Jump to content

Rolf Kalbermatter

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Rolf Kalbermatter last won the day on May 17

Rolf Kalbermatter had the most liked content!


About Rolf Kalbermatter

  • Birthday 06/28/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2011
  • Since

Recent Profile Visitors

13,268 profile views

Rolf Kalbermatter's Achievements

  1. It wasn't me who brought that back into the discussion. I was under the strong impression that we were already working for some time on the PictureBox solution as drawing canvas area. alvise suddenly brought this Empty.vi subpanel solution back into the picture.
  2. That callback will almost certainly never get triggered! The SDK is not aware about that it is drawing into a .Net PictureBox. It only sees the window handle that is used by the PictureBox for its drawing canvas. And that works on a level way below .Net in the Windows window manager inside the kernel. If you would try to do anything with that PictureBox such as drawing lines or anything into, it you would get very nasty flickering as the SDK function trying to bitblit into the windows device context (HDC) will fight with the PictureBox functions who tries to do GDI drawing into the same HDC. We are abusing here the PictureBox simply as a container to provide a window handle. In this way we can let Windows window clipping handle all the issues about making sure that the SDK can't draw beyond that area provided by the PictureBox control. But for the rest we are not really using any functionality from the PictureBox .Net control. Respectively when we tried to retrieve the image, that failed since the PictureBox control is not aware about what was drawn into its window. And the same applies for the LabVIEW Get Image control function.
  3. I would not recommend you to do it. But It is your time and frustration.
  4. There definitely is data in the "Image Data" Cluster. Of course you forgot again to show the part of the screen where it would display the "new picture" to proof your claim that there is nothing shown. So we can not tell what is captured but something for sure is captured. You may also want to remove the Draw Unflattened function. It adds nothing anymore.
  5. Fun! Good luck in your new endeavor. But the LabVIEW development team loses a very valuable and important member for sure.
  6. Of course you do as you use the VI refnum. Right click on your PictureBox control in the LabVIEW front panel and select Create->Reference. Connect that reference to the Method node instead of the VI reference. And of course you need to use the VI with the PictureBox that you had earlier, not the one trying to use the subPanel.
  7. That code does not exist yet (in a public location)! So yes it is impossible. More precise: That code does not exist yet in a public location! It for sure has been developed numerous times for various in house projects, although almost 100% certainly not for the HikVision SDK. But in-house means that it is not feasible or even possible to publish it because of copyright, license and other issues. And even if those issues would not exist, nobody is going to search his project archives for the code to post here.
  8. Doesn't matter. The SDK draws asynchonously into the Picture Box window. No matter which window handle you use, the moment you cause the screen capture from the window handle to occur is totally and completely asynchronous to the drawing of the SDK. And there is a high chance that the screen capture operations BitBlit() or PrintWindow() will capture parts of two different images drawn (blitted into the window) by the SDK function. So yes after all these troubles we may have to consider that what we did so far is perfectly fine for displaying the camera image on a LabVIEW panel. You can also cause the SDK to write the image data into a file on disk. But if you want to get at the image data in realtime into LabVIEW memory to process as an image, you won't get around the callback and that is where I stop. This would be a serious development effort even if I did it all here on my own system for a real project. With the forum back and forth and the fact that it is advanced callback programming that even seasoned C programmers usually struggle with, it's simply unfeasible to continue here. And I already see the next request: You did it with IMAQ Vision images but that comes with a license cost. Please I want to do it with OpenCV to save some dollars! And a multiday development job turns into a multi week development job with one single sentence!
  9. The LabVIEW Get Image method may look slightly better since LabVIEW has minimal control over when someone may draw into that control. But it most likely won't avoid the problem completely.
  10. Yes, this choppyness is of course expected and there is nothing you can do about it with this method. The SDK function draws into that window handle when it pleases and how it pleases. Your Get Image function copies the screen pixel into its own buffer when it pleases and how it pleases. No synchronization whatsoever. And there is no trivial synchronization possible. If you were old enough you would know a similar effect from television when a TV screen was captured by a TV camera. Since the two never ever work exactly with the same picture frequency you get stripes and flickers across the screen as the camera picture takes part of one image and then part of the next image in each image shot and the dysonchron frequency causes the stripes and flickers to wander up or down on the screen.
