm
Sorry for the OT, but i have a circuit that use the Sharp HL5168 chip
and
I need to know about this for my new PIC project. Data sheets or at the
least a pinouts would be very nice.
Hi everybody,
a friend of mine give me a GP1U73QF, a tinned metal cube ir sensor.
On the net I was not be able to found the datasheet.
I got many other, GP1U58X, GP1U78Q series, but nothing about GP1U73QF.
I suppose that pinout is similar to the other models.
The only info I really need is the - f0 typ. -.
I have a Sharp ZQ-1250 electronic organiser (bully for me!) that I would like to
"extract" information from to my PC, for backup purposes. I know Sharp provide a
lead for connecting two of these units together but not one to a PC. Besides,
that would probably cost about
£100 for a metre of 3 core and 2
connectors........so......
Does anyone know of the protocol involved? I know it is a 3 line system (TX, RX,
GND) but it appears to require some handshaking; it seemed reluctant to just
squirt the data out.
Sorry to post again on this subject but I now have a data sheet for this
part (well, the driver chip....but not the product I am using) and the LCD
will not work.
I think that some of the information is lost in the translation from
Japanese which makes it difficult to read what really needs to be done with
the device. The result of this is that I believe the LCD is not being
initialised properly.
From the data sheet, it suggests following the following course of events
(LCD initialise) <<-- Whatever this means.....Does this mean to initialise
it or that it has been initialised by the power up?
<i2c start>
<set addr>
<begin to send data>
<i2c stop>
However, the LCD does not ack the slave address that the data sheet
suggests. Hence, I did this (CCS C). >>>
void I2C_TestLCD(void)
{
uint8_t Addr;
// Set outputs floating
output_high(EEPROM_SDA);
output_high(EEPROM_SCL);
// Setup the configuration byte
for(Addr = 0 ; Addr < 255 ; Addr++)
{
i2c_start();
delay_ms(WAIT);
if(i2c_write(Addr))
{
// It ignores this address
printf("%03U=NAK\n\r", Addr);
}
else
{
// found the address.....it acks
printf("%03U=ACK\n\r", Addr);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x00);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x20);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x01);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x0E);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x06);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x40);
delay_ms(WAIT);
// Write data to DDRAM
i2c_start();
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(Addr);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x00);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x80);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_start();
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(Addr);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x40);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x52);
delay_ms(WAIT);
i2c_write(0x52);
delay_ms(WAIT);
}
i2c_stop();
}
}
This way, I find the slave address then write out the sequence suggested in
the LCD data sheet. Does it work? Nope!
If the thing is anything like the Hitachi, then I know they can be quite
fickle about initialisation.
I presume that this is not being done properly and the datasheet I have
does not say how to do it.
Has anyone knowledge of/written a driver for this LCD?
part 0 44 bytes his is a multi-part message in MIME format. part 1 3946 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii (decoded 7bit)
Hi, Dan,
I know that Varitronix uses the Sharp LH1596 instead of the LH1594. We
maintain a small inventory on this I2C LCD modules having part number
MDLS16265. They sure comes in handy for a simple serial display where
saving on PIC I/O pins is needed.
I have attached a sample C code for driving this device for you. Hope
it helps. Let me know if you need further information regarding this
LH1596 since I only have a printed version.
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to post again on this subject but I now have a data sheet for this
> part (well, the driver chip....but not the product I am using) and the LCD
> will not work.
> I think that some of the information is lost in the translation from
> Japanese which makes it difficult to read what really needs to be done with
> the device. The result of this is that I believe the LCD is not being
> initialised properly.
>
> >From the data sheet, it suggests following the following course of events
>
> (LCD initialise) <<-- Whatever this means.....Does this mean to initialise
> it or that it has been initialised by the power up?
> <i2c start>
> <set addr>
> <begin to send data>
> <i2c stop>
>
> However, the LCD does not ack the slave address that the data sheet
> suggests. Hence, I did this (CCS C). >>>
>
> void I2C_TestLCD(void)
> {
>
> uint8_t Addr;
>
> // Set outputs floating
> output_high(EEPROM_SDA);
> output_high(EEPROM_SCL);
>
> // Setup the configuration byte
>
> for(Addr = 0 ; Addr < 255 ; Addr++)
> {
>
> i2c_start();
> delay_ms(WAIT);
>
> if(i2c_write(Addr))
> {
> // It ignores this address
> printf("%03U=NAK\n\r", Addr);
> }
> else
> {
> // found the address.....it acks
> printf("%03U=ACK\n\r", Addr);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x00);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x20);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x01);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x0E);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x06);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x40);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> // Write data to DDRAM
> i2c_start();
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(Addr);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x00);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x80);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_start();
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(Addr);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x40);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x52);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
> i2c_write(0x52);
> delay_ms(WAIT);
>
> }
>
> i2c_stop();
>
> }
>
> }
>
> This way, I find the slave address then write out the sequence suggested in
> the LCD data sheet. Does it work? Nope!
> If the thing is anything like the Hitachi, then I know they can be quite
> fickle about initialisation.
>
> I presume that this is not being done properly and the datasheet I have
> does not say how to do it.
> Has anyone knowledge of/written a driver for this LCD?
>
> Best regards,
> Dan
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
> (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
part 2 6559 bytes content-type:application/x-unknown-content-type-cFile; (decode)
I'm searching for any info about LM64N731 (640x480 dots) Sharp graphical
LCD ( 1990 ) If there is someone who had worked before with this LCD, I
will be grateful for any kind of info or datasheet.
Thank you in advance,
Vasile
I just did a search on http://www.partminer.com which has always been brilliant for
datasheets. It did not come up with anything for LM64N731, but if you do a
search for LM64 and search type = 'contains', you get lots of other Sharp
LCD datasheets. I've no doubt that at least some of those LCDs will have the
same controller chips as yours does and the data might be applicable.
Alternatively, look at the controllers on the LCD and get the datasheets for
these. I've got loads of LCDs that use the HD66204/5's and the only way I
could figure out how to use the thing was to get the datasheets for these
chips....
Vasile Surducan wrote:
>I'm searching for any info about LM64N731 (640x480 dots) Sharp graphical
>LCD ( 1990 ) If there is someone who had worked before with this LCD, I
>will be grateful for any kind of info or datasheet.
In the market for a new handheld? You're probably choosing between two basic
flavors: Palm OS and Microsoft Pocket PC. Not anymore. Sharp offers a new
alternative with its new Linux-powered Zaurus SL-5500, which our reviews
team recently put through its paces. The Zaurus has the same beefy specs
found in Pocket PCs including a 206MHz Intel StrongARM processor, 64MB of
RAM, a replaceable lithium-ion battery--lasting more than three hours in our
labs' tests--and a 320x240-pixel reflective TFT screen capable of displaying
64,000 colors. And it has the expansion options found in top-of-the-line
PDAs, in this case both CompactFlash Type II and MultiMedia Card
(MMC)/Secure Digital (SD) slots. But the coolest feature by far is the thumb
keyboard that appears when you pull down the lower panel--a feature found
only with the Handspring Treo 180g and forthcoming Sony CLIE PEG-NR70.
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Hi.
I happen to have a batch of SHARP LM16A211, 16x2 STN LCD modules.
A plain standard LCD module, non-backlit.
Data sheet : www.elementy.pl/katalog/element.pdf/900657.pdf
The is the type with the 14 pin single in line cable connector, not the
dual line (7x2) pin connector. I think the single line types are
easier to solder to a piece of ribbon cable...
$9.50 USD in singles *incl world wide airmail priority shipping*.
Ask for other quantities (I've got aprox 800 of them)
Jan-Erik.
jan-erik -dot- soderholm -at- telia -dot com
(My paypal id is the same...)
> Hi.
> I happen to have a batch of SHARP LM16A211, 16x2 STN LCD modules.
> A plain standard LCD module, non-backlit.
> Data sheet : www.elementy.pl/katalog/element.pdf/900657.pdf
> The is the type with the 14 pin single in line cable connector, not the
> dual line (7x2) pin connector. I think the single line types are
> easier to solder to a piece of ribbon cable...
>
> $9.50 USD in singles *incl world wide airmail priority shipping*.
>
> Ask for other quantities (I've got aprox 800 of them)
>
> Jan-Erik.
> jan-erik -dot- soderholm -at- telia -dot com
> (My paypal id is the same...)
>
>
>
(I never saw this message on the list, so I resend...)
Hi.
I happen to have a batch of Sharp LM16A211, 16x2 STN LCD modules.
A plain standard 16x2 LCD module, non-backlit.
Data sheet : www.elementy.pl/katalog/element.pdf/900657.pdf
The is the type with the 14 pin single row cable connector, not the
dual row (7x2) pin connector. I think the single row types are
a bit easier to solder to the ribbon cable...
These modules comes right from the original Sharp boxes.
Never been out, just been stored in a warehouse.
$9.50 USD in singles *incl world-wide airmail priority shipping*.
$32.50 USD for 6 pc *incl world-wide airmail priority shipping*.
Ask for other quantities (I've got aprox 800 left of them...)
Regards,
Jan-Erik.
jan-erik -dot- soderholm -at- telia -dot com
(My paypal id is the same...)
I am working on implementing a 24.576mbps optic connection that's short
haul (IE 50M) using an NRZ algo. These parts are within spec of what I
would like to use. However it seems hard to find the parts and decent
specs on them on the web? Sharp seems to make a number of the parts but
provides ZERO data sheets no mounting information.. zilch (what gives
with that?) After getting over how .. anoying that was (grin), I
looked else where.
What I need is the standard square style optic interface used in audio
and video systems (cable is readily available hence why I would like to
use it). Anyhow Infinion seems to make something 'faster' but not the
correct interface configuration. Toshiba supposedly makes similar part
but they are all too slow. Apart from these anoyances, is standard
plastic optical cable hard to pump high bit rate data through? It
seems most of the transmitters and receivers are rated from 6mbps to
25mbps. And also only rated for 0.2m to 10m. This seems rather short
(32.8 feet max is a bit short to me at least).
Also I see on some newer audio equipement a Jack labeled "DTS digital"
that's orange. I have for the life of me been unable to find any
information on this. Is this SDIF by Sony or something? It seems
rather obfuscated use of labeling and terminology at times.
=====
Stephen R. Phillips was here
Please be advised what was said may be absolutely wrong, and hereby this disclaimer follows. I reserve the right to be wrong and admit it in front of the entire world.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Does anyone know of any application notes on this display? The datasheet
is pretty useless as far as figuring out how to light up pixels. The
datasheet on the controller chip (LR38825) has LOTS of data, but can be
configured to drive a wide variety of displays, so it's difficult to
figure out how to set each of the 256 or so registers. The datasheet does
have a nice power on and power off sequence where they give you a register
number and what to write. But, as far as lighting a specific pixel, no
data is given. The controller datasheet gives us this helpful information
under "VRAM access sequence: For setting specification of register
address/register data, refer to 10. Register list."
The setting is called "macro mode", and it's usually represented by a
"flower" icon. Combined with good lighting, you can get pictures that look
like this:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Vitaliy <RemoveMEspamspam_OUTKILLspammaksimov.org> wrote:
> I've noticed that many people overlook a simple setting that is present in
> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>
Bob Blick wrote:
>> > P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
>> > board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>
>> tantalum backwards?
>
>
> +5 points to you, Mark!
Sorry for making it so easy. ;-)
A bit of background: this was a prototype we received from a contract
manufacturer in China. They made the common mistake of assuming that the
stripe means "cathode".
I used a co-workers iphone (no macro mode) (for http://home.fuse.net/theannos/heat.html these pics). Our company camera
keeps ending up at the boss's house. ;)
But I usually use a canon with macro mode and what a difference it makes!
> The setting is called "macro mode", and it's usually represented by a
> "flower" icon. Combined with good lighting, you can get pictures that look
> like this:
>
> http://maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg
>
> The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
> tripod.
>
> Hope someone finds this useful,
>
> Vitaliy
>
Another good way is to bung it on your flatbed scanner if it has decent
optics and can focus at objects further than its own glass.
I actually use my scanner as a "magnifying glass" for visual inspection of
PCBs.
Vitaliy wrote:
> The setting is called "macro mode", and it's usually represented by a
> "flower" icon. Combined with good lighting, you can get pictures that
> look like this:
>
> http://maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg
>
> The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
> tripod.
Not bad for handheld, although handheld versus tripod has more to do with
the light level and the camera's sensitivity than macro mode.
If you really care about your pictures, you should color correct them. You
must have taken this picture in very orange light, probably incandescent. I
took your original picture and color corrected it assuming the silkscreen on
the board is white. You can see the result at http://www.embedinc.com/temp/board.tif.
> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
If it was pick and placed, I have had reels where the occasional cap
in backwards or more likely someone had picked up the the dropped
components and plonked them back in the reel incorrectly. Yes it is
possible to pull the tape back over the containers, and wrap the reel
back up.
> Bob Blick wrote:
>>>> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong
>>>> with this
>>>> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>>
>>> tantalum backwards?
>>
>>
>> +5 points to you, Mark!
>
> Sorry for making it so easy. ;-)
>
> A bit of background: this was a prototype we received from a contract
> manufacturer in China. They made the common mistake of assuming that
> the
> stripe means "cathode".
Time to find another contract manufacturer. A person that does
assembly work should certainly recognize components and polarity
markings.
Vitaliy wrote:
> The setting is called "macro mode", and it's usually represented by a
> "flower" icon. Combined with good lighting, you can get pictures that look
> like this:
>
> http://maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg
I find it easier to just put the PCB flat on a scanner...
A couple of years ago, I bought a couple of surplus NCR impact printer
modules. Basically an Epson M183 printer mech mounted on a driver PCB. I
managed to get a decent copy of the datasheet, which (not very helpfully)
contained the passage:
For details on recommended drive circuitry, see Application Note AN-12345
Said application note was apparently long since out of print, and after three
weeks of emailing and calling distributors I still didn't have any details on
the "recommended" drive circuit... In the end, I heat-gunned the PCB, removed
all the components, scanned both sides of the board into Paint Shop Pro (see,
I told you it was a while ago!) and reverse engineered it.
I ended up with a good half-dozen inkjet composites of the various PCB layers,
and a scribbly pencil schematic. It wasn't much fun, but I did get the printer
board to print something (badly). $DEITY knows what I did with the PIC code
for that thing, but I seem to recall it being based on some code I wrote to
drive a Seiko MTP201-20B thermal printer module (whose printed output was,
incidentally, far more readable).
Incidentally, I have yet to find a use for either of the printer modules...
None of my other projects have really needed the ability to print onto rolls
of pulped, dried, bleached and specially-coated tree...
> The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
> tripod.
Here are a few examples of mine, of a slightly more "artistic" nature:
A rather nice looking Hewlett-Packard (, Agilent, Avago, or whatever they're
called this week) HDSP-2113 8-digit "intelligent" LED display:
www.flickr.com/photos/philpem/3370524401
Not so much artistic as purposefully bumping the aperture up so more of the
object is in focus (depth-of-field is proportional to aperture). The sort of
thing I'd do if I was taking a picture for an ebay auction, really...
All three photos were taken with a Canon 40D, EF-S 60mm macro lens and
580EX-II flashgun. I have to confess, I started out ~10 years ago with an
Olympus Trip 35, and have since gotten a little carried away! :)
> Actually, the PIC wont start because it has no power. I win.
Of course it won't start. That backward tantalum caused a literal
short on VCC. See the solder blobs around the cap? Either that is
some mighty nasty soldering, or else that cap got mighty hot when the
board was powered.
>> Bob Blick wrote:
>>>>> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong
>>>>> with this
>>>>> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>>>
>>>> tantalum backwards?
>>>
>>>
>>> +5 points to you, Mark!
>>
>> Sorry for making it so easy. ;-)
>>
>> A bit of background: this was a prototype we received from a contract
>> manufacturer in China. They made the common mistake of assuming that
>> the
>> stripe means "cathode".
>
> Time to find another contract manufacturer. A person that does
> assembly work should certainly recognize components and polarity
> markings.
You know it's always a tradeoff between the three variables. :)
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> maksimov.org/piclist/macro_mode/IMG_0438.jpg
>>
>> The picture was taken with a cheap digital camera, without the use of a
>> tripod.
>
> Not bad for handheld, although handheld versus tripod has more to do with
> the light level and the camera's sensitivity than macro mode.
You missed the point, Olin. In the other picture, the object of interest was
out of focus. That's what the macro mode helps with.
> If you really care about your pictures, you should color correct them.
> You
> must have taken this picture in very orange light, probably incandescent.
> I
> took your original picture and color corrected it assuming the silkscreen
> on
> the board is white. You can see the result at
> http://www.embedinc.com/temp/board.tif.
Looks nice, although I posted the raw un-retouched picture on purpose
(otherwise, I would have also made it sharper). FWIW, I think you
over-corrected it, it looks purple/violet in places. :)
>> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
>> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>
> You forgot to hook up power to the board.
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> P.S. In case you're bored -- can you figure out what is wrong with this
>> board? Hint: the PIC will not start up.
>
> Unfair! The others have spotted the tantalum while I my FF could not
> find the image :(
>
> But Olin's 'corrected' version did load.
>
> Switching to nitpicking mode: where is the 100nF decoupling for that
> PIC? And shouldn't that Xtal be near to the chip?
Joseph Bento wrote:
>> Actually, the PIC wont start because it has no power. I win.
>
> Of course it won't start. That backward tantalum caused a literal
> short on VCC. See the solder blobs around the cap? Either that is
> some mighty nasty soldering, or else that cap got mighty hot when the
> board was powered.
IIRC, what happened was the tech replaced the cap to make sure it was
causing the problem, and then stuck it back on the way it was, for the
picture.
Picbits Sales <sales <at> picbits.co.uk> writes:
> Another good way is to bung it on your flatbed scanner if it has decent
> optics and can focus at objects further than its own glass.
I have bad experiences with scanners used for this. Even a photo left in its 3mm
glass frame (too old to remove) was scanned out of focus and I had to pry it
out. Brand name scanner, 1200 real dpi and still ...
Depth of field is extremely closely related to lighting and numeric aperture.
Usually scanner optics don't have anything resembling a diaphragm so they use
the full aperture and good bright color-true light is expensive and short-lived
so you get *very* shallow depth of field.
Please do not confuse contemporary led-lit full row ccd sensor scanners with 1kW
xenon-lit photocopiers and ancient flying spot scanners which *did* have
respectable depth of field because of loose optics, small numerical aperture and
oodles of light. Point in (lower) ... cheek:
> You missed the point, Olin. In the other picture, the object of interest
> was
> out of focus. That's what the macro mode helps with.
Macro mode is USUALLY more about focussing distance than about depth of
focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some manufacturers as a
secondary issue.
The "official" [tm] way to achieve a wider depth of focus is to use a
smaller aperture (larger f number). The smaller the better down to about
f22. Beyond that you may get blurring due to diffraction effects. YMMV and
probably will. It may be that the camera in your example also reduces
aperture as part of its macro function?
Aperture control tends to be available only in more upmarket cameras.
>> Another good way is to bung it on your flatbed scanner if it has decent
>> optics and can focus at objects further than its own glass.
>
> I have bad experiences with scanners used for this. Even a photo left in its 3mm
> glass frame (too old to remove) was scanned out of focus and I had to pry it
> out. Brand name scanner, 1200 real dpi and still ...
>
> Depth of field is extremely closely related to lighting and numeric aperture.
> Usually scanner optics don't have anything resembling a diaphragm so they use
> the full aperture and good bright color-true light is expensive and short-lived
> so you get *very* shallow depth of field.
>
> Please do not confuse contemporary led-lit full row ccd sensor scanners with 1kW
> xenon-lit photocopiers and ancient flying spot scanners which *did* have
> respectable depth of field because of loose optics, small numerical aperture and
> oodles of light. Point in (lower) ... cheek:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_grO7H2FD8
> (warning grainy content: http://mefeedia.com/entry/how-to-photocopy/13905392)
The copier on that clip has no need for large depth of field...
RAW - CHDK can record raw files, giving you access to every
bit of data the sensor saw, without compression or
processing. Raw files can be manipulated on the camera, or
processed on your PC. CHDK also has experimental support for
the open DNG raw standard.
Joseph Bento wrote:
> Time to find another contract manufacturer. A person that does
> assembly work should certainly recognize components and polarity
> markings.
They should have either gotten the polarity from the little "+", the
assembly drawing, or asked if the information was missing.
However, Vitaliy didn't exactly help himself with the silkscreen. Providing
the minimum necessary information makes it only so you can blame someone
else for mistakes. A good designer tries to provide sufficient and
convenient information to minimize the chance of mistakes in the first
place. Some obvious bad board design I see:
- The pads for C1 are too big. No big surprise it ended up crooked like
that.
- The part for C1 is marked with a band but the silkscreen is only marked
with a "+". While technically the manufacturer screwed up, the poor
silkscreen design was just asking for this. It's a good idea to mark "+"
and "-" for all polarized capacitors anyway to aid in debugging later, but
the band should also have been shown on the silkscreen. Again, it's not
about what you can get away with but about solving the problem.
- The part designator for the PIC (IC1?) is missing although there is plenty
of room.
- There are no visible pin 1 or other orientation markings for the three
ICs. Maybe they are under the IC, which is a real rookie mistake. Sure,
that helps with initial manufacturing, but does nothing for inspection and
debugging later. The right answer is of course to do both. I would put a
nice fat "IC1" under IC1 (I'm assuming that's the PIC), a filled circle
under the pin 1 dimple, a triangle or something marking pin 1 outside the
part (like you did with connector CN3), and another "IC1" designator outside
the part.
- Several silkscreen designators are in awkward orientations. Yes I know
the information is still there, but people aren't perfect and make mistakes.
The easier and more comfortable you make it for people to read the
information, the less chance of a mistake. It would only have taken a few
seconds to fix "Q1", "C4", "+5V", and "CN3".
I know I sound like a broken record, but neatness and attention to detail
matter. This is a perfect example. The cost of a extra minute to do the
silkscreen right instead of getting away with the minimum effort would have
cost less than finding the boards didn't work, diagnosing the problem, and
now having to rework all the ones that were made. Again, while the
manufacturer screwed up, the ultimate fault is sloppy design by the EE.
If any of my guys showed me a board like this I would make them fix it
before sending it out. So Vitaliy, not only do you have a problem with a
sloppy EE, but also a problem with a system that lets him get away with it.
Since you're apparently in charge, I'd say the EE is 75% at fault for sloppy
design and you're 25% at fault for allowing a culture where that is
acceptable.
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> Switching to nitpicking mode: where is the 100nF decoupling for that
> PIC? And shouldn't that Xtal be near to the chip?
Good points. I hadn't even tried to look at the electrical design. This
looks to be a 2 layer board, but a lot of traces are apparently on the
bottom layer. I would put as much as possible on the top layer to leave the
bottom layer a ground plane except for the occasional "jumper" when traces
have to cross. C2 and C3 appear to be the crystal load caps. I shudder to
think what the high frequency current loop looks like.
Vitaliy, some of the above is speculation, but it does look like you've got
a rookie doing electrical design with no senior engineer keeping him honest
(or a bozo for a senior engineer). Bad design costs, sometimes in
non-obvious ways, and this board is a good example.
Kevin wrote:
>
> Here's a way to get at the raw data from your camera sensor.
> I have not used it, YMMV.
I have. Although I am not using the RAW feature yet, just the
programmability aspect to control the camera. There's a few pics up on
the new free blog site - posterous.com:
>
> No modifications. No firmware changes. FREE. Just add a file
> to the memory card and it loads when you use it.
>
> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
>
> RAW - CHDK can record raw files, giving you access to every
> bit of data the sensor saw, without compression or
> processing. Raw files can be manipulated on the camera, or
> processed on your PC. CHDK also has experimental support for
> the open DNG raw standard.
>
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Macro mode is USUALLY more about focussing distance than about depth
> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
> manufacturers as a secondary issue.
I don't know why you qualify with "usually". In fact, pure macro mode
actually decreases overall light transfer. The light transfer from the
subject to the image plane is governed by the f-stop (ratio of lens
aperature to lens focal length) times the apparently little known expression
1
-----
1 + M
where M is the magnification from subject to image plane. Most of the time
the subject is much larger than its image on the image plane. Let's say for
a head-shot portrait the subject being photographed is 500mm high, which
ends up 24mm high on a "35mm" film frame for a magnification of 0.05. That
means the light transfer is 1/1.05 = .95 of what you would expect by looking
at the f-stop alone. Since in photography exposure variations need to be
about 1/2 f-stop or so to be significant, a factor of .95 = .07 f-stop can
be ignored. Obviously for landcapes M is so vanishingly small to make the
the additional exposure factor 1 for meaningful purposes.
Once you get into "macro" territory, you can no longer ignore this effect.
Note that at 1:1 magnification, you are down a full factor of 2, or 1
f-stop. Of course any such modern camera will measure the light and
therefore automatically adjust. However, you are still left with a
aperture/speed tradeoff one f-stop below what you would otherwise expect.
Since simple cameras like the one Vitaliy is apparently using don't expose
this, the net result is either a longer exposure time or less depth of
field, but certainly not more depth of field.
I expect you knew all this, Russell. I'm saying this because I think there
are lots of people listening in that don't understand photography at this
level.
> - The part for C1 is marked with a band but the silkscreen is only
> marked
> with a "+". While technically the manufacturer screwed up, the poor
> silkscreen design was just asking for this. It's a good idea to
> mark "+"
> and "-" for all polarized capacitors anyway to aid in debugging
> later, but
> the band should also have been shown on the silkscreen.
Hmm. Does adding a band make the board dependent on a particular
marking of the caps? There seems to be some variation in which side
GETS the band on tantalums?
And where on the silkscreen do you PUT the band? It would "logically"
go right across one of the pads, since the pads and terminals usually
extend partially under the cap.
(I tried to check Olin's boards, but he seem to avoid this style of
cap...)
William Chops" Westfield" wrote:
> Hmm. Does adding a band make the board dependent on a particular
> marking of the caps?
Probably no worse than the particular footprint.
> And where on the silkscreen do you PUT the band? It would "logically"
> go right across one of the pads, since the pads and terminals usually
> extend partially under the cap.
I would put the band next to one of the pads, just like you do with a diode.
> (I tried to check Olin's boards, but he seem to avoid this style of
> cap...)
That's no accident. There is very little reason to use a tantalum cap
nowadays. The gap between ceramics and electrolytics has closed a lot,
mostly due to ceramics going up in value. You can get 10s of uF at
PIC voltages in small surface mount caps nowadays. That cap looks like 10uF
accross the power. If so, there's no excuse for that. 10uF at PIC voltages
is easily available as a ceramic cap in a 0805 package for less money and
less trouble than a tantalum. There should still be a 100nF to 1uF close to
the PIC power pins.
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> (I tried to check Olin's boards, but he seem to avoid this style of
>> cap...)
>
> That's no accident. There is very little reason to use a tantalum cap
> nowadays. The gap between ceramics and electrolytics has closed a lot,
> mostly due to ceramics going up in value. You can get 10s of uF at
> PIC voltages in small surface mount caps nowadays. That cap looks like
> 10uF
> accross the power. If so, there's no excuse for that. 10uF at PIC
> voltages
> is easily available as a ceramic cap in a 0805 package for less money and
> less trouble than a tantalum. There should still be a 100nF to 1uF close
> to
> the PIC power pins.
I'll respond to the rest of the comments later (you guys raised some good
questions), but wanted to ask this now: do you use PIC24H/33F? What type of
cap do you connect b/w Vss and Vddcore?
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Macro mode is USUALLY more about focussing distance than about depth of
> focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some manufacturers as a
> secondary issue.
Correct, if you look at the original image you will see that the problem was
that the object of interest was too close to the camera, the camera was
focused on a more distant object.
> The "official" [tm] way to achieve a wider depth of focus is to use a
> smaller aperture (larger f number). The smaller the better down to about
> f22. Beyond that you may get blurring due to diffraction effects. YMMV and
> probably will. It may be that the camera in your example also reduces
> aperture as part of its macro function?
>
> Aperture control tends to be available only in more upmarket cameras.
I took the picture in "auto" mode, to be honest I don't know whether the
aperture setting is available because I never bothered to look. I know what
you're talking about, however, because I have used a small aperture setting
in a professional camera to take pictures of objects where every part of the
object needed to be in focus.
Sparkfun's images generally seem to suffer from the narrow depth of field:
They have great pictures, but I guess the photographer is not aware of the
small aperture trick. I told Nathan about it, but their "new product" images
still have the same problem:
No doubt the photographer is aware of the problem, so he(she?) "cheats" by
occasionally taking pictures at a high angle.
I found that the cheap Canon PowerShot A570 IS is capable of taking pictures
that are superior to the ones we get from our microscope camera that costs
four times as much. Even without a tripod -- of course, provided that there
is enough light.
> Hmm. Does adding a band make the board dependent on a particular
> marking of the caps? There seems to be some variation in which side
> GETS the band on tantalums?
Everyone seemed to agree that the tantalum was pl;aced the wrong way
round, so apparently not.
> And where on the silkscreen do you PUT the band?
I put it between the two pads, against the pad where the band is on the
part.
--
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
Vitaliy wrote:
> I'll respond to the rest of the comments later (you guys raised some
> good questions), but wanted to ask this now: do you use PIC24H/33F?
> What type of cap do you connect b/w Vss and Vddcore?
There is nothing special about the 24H or 33F. They are just digital ICs
that have large and fast current glitches on their supply. I would put 1uF
ceramic caps as close as possible to all the power pins, then carefully
route the ground return leads to come back to a common point under the chip.
If this is a 4 layer board, I would probably use layer 2 as a local ground
plane, then have power and ground for the IC and its immediate circuitry
feed in from the rest of the board right next to each other with a 10uF
ceramic cap on the chip side of the single threaded feeds.
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> I'll respond to the rest of the comments later (you guys raised some
>> good questions), but wanted to ask this now: do you use PIC24H/33F?
>> What type of cap do you connect b/w Vss and Vddcore?
>
> There is nothing special about the 24H or 33F.
I take it to mean that you have no experience with this series, then. :)
You need a low-ESR 1uF to 10uF capacitor on the Vddcore pin, for the
internal 2.5V regulator.
Vitaliy wrote:
> I take it to mean that you have no experience with this series, then.
> :)
>
> You need a low-ESR 1uF to 10uF capacitor on the Vddcore pin, for the
> internal 2.5V regulator.
Sure, but surface mount ceramic caps as I was mentioning are very low ESR
and a good choice for this. They have lower ESR than tantalum, and much
lower ESR than electrolytic. What do you want to put there if not a
ceramic?
>> Macro mode is USUALLY more about focussing distance than about depth
>> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
>> manufacturers as a secondary issue.
> I don't know why you qualify with "usually".
I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
This is usually a good idea.
ie Because a manufacturer may decide to improve the depth of focus by
decreasing aperture as part of switching into a "Macro" mode, if I failed to
note this and just said it was about focusing distance, then somebody may be
able to point out an example where it was not solely so.
> Macro mode is USUALLY more about focussing distance than about depth
> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
> manufacturers as a secondary issue.
In the good old days, the "macro mode" of a zoom lens would lock some
lens elements in place, or otherwise change the physical behavior of
the lens during focusing so as to optimize performance at short
distances.
What "macro mode" means on a modern digital camera (especially on a
low-to-mid range "consumer" camera) is a lot more ambiguous. It COULD
just provide a hint to the autofocus. It COULD diddle the auto-
exposure so as to prefer high f-stops. It could do something else.
Who knows. (artistic license enters into it as well; someone
mentioned that the Sparkfun photos don't use the maximum depth of
field; I'll bet that's intentional; they ARE marketing photos rather
than pure technical photos.)
>> Macro mode is USUALLY more about focussing distance than about depth
>> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
>> manufacturers as a secondary issue.
>>
>
> In the good old days, the "macro mode" of a zoom lens would lock some
> lens elements in place, or otherwise change the physical behavior of
> the lens during focusing so as to optimize performance at short
> distances.
>
> What "macro mode" means on a modern digital camera (especially on a
> low-to-mid range "consumer" camera) is a lot more ambiguous. It COULD
> just provide a hint to the autofocus. It COULD diddle the auto-
> exposure so as to prefer high f-stops. It could do something else.
> Who knows. (artistic license enters into it as well; someone
> mentioned that the Sparkfun photos don't use the maximum depth of
> field; I'll bet that's intentional; they ARE marketing photos rather
> than pure technical photos.)
>
> BillW
>
>
>
Just as an added bonus... "macro" could also have implications on the
distortion corrections the lens does.
I speak in reference to a macro lens I own for my Digital SLR camera.
One of the major 'features' of the lens is that it has a flat focus plane.
most lenses have a field of focus that is a certain distance from the
principal focus and is a section of a sphere... i.e. when you focus far
enough away, the section is an insignificant part of the sphere, but
when you focus on something close, and that object is flat then you will
not be able to get all the object in sharp focus because your 'sphere'
of 'in-focusness' will intersect with the object.
Well, one major feature of my lens is that it is planar-focusing, hence,
you can get sharpness from edge-to-edge of a flat object, even from up
close.
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> (artistic license enters into it as well; someone
> mentioned that the Sparkfun photos don't use the maximum depth of
> field; I'll bet that's intentional; they ARE marketing photos rather
> than pure technical photos.)
The truth is, getting a good depth of field in this sort of photography is
not easy, and you really have to understand a thing or two about how cameras
work. We ended up shelling out several hundred bucks for a macro lens, so
the cables we were taking pictures of, would look sharp *and* be in focus.
Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> Macro mode is USUALLY more about focussing distance than about depth
>>> of focus. It may be that the latter is considered by some
>>> manufacturers as a secondary issue.
>
>> I don't know why you qualify with "usually".
>
> I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
> This is usually a good idea.
>
> ie Because a manufacturer may decide to improve the depth of focus by
> decreasing aperture as part of switching into a "Macro" mode, if I failed
> to
> note this and just said it was about focusing distance, then somebody may
> be
> able to point out an example where it was not solely so.
>
> Ben would approve, I think.
I didn't know about Franklin's advice on giving advice. I learned to use
weasel words, from reading your posts. :-)
>
> The truth is, getting a good depth of field in this sort of photography is
> not easy, and you really have to understand a thing or two about how cameras
> work. We ended up shelling out several hundred bucks for a macro lens, so
> the cables we were taking pictures of, would look sharp *and* be in focus.
>
It is very easy (operationally) to get focus if you use cameras that allow you to alter the plane of focus between the lens and film (or sensor if you have a digital camera or back). Shift and tilt lenses for 35mm and medium format cameras or go whole hog and use a view camera with plenty of front and rear movements. Sinar leaps to mind for table top photography.
part 1 698 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" (decoded 7bit)
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:45:57 -0700, "Vitaliy" <spamBeGonespamSTOPspamEraseMEmaksimov.org> said:
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> >> I don't know why you qualify with "usually".
> >
> > I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
> > This is usually a good idea.
> > Ben would approve, I think.
>
> I didn't know about Franklin's advice on giving advice. I learned to use
> weasel words, from reading your posts. :-)
That immediately brought to mind one of my favorite Dilbert cartoons,
see attached.
> William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
>
>> (artistic license enters into it as well; someone
>> mentioned that the Sparkfun photos don't use the maximum depth of
>> field; I'll bet that's intentional; they ARE marketing photos rather
>> than pure technical photos.)
>>
>
> Take a look at this photo:
>
> http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/images/products/08473-04-L.jpg
>
> Would you say the fact that only the USB connector is in focus, is
> intentional?
>
> In this view, the coin is mostly in focus, while most of the board isn't:
>
> http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/images/products/08473-03-L.jpg
>
> The truth is, getting a good depth of field in this sort of photography is
> not easy, and you really have to understand a thing or two about how cameras
> work. We ended up shelling out several hundred bucks for a macro lens, so
> the cables we were taking pictures of, would look sharp *and* be in focus.
>
> Vitaliy
>
>
I wouldn't be surprised if sparkfun added blur in post
>> Take a look at this photo:
>>
>> www.sparkfun.com/commerce/images/products/08473-04-L.jpg
>>
>> Would you say the fact that only the USB connector is in focus, is
>> intentional?
I dunno. It's a very nice photograph, aside from the lack of depth of
field.
I assume that the photographer knows what they're doing, and that the
lack of focus is either intentional or unavoidable. It's a pretty
small board, so you're talking about having the back of the board a
substantial percentage further away from the lens than the front of
the board.
>> getting a good depth of field in this sort of photography is not
>> easy
You stop your lens all the way down, use a tripod, and let the shutter
speed float up as dictated by lighting (use bright lights!) If that's
not sufficient, you call "artistic license" :-). Going beyond that
might be hard. Or impossible. (Although I like the advice oft-given
(occasionally given?) on Instructables.com, which goes essentially
"You have unsensible megapixels in your camera, especially compared to
the less than 1 MP that will be displayed on most viewers' screens.
GET FURTHER AWAY so that everything you want in focus is in focus, and
then digitally crop before "publishing."")
