Best as in reliable, maintainable and fast.
Considering Processing, VVVV or OpenFrameworks?
I know Processing doesn't handle big video frames very well.
VVVV (Nodes use OpenCV) is just for Windows.
OpenFrameworks (OpenCv) is more complicated than the
above.
You can try to implement your app in Processing and see if it fits your needs and is fast enough. It should a little more easy and faster to write Java instead of C++.
Here can you find how to setup with processing with examples: http://ubaa.net/shared/processing/opencv/
If you don't want to code anything you can try VVVV, should be little faster but only on Windows as you mentioned.
If your Processing app is running too slow, you can try openFrameworks.
download it the new OF 007 from http://www.openframeworks.cc/ and check out the setup guide.
If you have done the install you can play around with the openCV examples from
<your-OF-folder>/apps/addonsExamples/opencvExample
<your-OF-folder>/apps/addonsExamples/opencvHaarFinderExample/
Personally I prefer OF because you can do any custom thing with the most performance, but its good to make your prototype with Processing to see if it works and implement it after that again in OF.
As far as I can see from your question, VVVV and OF are the options your looking at, but you prefer VVVV's node based programming over OF, but aren't happy that VVVV is Windows only.
Have you considered other alternatives like MaxMSPJitter or PureData ?
Both are similar to VVVV or the other way around :)
MaxMSP has a package for 'optimized matrix operations'(3D/video) called Jitter.
For Jitter there is a cv.jit free collection of external objects and the samples/tutorials are great.
Similarly PureData has an add-on called Gem, which is similar to Max's Jitter package.
I haven't tried with PureData, but there are OpenCV bindings for it, through Gem.
cv.jit
pdp OpenCV PureData Bindings - via Piksel.no
MaxMSP uses quicktime on osx and can use directX on windows, but it's commercial.
PureData runs on windows/osx/linux, it's free and opensource.
HTH
Related
My goal is as follows: I have to read in a video that is stored on the sd card, process it frame for frame and then store it in a new file on the SD card again，In each image to do image processing.
At first I wanted to use opencv for android but I did not seem to be able to read the video
here.
I am guessing you already know that doing this on a mobile device or any compute limited devices is not ideal, simply because video manipulation is very computer intensive which translates to slow execution and heavy battery usage on many devices. If you do have the option to do the processing on the server side it is definitely worth considering.
Assuming that for your use case you need to do it on the mobile device, then OpenCV on Android will now allow you to read in a video and access each frame - #StephenG mentions this in his answer to the question you refer to above.
In the past, functionality like this did not get ported to the Android OpenCv as the guidance was to use ffmpeg for frame grabbing on Android devices.
According to more recent documentation, however, this should be available for Android now using the VideoCapture class (note I have not used this myself...):
http://docs.opencv.org/java/2.4.11/org/opencv/highgui/VideoCapture.html
It is worth noting that OpenCV Android examples are all currently based around Eclipse and if you want to use Studio, getting things up an running initially can be quite tricky. The following worked for me recently, but as both studio and OpenCV can change over time you may find you have to do some forum hunting if it does not work for you:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/35135495/334402
Taking a different approach, you can use ffmpeg itself, in a wrapper in Android, for tasks like this.
The advantage of the wrapper approach is that you can use all the usual command line syntax and there is a lot of info on the web to help you get the right parameters.
The disadvantage is that ffmpeg was not really designed to be wrapped in this way so you do sometimes see issues. Having said that it is a common approach now and so long as you choose a well used wrapper library you should at least have a good community to discuss any issues you come across with. I have used this approach in a hand crafted way in the past but if I was doing it again I would use one of the popular examples such as:
https://github.com/WritingMinds/ffmpeg-android-java
I'm new to embedded software, I want to build a Image processing application for my AT91SAM9261-EK development board by Atmel. To make it simple i want to use the OpenCV functions, but i'm not sure how am I going to generate a .bim file for flashing on the brd.
Also can anyone you help me understand the flow / software structure for these kind of applications?
Like, will I need Linux or any other OS, if so where does the actual image processing code which i intend to write using opencv sit ?
Till now for simple codes like Basic LCD project, for this board i'm compiling the code using IAR workbench, so if I want to use the same for opencv functions, is there a way ?
Is there any other open source image processing libraries similar to opencv & easy to integrate with IAR or any other ARM compiler ?
Also it would be really useful if there are any links to some learning documents regarding this
Thanks in advance ?
Depending on your application, I think that CPU is not going to be powerful enough to do any kind of image processing; plus the weirdness of working with a foreign system is not going to make your life any easier.
If using this exact CPU is not super important I'd recommend a Beagleboard or Pandaboard, mainly because Ubuntu has installers targeted to the boards and Ubuntu/Debian offers OpenCV packages out of the box, and this is going to remove a whole lot of hurdles if you're new to embedded development -- basically it turns your dev board into a full-featured computer, just plug in a monitor, keyboard and mouse.
The Raspberry Pi looks to be promising in this regard as well, and you certainly can't argue with the price! (You may be able to install Debian on your board and get access to OpenCV packages this way, but I can't vouch for the ease-of-use of this method compared to Ubuntu, which is difficult enough, especially if you're new to Linux).
I want to do a project involving Computer Vision. Mostly object detection/identification. After some research, I keep coming back to OpenCV. But all of the tutorials are from 2008 (I guess it was big for a bit then). It doesn't compile in Python on the mac apparently. I'm using the C++ framework right out of Xcode, but none of the tutorials work as they're outdated and the documentation sucks from what I can parse.
Is there a better solution for what I'm doing, and does anyone have any suggestions as to learning how to to use OpenCV?
Thanks
I have had similar problems getting started with OpenCV and from my experience this is actually the biggest hurdle to learning it. Here is what worked for me:
This book: "OpenCV 2 Computer Vision Application Programming Cookbook." It's the most up-to-date book and has examples on how to solve different Computer Vision problems (You can see the table of contents on Amazon with "Look Inside!"). It really helped ease me into OpenCV and get comfortable with how the library works.
Like have others have said, the samples are very helpful. For things that the book skips or covers only briefly you can usually find more detailed examples when looking through the samples. You can also find different ways of solving the same problem between the book and the samples. For example, for finding keypoints/features, the book shows an example using FAST features:
vector<KeyPoint> keypoints;
FastFeatureDetector fast(40);
fast.detect(image, keypoints);
But in the samples you will find a much more flexible way (if you want to have the option of choosing which keypoint detection algorithm to use):
vector<KeyPoint> keypoints;
Ptr<FeatureDetector> featureDetector = FeatureDetector::create("FAST");
featureDetector->detect(image, keypoints);
From my experience things eventually start to click and for more specific questions you start finding up-to-date information on blogs or right here on StackOverflow.
Let me add a couple of things. First, I can assure you that the Python bindings to OpenCV work on a Mac. I use them every day.
Many people like OpenCV for many reasons:
The license is good, friendly to integration into commercial products, etc.
It is quite good from a technical stand point. It gives you a reference implementation of state of the art algorithms.
It tends to be quite fast compared to the alternatives (Matlab I'm looking at you).
Like everything in life, it is not perfect:
It is a good example of a software library that is a moving target.
I have a 300 line python program that uses OpenCV and every few
months when a new version of OpenCV is released I have to change it
to adapt to the new function names/calling conventions, etc. The
library does advance, a lot, however it is a pain to have to change
the same program 3 times per year.
It has a learning curve, like computer vision itself, it is quite
technical and not easy to learn.
There are alternatives (with other pros and cons) MATLAB with the Image Processing Toolbox is one such example.
The simplest answer that comes to mind, is to read the example code with a bit of understanding, and to try out if Your ideas work. The api does change, and most of the tutorials are writen for the first versions of OpenCV, and it looks that nobody bothered to rewrite them. Nevertheless the core ideas behind it are not changing. So if You find a tutorial answering Your questions, but written in old API just look in the documentation for modern replacements of used functions. It’s not easy and quick, but looks like it works. If You use the newest (actually 2.3) version, I suggest using both the 2.1 documntation and 2.3 docs + tutorials . You should also look into the samples, which should have been installed alongside the library. There are lots of hints about how to use certain structures and tricks that weren't mentioned in documentation. Finally, don't be afraid to look inside the code of the library itself (if You compiled it on Your own). Unfortunately, thats the only source I know to check for example what code corresponds to which type of Mat object.
Is DirectSound the best audio abstraction layer for Windows?
Switching my app from a very bad sound implementation, built to a specific chipset, to an abstration layer.
App is native Winform, .net 3.5. DirectX/DirectSound is the likely choice, but a little concerned about the overhead. Any other options? Or is it silly to even THINK about anything else?
DirectSound is not getting the same love from Microsoft today as it got in the past. As far as DirectX is concerned, you may try XAudio2 or XACT instead. Some people love those, others hate them. XAudio2 is more low-level, while XACT is rather high-level. Both are accessible from Microsoft XNA, which is like Managed DirectX, but is actively developed.
But you are not restricted to using what DirectX comes with. Try FMod if you want something great. They still have their Shareware/Hobbyist license model and a Freeware license model, in case you don't want to pay some big bucks.
Your choice depends on what exactly you want to do with sound.
See if SDL looks better.
Well, you can try OpenAL instead. What OpenGL is to Direct3D is OpenAL to DirectSound(3D). The interface is pretty similar to OpenGL, if you don't like that, you'll probably dislike OpenAL, too. Also I'm not sure if the Windows version of this lib is an own, native implementation or just calls DirectSound and thus might just be a (thin?) wrapper on top of it.
DirectSound is pretty good.
If you need low latency or good support for sound input and output via multiple soundcards at the same time you may also want to have a look at ASIO:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Stream_Input/Output
The waveOut... API is still an option. It's tricky to work with from managed code, but you can play multiple sounds at once this way (in XP and Vista, at least).
If you just need to play sounds occasionally, System.Media.SoundPlayer is very easy to use. However, you can't play more than one sound at a time with this component.
DirectSound is your only other major alternative. It has a built-in software synthesizer, if that's something you need.
EDIT: SDL looks interesting. Thanks, Sijin.
SharpDX looks interesting. I'm planning on trying it as a replacement for Managed DirectX because of the x86 limitations of the latter.
We're looking for a package to help identify and automatically rotate faxed TIFF images based on a watermark or logo.
We use libtiff for rotation currently, but don't know of any other libraries or packages I can use for detecting this logo and determining how to rotate the images.
I have done some basic work with OpenCV but I'm not sure that it is the right tool for this job. I would prefer to use C/C++ but Java, Perl or PHP would be acceptable too.
You are in the right place using OpenCV, it is an excellent utility. For example, this guy used it for template matching, which is fairly similar to what you need to do. Also, the link Roddy specified looks similar to what you want to do.
I feel that OpenCV is the best library out there for this kind of development.
#Brian, OpenCV and the IntelIPP are closely linked and very similar (both Intel libs). As far as I know, if OpenCV finds the intel IPP on your computer it will automatically use it under the hood for improved speed.
The Intel Performance Primitives (IPP) library has a lot of very efficient algorithms that help with this kind of a task. The library is callable from C/C++ and we have found it to be very fast. I should also note that it's not limited to just Intel hardware.
That's quite a complex and specialized algorithm that you need.
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_matching. There's also a demo program (but no source) at http://www.lps.usp.br/~hae/software/cirateg/index.html
Obviously these require you to know the logo you are looking for in advance...