View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-03-2013, 17:11
MikeE's Avatar
MikeE MikeE is offline
Wrecking nice beaches since 1990
no team (Volunteer)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: New England -> Alaska
Posts: 381
MikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Camera resolution might be too much for bandwidth?

There is a ScreenSteps page at WPI on Measuring Bandwidth Use which you might find useful.

The FMS Whitepaper Rev.A also includes a table of expected camera use which I've reproduced below for convenience.

The FMS table suggests peak use of 4.3Mbs for the 640x480; 10fps; compression 30 configuration described below, somewhat more than the 3Mbs seen on the dashboard.

Unsurprisingly we found that the actual bandwidth used varies by about 20-30% depending on the specific image sequence being compressed. However counter-intuitively (at least to me) we noticed that bandwidth was higher for steady images and lower while the camera was moving quickly.

Edit: Daniel's explanation of MJPEG above supports this observation. In a moving image each frame is blurry so has less detail and can therefore be compressed more. But there is no compression gain from the frame-to-frame similarity of a steady image if each frame is compressed independently.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	cameradata.png
Views:	27
Size:	49.1 KB
ID:	14285  

Last edited by MikeE : 07-03-2013 at 17:23. Reason: Learned something :)