> Shift and tilt lenses [or cameras]
I thought those were for perspective correction in architectural
photos and stuff like that. Do they really have anything to do with
depth of field?
>> I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
>> This is usually a good idea.
> I didn't know about Franklin's advice on giving advice. I learned to use
> weasel words, from reading your posts. :-)
How rude :-).
But it's good that you are learning :-).
But, put more politely, that IS Ben's advice ina nutshell.
"Consider always using weasel words"
Making adamant and unconditional statements is going to, probably, cause
problems.
Spot the Franklin word :-).
It's often fine enough to say what you believe or think or whatever, but in
many cases it seems useful to couch one's utterances within some sort of
probability framework. Not really the "weasel words" implications of
Vitaliy's comment, but aguide to how well what you say can be relied on.
If I say that current best theory is solar sunspot activity is believed to
be driven in part by a "dynamo" effect (as I believe it is) I'm already
qualifying the certainty - and I'll then probably also try to ensure that
what 'dynamo' in this context is understood to mean.
If I talk about what a Macro facility does I'm liable to add that in some
cases it could so involved other features.
If I say that the reality that we exist within is necessarily 'surrounded
by' or dependant on some other wholly different ... er .. well ... yes,
that's science too, but not here :-).
Otherwise eg
You should never allow body diodes to conduct during normal PIC operation
...
Tantalum capacitors are wrongly specified in many high energy cicrcuits ...
Men read maps better than women do ...
We'll never have solar power satellites ...
My father's bigger than your father and my uncl is a policeman ...
type statements start to appear and the inevitable 'religious' blowups
occur.
William Chops" Westfield" wrote:
>> Shift and tilt lenses [or cameras]
>
> I thought those were for perspective correction in architectural
> photos and stuff like that. Do they really have anything to do with
> depth of field?
Not really. Those tricks move the in-depth field around, but don't change
its width. In any case, shifting and tilting the lens is a very advanced
technique that is impossible on all but specialized equipment. Mentioning
it as a possibility is misleading. Anyone with access to the equipment
capable of this won't likely need to ask for photographic advice on the
PICList. Keep in mind the original topic was about taking better pictures
of circuit boards with a "ordinary" camera, and Vitaliy discovering macro
mode.
The best way to take pictures of small objects is to use macro mode, of
course, but then to use a small f-stop and a tripod to allow for the
resulting long exposure times. Many small cameras don't even let you
control that directly. For example the small camera I use for such things
in my office only has a bunch of pre-programmed tradeoffs with annoying
names like "museum", "fireworks", "nighttime", etc. I have to look up each
time anew which one favors smallest aperture and therefore longest exposure.
Argh.
I am not sure how it works, how would I mount that box in front of the
lights? The lights actually backwards to the target and the box just
reflects the light? Do I need to buy a 4 bar stand so that the box mounted
onto the side bars?
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> > Making adamant and unconditional statements is going to, probably, cause
> > problems.
>
> But at least you won't sound like a weasel.
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
> -
>
> > Shift and tilt lenses [or cameras]
>
> I thought those were for perspective correction in architectural
> photos and stuff like that. Do they really have anything to do with
> depth of field?
>
> BillW
>
No, they don't change DOF. My comment was about changing the plane of focus, not on altering the DOF. DOF is DOF per the physics of the optics and camera/film/sensor dimentions.
They allow you to change the PLANE of the focus. This lets you move the objects in question into the range of acceptable focus for a given lens/film/sensor configuration.
And also allow you to correct the perspective in camera so you don't get tall buildings that look like they are falling backwards. Although this is usually done with a shift, keeping the lens plane and film plane parallel to each other. Using a swing/tilt allows the plane of focus to run more foreground to background instead of be limited to equal distances from the lens on the left and right (or top and bottom). It is much harder to describe in words than to see examples. I'll see if I can find some links to show.
Olin made the comment that they aren't applicable to small, inexpensive cameras. Yes, that is mostly true. I have seen people hack a large view camera back to allow the use of a smaller (dSLR I believe it was) as a pseudo-digital back. At one point there was, and may still be, a comercial product available to do this. Also seen these sort of optics hacked onto a flatbed scanner so that the scanner became the optical sensor. But for the most part, it is pretty much just a novelty to convert a view camera in this maner.
View cameras aren't all that expensive, especially if you work with used equipment in the "4x5" size (5x4 for some of you across the pond). If you were making your living at table top product photography, even the Sinar and Leif digital backs are cost effective. For occasional use, not so much.
> Olin made the comment that they aren't applicable to small, inexpensive
> cameras. Yes, that is mostly true. I have seen people hack a large view
> camera back to allow the use of a smaller (dSLR I believe it was) as a
> pseudo-digital back. At one point there was, and may still be, a
> comercial product available to do this. Also seen these sort of optics
> hacked onto a flatbed scanner so that the scanner became the optical
> sensor. But for the most part, it is pretty much just a novelty to
> convert a view camera in this maner.
For distances well below infinity (parallel light) you can get good results
with a bellows unit that mounts the lens separate from the camera. Moving
the lens away from the camera body shortens the maximum focusing distance
(unless the lens has been designed to focus "past infinity" which is rare.
Amazingly capable DSLRs which you can do this with are now down to well
under $US500. Not in the same class as point and shoot, but accessible
enough for the suitably keen in many cases. Second hand DSLRs are even
cheaper and many film SLRs are close to free. Bellows units from days of
yore can be very cheap on occasion.
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:58:59 +1300
> From: EraseMEapptechEraseMEparadise.net.nz
> Subject: Re: [EE] The secret to taking sharp pictures of circuit boards
> To: @spam@piclist@spam@spam_OUTmit.edu
>
> > Olin made the comment that they aren't applicable to small, inexpensive
> > cameras. Yes, that is mostly true. I have seen people hack a large view
> > camera back to allow the use of a smaller (dSLR I believe it was) as a
> > pseudo-digital back. At one point there was, and may still be, a
> > comercial product available to do this. Also seen these sort of optics
> > hacked onto a flatbed scanner so that the scanner became the optical
> > sensor. But for the most part, it is pretty much just a novelty to
> > convert a view camera in this maner.
>
> For distances well below infinity (parallel light) you can get good results
> with a bellows unit that mounts the lens separate from the camera. Moving
> the lens away from the camera body shortens the maximum focusing distance
> (unless the lens has been designed to focus "past infinity" which is rare.
>
> Amazingly capable DSLRs which you can do this with are now down to well
> under $US500. Not in the same class as point and shoot, but accessible
> enough for the suitably keen in many cases. Second hand DSLRs are even
> cheaper and many film SLRs are close to free. Bellows units from days of
> yore can be very cheap on occasion.
>
>
I think you may be confusing the bellows extensions used for macro work on SLR/dSLR with a true shift capable lens. That said, I wonder if you could modify such a unit. The next problem after that is having sufficient image circle on on the lens so that you can shift and work away from center. At magnification greater than 1, this does become somewhat easier as the lens can start to be a good distance away from the camera.
Switched topic tag to OT as we are, in my opintion, drifting away from the original intent of "cheap" camera and straight-up shots...
I don't know if this has been mentoned, but there are programs available
that will allow you to take a series of photos at different focus points
and combine them to produce a image with increased depth of field.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesspam_OUTmit.edu]On Behalf
> Of Tamas Rudnai
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:09 AM
>
> But I was also wondering how to get a soft light out of this box:
>
> http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=38260
>
> I am not sure how it works, how would I mount that box in front of the
> lights? The lights actually backwards to the target and the box just
> reflects the light? Do I need to buy a 4 bar stand so that the box mounted
> onto the side bars?
That item is often referred to as a light tent, you don't mount it to the
lights. You put the item you're shooting inside the box and then aim the
lights so that the lighting is diffused through the tent walls.
There are many DIY versions around the net here's a few samples:
www.creativepro.com/article/digital-photography-how-to-building-a-lig
ht-tent
digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent
www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.ht
ml http://www.instructables.com/id/Super-Simple-Light-Tent/
Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> I was taking Benjamin Franklin's advice on giving advice.
>>> This is usually a good idea.
>
>> I didn't know about Franklin's advice on giving advice. I learned to use
>> weasel words, from reading your posts. :-)
>
> How rude :-).
Apologies are in order then. Sorry -- I meant no offense, at all!
David Harris wrote:
> I don't know if this has been mentoned, but there are programs available
> that will allow you to take a series of photos at different focus points
> and combine them to produce a image with increased depth of field.
Thanks for mentioning this, Dave. We used this trick years ago, without any
special software. You just overlay the photos on top of each other, and
erase the blurry parts with a large soft eraser in Photoshop. This assumes
that both the object and the camera are stationary. Although it is always
best to get as close to the desired result as possible, before the picture
leaves the camera.
However, this discussion progressed way beyond its original intent. :-) I
just wanted to mention the macro mode, which is available in most cameras
(even the very cheap ones), but is often overlooked when someone is taking
an up-close picture of a circuit board to illustrate a problem.
Vitaliy wrote:
> I just wanted to mention the macro mode, which is available in most
> cameras (even the very cheap ones),
I bought the camera I did for the office largely because it could get really
close in macro mode.
> but is often overlooked when
> someone is taking an up-close picture of a circuit board to illustrate
> a problem.
Maybe you just discovered it, but frankly, macro mode is well known and the
obvious choice for taking pictures of small things. To me this is in the
"blatantly obvious" catagory, and I think for most people too.
> That item is often referred to as a light tent, you don't mount it to the
> lights. You put the item you're shooting inside the box and then aim the
> lights so that the lighting is diffused through the tent walls.
>
> There are many DIY versions around the net here's a few samples:
>
> www.creativepro.com/article/digital-photography-how-to-building-a-lig
> ht-tent<www.creativepro.com/article/digital-photography-how-to-building-a-lig%0Aht-tent>
> http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent
>
> www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.ht
> ml<www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.ht%0Aml>
> http://www.instructables.com/id/Super-Simple-Light-Tent/
>
> Paul Hutch
>
Hi Pal,
Thanks, then I misunderstood that description. What I would really need is
like a paper or a silk in front of the lights which spreads the light over
the room instead of direct lighting it. Maybe I just need to bend a steel
wire as a frame and fix a piece of paper on it with a tape.
this is now a very long post with many people interested, so, per usual olin
if you're not interested, stop responding. However, as a.) people
consistently post subpar pictures of circuits and b.) people have had a lot
of interest in this post, the fact that you are disinterested is largely
irrelevant. My congratulations on your discovery of macro mode prior to
vitaly, i'm not sure what other response you'd like to your post.
> Vitaliy wrote:
> > I just wanted to mention the macro mode, which is available in most
> > cameras (even the very cheap ones),
>
> I bought the camera I did for the office largely because it could get
> really
> close in macro mode.
>
> > but is often overlooked when
> > someone is taking an up-close picture of a circuit board to illustrate
> > a problem.
>
> Maybe you just discovered it, but frankly, macro mode is well known and the
> obvious choice for taking pictures of small things. To me this is in the
> "blatantly obvious" catagory, and I think for most people too.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
> What I would really need is
> like a paper or a silk in front of the lights which spreads the
> light over
> the room instead of direct lighting it. Maybe I just need to bend a
> steel
> wire as a frame and fix a piece of paper on it with a tape.
Better consider CFLs instead of those 500W halogens, OR think about
fiberglass "paper", OR add a good fire extinguisher to your list of
purchases...
There is of course specialized lighting equipment just for
photography. It tends to NOT look like ANY other lights you've ever
seen, and be priced accordingly :-(
Why do you want to spread the light over the entire room?
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Benjamin Grant wrote:
>
> this is now a very long post with many people interested, so, per
> usual olin
> if you're not interested, stop responding. However, as a.) people
> consistently post subpar pictures of circuits and b.) people have
> had a lot
> of interest in this post, the fact that you are disinterested is
> largely
> irrelevant. My congratulations on your discovery of macro mode prior
> to
> vitaly, i'm not sure what other response you'd like to your post.
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistspamBeGoneembedinc.com
> >wrote:
>
>> Vitaliy wrote:
>>> I just wanted to mention the macro mode, which is available in most
>>> cameras (even the very cheap ones),
>>
>> I bought the camera I did for the office largely because it could get
>> really
>> close in macro mode.
>>
>>> but is often overlooked when
>>> someone is taking an up-close picture of a circuit board to
>>> illustrate
>>> a problem.
>>
>> Maybe you just discovered it, but frankly, macro mode is well known
>> and the
>> obvious choice for taking pictures of small things. To me this is
>> in the
>> "blatantly obvious" catagory, and I think for most people too.
>>
>>
WFT Electronics
Denver, CO 720 222 1309
" dent the UNIVERSE "
All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by WFT
Electronics ( and it's principals ), that are included with this
signature text are to be deemed to be released to the public domain as
of the date of this communication .
> Better consider CFLs instead of those 500W halogens, OR think about
> fiberglass "paper", OR add a good fire extinguisher to your list of
> purchases...
>
Yes, I was aware of the heat, not sure the distance have to keep between the
paper and the light? Is there any calculation? Also CFL is a cold light
source? Have to read a lot before I buy anything, better not to ask anything
as my knowledge on this is zero :-)
> Why do you want to spread the light over the entire room?
>
All I want is a shadowless lightening - I thought that the reflection from
the ceiling makes a good soft lights and then another light from the floor
with this light softener paper could make a good shadowless picture.
Ok, so yesterday I have just tried my camcorder and the post production
software - which is just the freeware Kino so nothing fancy. The room is not
so big and is very dark at the moment - and please, please do not judge the
actor, this is his first ever acting + there was no script at all :-) just
sat in front of camera to try it and was speaking rubbish basically :D
Also the camera was too high and should have zoom and position better etc
but as I said just wanted to try these thigs out a bit - so loads of things
to learn...
> Be careful BG or you may be labeled as "silly" by Olin.
> MA
>
> > On Mar 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Benjamin Grant wrote:
> >
> > this is now a very long post with many people interested, so, per
> > usual olin
> > if you're not interested, stop responding. However, as a.) people
> > consistently post subpar pictures of circuits and b.) people have
> > had a lot
> > of interest in this post, the fact that you are disinterested is
> > largely
> > irrelevant. My congratulations on your discovery of macro mode prior
> > to
> > vitaly, i'm not sure what other response you'd like to your post.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistEraseMEembedinc.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> >> Vitaliy wrote:
> >>> I just wanted to mention the macro mode, which is available in most
> >>> cameras (even the very cheap ones),
> >>
> >> I bought the camera I did for the office largely because it could get
> >> really
> >> close in macro mode.
> >>
> >>> but is often overlooked when
> >>> someone is taking an up-close picture of a circuit board to
> >>> illustrate
> >>> a problem.
> >>
> >> Maybe you just discovered it, but frankly, macro mode is well known
> >> and the
> >> obvious choice for taking pictures of small things. To me this is
> >> in the
> >> "blatantly obvious" catagory, and I think for most people too.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> WFT Electronics
> Denver, CO 720 222 1309
> " dent the UNIVERSE "
>
> All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by WFT
> Electronics ( and it's principals ), that are included with this
> signature text are to be deemed to be released to the public domain as
> of the date of this communication .
>
Benjamin Grant wrote:
> this is now a very long post with many people interested, so, per
> usual olin if you're not interested, stop responding. However, as a.)
> people
> consistently post subpar pictures of circuits and b.) people have had
> a lot
> of interest in this post, the fact that you are disinterested is
> largely irrelevant. My congratulations on your discovery of macro
> mode prior to vitaly, i'm not sure what other response you'd like to
> your post.
I wasn't looking for any response, only trying to point out that macro mode
is hardly a "discovery", and most people are quite a aware of it.
However, that alone doesn't make for good pictures. I agree, there are a
lot of horrible pictures out there, whether done with macro mode or not.
Things to consider are:
- Eveness of lighting.
- Direction of lighting to avoid bad reflections and abscuring shadows.
- Resolution.
- Proper framing. It's amazing how many people don't think about this.
- Color ballance. Your eyes adjust to ambient color. Although most digital
cameras do to, most also don't do it well enough for you to ignore it.
Vitaliy's picture was a great example.
- Shadow detail. Most cameras are tuned to make a picture look more
"snappy", which makes shadows look darker than they should, obscuring any
details in dark areas. I usually have to brighten (exponential sloshing
towards white with the ends of the range held constant) pictures from my
office camera before they are acceptable.
- Depth of field, and how to control it if the camera doesn't automatically
do what you want.
- Equivalent film "speed" versus graniness.
- Proper cropping.
As with most things technical, if you want to do a good job you will have to
take the trouble to anderstand what you're doing. This starts with reading
the manual for whatever camera you have, but also requires some common sense
about photography. Anyone that can understand the workings of a PIC should
be smart enough to understand the basics of photography.
I *could* say that a person who misspells "evenness", "obscuring",
"balance", "too", "graininess", and "understand" in a single post, is an
illiterate moron and a technically incompetent idiot who cannot use a spell
checker. However, I won't say it, because I think that it is wonderful that
people are different, and as Carnegie put it, "every man is, in some way, my
superior".
I explained what the purpose of my OP. Can you explain what is the purpose
of your belittling and nitpicking?
Vitaliy wrote:
> I *could* say that a person who misspells "evenness", "obscuring",
> "balance", "too", "graininess", and "understand" in a single post, is
> an illiterate moron and a technically incompetent idiot who cannot
> use a spell checker. However, I won't say it,
Phew, good thing. ;-)
> I explained what the purpose of my OP. Can you explain what is the
> purpose of your belittling and nitpicking?
I don't think I was nitpicking, but geesh, macro mode is **really basic**
stuff that I think everyone here was already aware of.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistEraseMEspam_OUTembedinc.com> wrote:
> macro mode is **really basic** stuff that I think everyone here was already aware of.
Assumptions are funny little creatures. Too small to be noticed
unless you're actively looking, but they can really gum up the works.
Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist <at> embedinc.com> writes:
> Maybe you just discovered it, but frankly, macro mode is well known and the
Macro mode without enough (a lot!) of light on a camera with a low F number will
cause more trouble than it will create solutions. On a F/1.2 camera macro mode
will result in a depth of field measured in microns. Good luck keeping the
camera still and focusing in the right item with auto AF that chooses its "own"
subject.
And the internal flash is almost worthless for macro. "Fortunately" most amateur
cameras do not go down anywhere near F/1.2 so that problem is "solved". The
macro button with the friendly flower icon, the digital photography snake oil of
the early 21st century. </sarcasm>
Fwiw a tele zoom photo of the same circuit board from across the room should
have more depth of field and less critical focus than a macro of the same
subject, plus one can use a proper stand and the photo will not be shaken or
blurred (as opposed to the handheld macro which in the absence of light always
is). And you still need a lot of light, but this time the internal flash will
not be totally useless (unless there are specular reflections off of the
object), and ambient light will be useful (not shaded by the too-close camera
and operator body), and the optical and perspective distortion of the image will
be lower. Pick your poison and IGNORE bullshit 'snake oil' solutions.
A proper macro setup implies a ring light or ring flash or light-box with >2000
lux of illumination on the subject, and it has to be all specular reflection
proof (diffuse). A valise type setup starts at $200 and that's the Chinese
knockoff of the $900 original, and that's just the light-box, not the camera.
Peter wrote:
> And the internal flash is almost worthless for macro. "Fortunately" most
> amateur
> cameras do not go down anywhere near F/1.2 so that problem is "solved".
> The
> macro button with the friendly flower icon, the digital photography snake
> oil of
> the early 21st century. </sarcasm>
<blah blah blah>
> Pick your poison and IGNORE bullshit 'snake oil' solutions.
>
> A proper macro setup implies a ring light or ring flash or light-box with
> >2000
> lux of illumination on the subject, and it has to be all specular
> reflection
> proof (diffuse). A valise type setup starts at $200 and that's the Chinese
> knockoff of the $900 original, and that's just the light-box, not the
> camera.
The picture I posted was raw, untouched up photo taken with a very
inexpensive consumer grade digital camera, without any sort of special
lighting, using the macro mode. You can call it "bullshit" and "snake oil"
or whatever, the fact remains.
This thread is not about taking studio-quality pictures. At work, we have a
photo room with high-CRI lighting, light boxes, a $400 tripod and a
professional digital camera with a macro lens. I know how to set up the
lights and the camera to take studio-quality pictures. My intent was to show
that you DO NOT NEED to spend a lot of time and money to take sharp pictures
of near objects (in this case, a circuit board), and to point out a simple
technique that seems to be overlooked ("just click the little 'flower'
icon").
Maybe it's ime to stop kicking the dead horse, already?
> My intent was to show that you DO NOT NEED to spend a lot of
> time and money to take sharp pictures of near objects (in this
> case, a circuit board),
I know this doesn't follow the back and forth bickering...
A different approach is to use a flat bed scanner. Usually
cheaper than a digital camera and frequently already there.
The depth of field is adequate depending on the thickness of
the components (smt is great, through hole is less great, &
tall capacitors are not great).
If you have a flatbed scanner, it's certainly worth trying.
They can provide very high resolution images of electronic objects,
but the newer ones have a very small depth of field - it's actually a
tradeoff between resolution and depth of field in many cases. To get
a higher resolution cheaply, the scanner has to focus better on the
paper, and so it tries to get as close to the surface of the glass as
possible.
Pick up an older, lower resolution (cheaper) scanner and you might
have better luck.
>> My intent was to show that you DO NOT NEED to spend a lot of
>> time and money to take sharp pictures of near objects (in this
>> case, a circuit board),
>
> I know this doesn't follow the back and forth bickering...
>
> A different approach is to use a flat bed scanner. Usually
> cheaper than a digital camera and frequently already there.
> The depth of field is adequate depending on the thickness of
> the components (smt is great, through hole is less great, &
> tall capacitors are not great).
>
> If you have a flatbed scanner, it's certainly worth trying.
>
> Lee Jones
>
> Flatbed scanners have been discussed a bit in the thread. They work
> very well, and that's what I used 9 years ago:
> Pick up an older, lower resolution (cheaper) scanner and you might
> have better luck
My only scanner is old (an E-Lux, bought new for Win95) and has a
"3D Object" option in the s/w. Which I use from time to time with
stuffed PCBs and can't say I've been greatly disappointed. It does better
than a camcorder capture, my pre-DSLR photographic device
lpilsley.demon.co.uk |
