|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Languages for Image Manipulation
|
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 10:30, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> (Computers doing facial- and shirt-color-recognition; yes, they
> use this in robots. That's a photo from the yearly robot
> competition, from the eyes of one of Swarthmore's.)
It seems to me that sensing the environment would be a bit more useful
in general, however I definitely also see the use for face/shirt
recognition. Some of the other links you provided gave me some good
pointers in both areas.
> You'll end up wanting to learn linear algebra (presuming you haven't
> already) so that you can write your own matrix transforms. If you
> start getting really fancy (and there are some reasons it'd make
> stuff like stereo vision--which is really hard, btw, not to dissuade
> you from doing it--faster), you may also want to know some multi-var
> calc. But for now, you could easily steal someone else's matrix
> math library. You should have an idea of how it's doing what it's
> doing, of course.
We've done some basic matrix work in school, and I'll be in a calc class
next year, but I guess that puts us a bit behind the mathematical
knowledge necessary to work with this. Actually, I was going through
some of the math that would be done to do the stereo vision (not at all
optimized), and I think it can be done with some simple Euclidian
geometry and trig. But you are right, in that matrices and other higher
math concepts would be important in further optimizing the software.
> That is, you can get programmable boards like yours where what you
> do is define a circuit's properties in the same way you would if you
> were designing one to be printed on silicon (or gallium arsenide,
> whatever)... which is not by laying out traces by hand, but using
> something very much like a programming language (VHDL).
I looked at one VHDL tutorial and this looks interesting. I've heard
these boards described as Field Programmable Gate Arrays before, and I
am assuming that they are the same thing. I think that for now, the
OOPic gives us a bit more abstraction than writing it directly in VHDL
would, but we'll have to look at this for the future.
> I have no
> idea if such a board would be more expensive to you or not, but the
> language for dealing with it is more like how people really program
> chips these days.
Yes, I have a feeling cost would be an issue for now, but I haven't
really looked into it too much yet. Thanks for the suggestion, and I'll
follow up on it tomorrow.
Michael F. Robbins
mike@gamerack.com
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|