On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Jeremy Leibs wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Jack O'Quin wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Eric Perko wrote: >> >>> Has anyone else been able to get any 1394 camera working with >>> image_proc using either camera1394 or an older 1394 driver? >> >> Yes! >> >> I just noticed that camera1394 was publishing a zero time stamp. >> (Didn't we used to get warnings about that?). >> > > That explains the problem.  The time-synchronizer, which synchronizes > the image and camera_info messages requires that the two messages have > the same timestamp. They actually were the same: both zero. I guess it needs the times to actually progress, as well. > We no longer get warnings because, I believe, the time in the header > is no longer a magic/privileged field since auto-filling based on > ros::Time::now() is seldom actually the right behavior. Agreed. > However, I am surprised that the time-synchronizer (inside of > image_proc) is not producing warnings about not finding matching > timestamps, this seems like something that would be very helpful in > debugging this kind of problem. It should not just silently throw everything away. An appropriate warning would be good. This probably won't be the last time someone porting a camera driver to ROS makes that mistake. Thanks for your help, Jeremy. -- joq