From: Kai-Uwe B. <ku...@gm...> - 2004-05-26 19:31:12
|
Am 26.05.04, 18:11 +0200 schrieb Gerhard Fuernkranz: > I guess it's a very similar situation as with Windows GDI printers. The > manufacturers attempt to make the instrument as dumb as possible and to do > the more complicated computations in software on the host, since this makes > the devices cheaper. Why not. But what is so valuable to hide internals from public? I would expect most manufacturers does the same. The one problem, I see, is to adjust the device itself. I expect some tables storing response curves. > While e.g. a Xrite DTP41 delivers ready-to-use measurements over the > (documented) V.24 interface, I suspect that the Spectrocam has rather only a > low-level interface to fire the flash tube, an interface to the instrument's > ADC, to the EEPROM, but probably not too much more. And everything else What does You think is the work to start comunication with such simple devices? > (calibration stuff, deconvolution, etc.) is presumably done in the SDK > library. .. is the more interessting part. > With this approach, the interface to the instrument's hardware basically > degrades to an "internal interface" and only the manufacturer's > hardware+software together provide the full functionality of the instrument. > Similar to GDI printers, the manufacturers appearently rather don't like to > document and publish such "internal" interfaces. Basically I dont like such interfaces. The difference to GDI seems to me, any manufacturer is responlible for his own device and not in need of an common smallest subset of features. -- Kai-Uwe |