  11. The problem is that the .Net PictureBox does not contain an image. It is just used to get a window handle to pass to the SDK library which then draws the image data directly onto the window surface. And the PictureBox knows nothing about that and therefore won't return any pixel images for the non existing image it has. The LabVIEW control method Get Image on the other hand should simply take a screen shot of the control screen area. It's the only way to get an image for LabVIEW as it does not know what object control is displayed in it and most classes do not have a GetBitmap method anyways. For native controls it may use a control method, which redraws the control into a bitmap, but for the .Net and Active X Control that certainly won't work and the only way to get an image is by doing a screen capture of the area.
  12. That's definitely the case. He only passes the window handle of the Picture box into the HikVision camera. And the SDK then directly bitblits into that window surface. It does not know about PictureBox or anything, only the window handle. The PictureBox really just is placeholder to provide a handle. It would likely better work if you actually called the LabVIEW VI Server Method "Get Image" on the LabVIEW .Net Container Refnum rather than the PictureBox .Net refnum. Yes it is not exactly intuitive but fairly consistent with other LabVIEW controls. The terminal is the data (for a .Net control its contained object class refnum) but the VI server interface has to be retrieved either from a Reference node or the Property/Method needs to be implicitly linked to the control
  13. Well, a handle is in terms of the C signature simply a pointer sized integer. typedef void * HANDLE; That it is "usually" a 24-bit index into a Windows object table specific to your handle type, doesn't mean that every API that "exports" a HANDLE data type also uses this. For one it only applies to objects that the Windows kernel manages. Second, the functions to create such handles for your own handle type are located in ntoskrnl and as such considered non-public Windows APIs. While you can call them directly and in some cases some of those APIs are documented at least in the Windows DDK, using them is at your own risk and potentially a compatibility liability as Microsoft does specifically not guarantee these APIs to not change in their signature or behaviour, nor simply disappear at any point in a new Windows version. Also that 24 bit index is only part of the truth, the rest of the standard 32-bit value is used to encode the type of handle and allows to verify that the handle is actually for the object table the caller claims it to be. As such it is almost exactly like a LabVIEW refnum which implements pretty much the same semantics. Only that LabVIEW refnums are also guaranteed to be always 32-bit entities as that is how NI publically defined them and they did not change that definition in the published API code when adding support for 64-bit LabVIEW in 2009. Microsoft on the other hand declared a HANDLE to be a pointer sized entity since many moons ago. Only very early Windows SDKs did define the HANDLE to be an alias for a DWORD. At some point they consistently changed that to a LPVOID, respectively a pointer to an anonymous struct (and in some scenarios even a pointer to a struct containing an int value). So while in most cases a HANDLE indeed is simply a 32-bit integer under the hood, that is always an implementation specific detail that you rely on for that specific type of handle. It may not hold true for every handle, especially APIs that to not refer to kernel objects itself but simply use the HANDLE data type as an opaque parameter to pass their own object identifier between API calls, which in many cases can be a pointer to a struct. And since a HANDLE is defined to be an anonymous identifier whose implementation is implementation specific, that is all very legal. And in programming it is always a bad idea to rely upon implementation specific details behind abstract interfaces. So if you want to treat your HANDLEs as 32-bit value because it USUALLY works, that is up to you. I prefer to work according to the published definition and if that wastes 32-bit of memory on a 64-bit platform because the higher significant 32-bit are never used, so be it. It will guarantee that the software will keep working when the underlying API one day decides that the private and hence undocumented implementation detail of what the handle really means will change. Will that cause a compatibility nightmare for all the software which never bothered to follow the actual spec rather than private implementation specific details? You bet. Is it likely to happen? Maybe not. And for any API using the HANDLE for anything else than Windows kernel objects, it really and absolutely can matter already today. And you may not always know if an API uses this data type for a real kernel object or something entirely different for its internal implementation.
  14. Are you sure the handle can not get negative? In fact I'm pretty sure the handle could get 64 bit on LabVIEW 64-bit. It usually shouldn't as Microsoft tried to keep the handle values below the 32 bit boundary by somehow not directly making it a pointer, but I have seen cases where Windows handles did use the upper 32-bit for something and failed if you treated the handle only as 32-bit, effectively clearing out the top most 32 bits. I think the safest here would be to use ToUInt64(). It shouldn't hurt even if Windows never uses more than 32-bit but it may prevent potential problems in the future.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.