View Single Post
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2010, 21:07
Greg McKaskle Greg McKaskle is offline
Registered User
FRC #2468 (Team NI & Appreciate)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,748
Greg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond reputeGreg McKaskle has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Some Camera Benchmarks

Quote:
I care very little for your second paragraph. Don't all the things you described fit into the operations of receiving and sending of images? I think that an average would have been more accurate on sending, but I think for a rough benchmark it accurately shows the cost of sending an image.

The images last year were compressed to about ~1.6K +/-.4K (depending on complexity of the image) at 160x120. Then resized to a larger image. We've navigated rooms and such just using the video code last year.
My questions were intended to help debug why the numbers are so different. Independently, I've asked another engineer at NI to make some speed measurements to determine the impact of image size and image compression. I don't have the results yet, but I'll post them once I do.

Greg McKaskle
Reply With Quote