|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.
ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900 by ForeverAlon |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
Zebravision 3.0 is Team 900's 2015 initiative to take robot vision in FRC farther. In the 2015 season we successfully integrated cascade classification using feature detection as well as an automated tracking and navigation system. This paper details what we did and how we did it, as well as offering a tutorial so that other teams can use this application. If you have any questions please post here and someone who worked on the paper will respond.
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
What cost function did you use in your classifier?
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
It seems that you didn't fully utilize the classifier. You classify a bin for instance, then compute on that. Extremely inefficient considering you could simply use a CNN and a SVM to compute anything you want about the object, including distance and rotation to it.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
Quote:
![]() |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
These are the parameters we used for a typical run : https://github.com/FRC900/2015Vision..._14/params.xml
Not sure the opencv_traincascade code exposes the option you're asking about, so if it isn't in there it'll be hard-coded in the OpenCV source. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
I figured you guys did that, just wanted to make sure though.
Will you be releasing an analysis of your data? Not your training sets, but rather a statistical analysis of the classifier's output. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
Wow, great job! Can't wait to see what you guys do next!
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
Thanks! Neither can we. We've got some plans we're working on though. Something about depth perception and neural networks last I heard.
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
I do have one more request, could you post the raw data that you analyze?
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
For starters, when nothing is moving, how much do your output variables change? How much noise does your output data have? Can said noise be classified as Gaussian? What is the exact relationship between resolution and frame rate? How much precision do you lose / gain with different resolutions?
Last edited by faust1706 : 01-06-2015 at 14:40. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
Quote:
|
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: ZebraVision 3.0 – Team 900
Quote:
Seriously though... we might but if we do then it will take us some time to get it done. We'll do our best to push students towards publishing whatever we can though. It's the second paper we've published on vision and I think it came out pretty well considering. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|