Let’s discuss issues and features with the current Diver firmware, and what you would like to see in a bugfix oriented firmware update soon.
On my own list of issues to investigate:
Sync robustness. I have had several reports of an intermittent “blip” that occurs in the waveform at longer, but random intervals (1-2 minutes apart). I can see and confirm this issue here as well. I have a few solutions to try.
Texture wrapping / scanline discontinuity. Improvement here may not be possible without a hardware deinterlacer, but there may be some things I can do to improve waveform discontinuity between lines through some more aggressive interpolation. Or I may just have some math wrong! Or it could be related to issue #1. Some investigation is needed.
Threads related to issue #2:
More ramps. Easy stuff! The same library code will power these ramps as the ramps on Chromagnon and TBC2. A VCO mode and new pseudorandom/FFT modes would be in this category too, but we’ll just have to see how fast the other issues get solved.
Non-standard syncs. Diver is currently an NTSC/PAL based device, using an IC that is designed for NTSC/PAL input only. This makes it potentially difficult to integrate with new HD sync generators like Chromagnon and the Gen3 encoder module. I want to see what, if any, ability the TVP5150AM1 has to detect or PLL lock to non standard timings. Since the TVP5150AM1 doesn’t actually generate the video itself, and the STM32F4 system is running on its own clock PLL, there may be some workarounds we can investigate.
ADC/noise performance and “flickering” issue. It looks like we’re getting a little value jitter in the phase CV input. I need to add some better filtering to the code. This issue may be different in different case power scenarios, and I do not believe it relates to issue #1.
Threads related to issue #5:
- Settings permanence across power ups. I have working code for this already, using some of the internal flash as an EEPROM. So I think we can make this happen, no problem.
And that’s about it. What else? My ongoing assumption is that issue #1 is the primary concern of users with the module as it is. Please let me know if that is not the case.