Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 83

Thread: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,228
    Images
    155
    Rep Power
    125

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    I think you were going along fine until you added "and eventually a camera". The shear amount of processing required means that a uC at 16MHz can barely keep up with a small camera module (take a look at the code for the AVRCam, which runs at 17.something MHz), there's just not a lot of clock cycles per frame. If you seriously want to do any vision processing on the main core, you'll want to make that main core be more than an AVR.

    -Fergs

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA Area
    Posts
    5,341
    Rep Power
    175

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    Not enough memory or bus, either. Even at 320x240x8bpp, we're talking 76KB/frame. Three frame buffer minimum, 230KB. We need to run at least, say, ten of those a second to be meaningful.

    Realistically, unless you have a meg of memory, you really don't need to apply.
    I Void Warranties�

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Posts
    1,718
    Images
    456
    Rep Power
    95

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    I wonder...could you send the video data offbot for processing? Or is there a chip that could process the video for you? seams like some vision is better than no vision...(in the world of the blind the one eyed man is king?)

    DB

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA Area
    Posts
    5,341
    Rep Power
    175

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    >> Or is there a chip that could process the video for you?

    Absolutely. It's called a "microcontroller with more guts than the AVRs."

    >> could you send the video data offbot for processing

    Absolutely! You'll need a microcontroller with more guts than the AVR to handle packetizing and shipping the data.
    I Void Warranties�

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Posts
    1,718
    Images
    456
    Rep Power
    95

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    Sorry to junk up your thread, but could you use something like this?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,228
    Images
    155
    Rep Power
    125

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by darkback2 View Post
    Sorry to junk up your thread, but could you use something like this?
    I'd probably get an AVR cam first, has non-I2C interface, costs $50 less, and has same specs otherwise. Either way, it's fairly limited, tracking 8 blobs seriously eats up ALL the processor time. You probably want to look at something like a surveyor camera for real processing ability.

    -Fergs

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA Area
    Posts
    5,341
    Rep Power
    175

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    Just like the avrcam. Do you really need to detect a large blob of color and nothing else, typically? Is that all that useful?
    I Void Warranties�

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    853
    Images
    99
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    Moving the video processing offboard is a good idea. A wifi cam talking to a laptop for processing is a good option if you don't want to add electronics to the robot but still need to do video processing.
    "If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."
    -
    Einstein

    Don't be a HelpVampire

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA Area
    Posts
    5,341
    Rep Power
    175

    Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    I agree with that, in general. The wifi cam has a sizable amount of processing power on it. Usually a DSP and an MCU.
    I Void Warranties�

  10. #40

    Arrow Re: W.A.L.T.E.R. v2.0

    Quote Originally Posted by lnxfergy View Post
    I think you were going along fine until you added "and eventually a camera". The shear amount of processing required means that a uC at 16MHz can barely keep up with a small camera module (take a look at the code for the AVRCam, which runs at 17.something MHz), there's just not a lot of clock cycles per frame. If you seriously want to do any vision processing on the main core, you'll want to make that main core be more than an AVR.
    You seem to be making an invalid assumption here. Of course I know an AVR isn't going to be able to process video. I'm not planning to use an AVRCam, CMUCam or similar camera. It's going to be the Blackfin camera. If not the Blackfin camera, I'd throw something like a BeagleBoard in as the master controller.

    8-Dale
    I can handle complexity. It's the simple things that confound me.
    Do everything in moderation, ESPECIALLY, moderation..
    Sometimes the only way to win, is not to play.. -- Stephen Falken

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Introduce yourself!
    By DresnerRobotics in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1117
    Last Post: 09-02-2019, 04:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •