1. Home
  2. Embedded Programming
  3. Camera with integrated DSP

Camera with integrated DSP

Hi!

I'm looking for a camera with some integrated DSP onboard. So far i've seen the CMUCam III and that looks good, but is there anything else available?

What i want to do is set up a camera to track a table football table (foosball table) and then output the state of the ball and players. The actual DSP is not that hard and i've done it on my pc (in matlab) using still images and some videos from my digital camera. However, its very slow and i'd like it to be a seperate module that just outputs coords of the ball and players relative to the wall. All the programing i can do in matlab and i can probably adapt that to a different language aswell. I also want to run at between 30 and 100 fps. The method i used in matlab uses colour, so it might need to be a fastish processor, im not really sure.

Can anyone think of anything? Do you think i get those speeds?

Thanks! Matt

--------------------------------------- This message was sent using the comp.arch.embedded web interface on

formatting link

Reply to
poly_99
Loading thread data ...

"poly_99" schreef in bericht news:KbidnT5y9J6HEy7XnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com...

slow

also

Hi Matt,

What you are looking for is a 'machine vision' camera. Try VC

formatting link
but these babies are not cheap!

A search for Blackfin and vision might give useable results too as there are some opensource camera's out there.

Antoon

Reply to
Antoon

My knee-jerk reaction is to say that you're better off decoupling your DSP needs from your camera needs, and if you're still in the prototype stage you're better off with too much computing power than just enough. Get a camera that can feed into a PC, get a _really fast_ PC, and write your code in C or C++ -- you should see a dramatic speedup over Matlab.

I've seen tracker algorithms implemented on PC's that do quite well, at least for tracking one or a few objects. So I suspect you'll be able to make this one work unless your algorithm is very computation-intensive (in which case just any old DSP wouldn't work for you anyway). Were it me I'd write my algorithm and try it to see how often I could process a frame, and set my frame rate accordingly. Hopefully it'd be high enough...

Once you have an idea of what frame rate you can sustain in a PC when you have the code written in an efficient language then you'll have an idea of how much DSP power you need if you want to make this more modular.

For reference, the communications applications I do see between a 10x and

100x improvement from Scilab (a very Matlabish open-source application) and C++, the control applications ditto. Very little of the speedup is in FFTs and matrix math, because that's what Matlab is good at -- most of the speedup is in parts of the algorithm where Scilab (or Matlab) is stumbling through some loop doing an algorithm that can't be efficiently reduced to a few matrix operations. 
--
www.wescottdesign.com
Reply to
Tim Wescott

PC has very capable CPU, a DSP camera will only add to the difficulties unless your goal is a portable device. Abandon the Matlab, it is the worseless toy for stupidents; not suitable for any real work. If you redo your processing in C++, you will get a speed up by the factor of 10 or so.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

formatting link

Reply to
Vladimir Vassilevsky

formatting link

Oliver

--
Oliver Betz, Munich
despammed.com might be broken, use Reply-To:
Reply to
Oliver Betz

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.