Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

allow bayer-denoise ISP block to be disabled #571

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

allow bayer-denoise ISP block to be disabled #571

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

karpawich
Copy link

@karpawich karpawich commented May 27, 2019

The PiCamera can be used as a low-cost and widely accessible entropy source for RNG (random number generation) by calibrating camera settings to maximize noise (see the LavaRnd website for more details). Previously, developers could only disable the secondary YUV420 de-noise algorithms.

Per #565 'bayer_denoise': 1 << 10 can be added to the ISP_BLOCKS object so that it can be disabled via the PiCamera isp_blocks parameter.

To address the concerns from @6by9 about disrupting the image processing pipeline, disabling the Bayer de-noise ISP block would not stall it because image format is preserved, similar to the YUV420 de-noise algorithm.

@6by9
Copy link
Collaborator

6by9 commented May 28, 2019

To address the concerns from @6by9 about disrupting the image processing pipeline, disabling the Bayer de-noise ISP block would not stall it because image format is preserved, similar to the YUV420 de-noise algorithm.

Preserving the image format has nothing to do with my concerns.
The ISP works on tiles, and several of the processing stages require context pixels around those that it is actually processing. You're using configurations that have not been exercised before, therefore there is the potential for bugs to be lurking in those tile calculations.
If you're saying that it all works then that is great, but if there are issues then they won't be high on my priority list to fix.

Suffice to say that the patch looks reasonable to me, however this isn't my repository.

@6by9 6by9 mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants