It still doesn’t make any sense that it takes you 2 minutes to get to the target fps. I’ve never seen such a problem.
You have a high end system. Just curious… Why didn’t you go with i7?

i7s (with 1136 socket) have less power efficiency and cost at least +200$ extra… and with some minor BIOS adjustments (no voltage tweaks!) you can easily achieve ultra stable 3.2ghz and get more cpu power than with the top i7 (9xx) versions. i5 is ihmo the most cost effective cpu available

im just happy that its working now!!

i have already benchmarked the system - ram, cpu, usb controller, network speed etc. and im getting highscores in almost every category…but of course i would like to know why it takes so long for CCV to start…. ?

I am talking about socket LGA 1366 and triple channel DDR3 RAM. The i7s are superior to new i5s just only for having a triple channel memory bus, let alone other things (no hyper-threading). On my i7 920 (not even extreme version) I get CCV1.3 to run at 1280x480 @ 75fps instantly (in mini mode) and have no issues at all. And this is all on stock 2.66GHz clock with no BIOS tweaks at all and my CPU load is ~20%.
Looking at your results it is clear the i7 920 is a clear winer here.
Looking at newegg’s site I got Intel Core i7-920 Bloomfield 2.66GHz at $279 vs Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield 2.66GHz at $199.
This is a reason why I was asking you about i7 CPU.

yes, of course ur right…now - but unfortunately the i7s did costs > 300€ at the time i bought my i5 for 155€. without any voltage tweaks the i5 runs stable with 4x3.84 and thats no rocket science - only good cooling and a good PSU.

as i already wrote, i have benchmarked with 3DMark Vantage (CPU & GPU) incl. the latest DX11 Benchmarks and my result after three cycles was >~45000 and therefore my actual system runs even faster than a 965 extreme with almost 100W less power consumption.. my cooler (two 120mm silent fans) was a little expensive but max. temp. is 52° ...imho there is nothing comparable regarding cost-efficiency.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/3DMark-Vantage-1.0.2-CPU,1398.html

power consumption was also an important factor and a OCed i5 uses less power ~75W idle and max. 160W peak…
http://www.tomshardware.de/Intel-Core-i5-750-Taktrate,testberichte-240432-7.html

the main difference or disadvantage is hyper threading: that was the only reason why i thought about buying i7 9xx ...but afaik the are not many programms that really use HT and it cant be the reason for my problem… or does CCV use HT / multicores?

what is CCV doing at initial start / what keeps CCV from loading instantly like in 640x240… maybe its the stitching or some other setting ?

The OS manages core threading and HT, and therefore all programs can use HT on your system given they run multiple threads.
There is no special API that a program have to call to be able to benefit from HT technology.
The 3DMark Vantage is really not a realistic benchmark since it is designed to mainly test the DX performance of your graphics card. CCV does not use any DX10/11 for that matter. And yes the CCV paired with dual PS3 cams uses multiple threads to run.

I dont want to argue if my system is powerful enough to run CCV cuz after several benchmarks (4 in total and there is a Vantage version especially for CPU’s) i have more raw cpu power than a 965 extreme… no matter if with HT or not, that should be enough, dont you think?

my question is what keeps CCV from loading instantly?

cuz finally ur saying my i5 with 4x 3.84 ghz with 8GB RAM is not able to run CCV instantly with 1280x480 @ 75fps because it has no HT ...thats why it takes ~2min….?

I’m not sure why do you want to run 1280x480 @75fps, especially cause PS3 cams are not made to run at that fps and this is strictly experimental fps that I put in. At VGA @fps you’ll see image artifacts, plus because the exposure is so short you’ll have to have a lot of light going in in order to track anything. Isn’t 60fps enough for you. Can’t you go with 640x240 and then bump up the fps if that’s critical for you?

for now i have to prepare the hardware for the two developers who are going to implement the auction alogarithm / pulse led from the thesis and im already 2 weeks late…:(

the ps3 eye is syncable and has trigger / strobe function - so it was my idea to try it with the ps3 cams first before buying expensive firefly / point grey…again, im no developer but i want them to use ps3 cams. i thought that if i can get the highest possible specs to work - its easier to cut off afterwards and go down then to try to get higher res. + fps. if it works well with 1280x480 @ 75fps then it should work (better?) with lower res. and higher fps…or am i wrong? i hope you understood what i mean…

i already tested 640x240 @ 105fps… (config set to 125fps) ...works good but not very stable or at least CCV is not showing stable fps. but the developers explicitly told me that the effective fps for the substraction method needs every second frame… - this would mean that i effectively need 100-120 fps
long story short…whats the sweet spot for resolution / framerate for my dualcam project in your oppinion?

thx for your help!

i took a look into the MoBo manual and there are some advanced cpu features that were all on “auto”. i enabled some of them (e.g. c-steppings, EIST function…) and now CCV @ qvga runs ultra smooth!!

please have a look:

QVGA

VGA
...still takes ~2 minutes for CCV to show target fps - but then works fine!!

Yes, I read the thesis and you are right when you said that subtraction code needs every image frame.
But after that the CCV would be fed every other frame (every second frame is pulsed with LEDs).
This means the following:

-At 1280x480 @60fps the CCV would only process 1280x480 @30fps
-At 640x240 @125fps the CCV would only process 640x240 @ ~62.5fps

This is why I’m asking why do you insist running CCV at twice the effective capture rate.

The resolution of capture for your project depends on the size of the screen. Unless you are designing a large wall type of setup, I would suggest you go with 640x240 because this will also give you half the latency of the higher resolution.

AlexP - 09 May 2010 10:34 AM

This means the following:

-At 1280x480 @60fps the CCV would only process 1280x480 @30fps
-At 640x240 @125fps the CCV would only process 640x240 @ ~62.5fps

this helped a lot!! just now i realized that CCV doesnt need to run twice the fps cuz the pulsing is for every frame…

640x240 @ 100/125fps runs stable as you can see in my video. therefore my fps issue is solved =) thanks

next stop! - stitching

tommorow i want to start stitching both cams ...but where do i start?

all i could find about stitching is that i need to use a pattern that both cameras can see (e.g. b/w chess pattern) and then use the camera settings in CCV to allign each pattern so that the whole screen is covered and….but still i will get two different blobs for the same (fingertouch) ?

how do i stitch with CL & CCV?

The LED pulsing will happen every other frame and after processing both pulsed and non-pulsed image data (described in the paper) the processed image will be passed to the ccv for further filtering and tracking, therefore ccv will run at half the capture fps.
I’m we are confusing the frame of reference. Nothing runs at twice the fps as you mentioned. The reference fps here is the camera capture fps.

Stitching
You can start stitching, as you said, by creating some kind of uniform pattern in front of the cameras and do the lens undistortion first. Then you perform the camera overlap and alignment adjustment. When properly adjusted you will not see two blobs because the camera images are blended together to create seamless transition. All the transforms you need are in the CL camera settings control. The process can be tedious but once aligned you’ll see great results.

i saw ur latest updates and uninstalled old driver and SDK…

it fixed the CCV bug @ VGA !!!!!!! now CCV starts immediately but my FPS in QVGA are ot going higher than 65fps solved by re-installing driver-see screenshots  i already put the cleye.config to enable the advanced mode inside the cl-test.exe folder—> solved by re-installing CCV 1.3 with installer:

very strange… after reinstalling CCV i have the same delay when starting with 1280x480…but in QVGA CCV starts instantly with 100/125fps - see screenshots

why the delay when starting in VGA ?

fınally ı managed to stıtch my cams

http://nuigroup.com/forums/viewthread/9758/

@alex… what do you thınk?

Hey there, thank you for this information resume writing!