-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 408
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
When not in continuousFocus mode, taking photo triggers focus #149
Comments
+1. It would be great if whether or not takePicture() triggered a refocus was configurable! |
I see. Okay we can delete that logic from there and if a developer wants a focus before taking a picture could use |
What about adding it as an option parameter to builder, like jpeg quality? Also it can be done as overload for I can help with PR, waiting for feedback :) |
Ok, so plan for FA v2 is:
I didn't like to add an overload Any objections, ideas, input, something I miss? |
Is there any improvement in beta5 version? We tried beta4 and some pictures are blurry. |
Not on this topic. You can better open a new issue with more details about your configuration, etc if you think there is something wrong.. PS: Stable |
What are you trying to achieve or the steps to reproduce?
When FA is initialized without continuous focus mode -> taking photo triggers focus.
I've implemented manual focus on tap, so user can try to get focus manually
Even if user has taps and camera gets focused, taking a photo still triggers camera to focus again, which may lose focus that user wanted.
How did you initialize FA?
What was the result you received?
When FA is not in continuousFocus mode, taking photo triggers focus, even if fotoapparat.focus() method was called and camera is focused.
What did you expect?
If camera was already focused manually, by focus() method, then taking photo would not trigger another round of focus- like in continuous focus mode.
Context:
That decision to do away with continuous focus itself is tied to other issues -
Should i file separate issues for them too?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: