GearHeads Corner
April 10, 2020, 05:45:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: WebCam Data  (Read 7794 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ArtF
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5620



View Profile
« on: April 17, 2015, 11:47:58 AM »

Hi All:

  This is a dropzone for any webcam data ( like your confidenc e levels) , experienc es or comments / suggestio ns
related to the Stereo Photometr ics module. All data helps to make the module strionger in future.

Thx
Art
Logged
KKirk
Newbie
*
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2015, 08:48:19 PM »

I am getting confidenc e levels like 23.48, 44.25, 36.148 and etc.  Picture looks good but every time I select "add st'" the program immediate ly goes into an infinite loop and a "3 finger salute" is the only way out.  I have yet to get even 1 good output.

Karl
Logged
ArtF
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5620



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2015, 08:58:14 PM »

Karl:

 Excellent numbers. OK, so you have generated the normals, and created the 3d? Did you decimate the stl before using AddSTL? Decimate it down to around 75,000 or less vertices. Does it lock up when you hit addSTL now?

Art
Logged
DanL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2015, 07:44:19 PM »

hi art tried the webcam in my scanner box the picks came out ok with me turning lights on and off by hand.

had settings at 176 x 144 YUY2, confidenc es at 270.9, gradient scale 0.01 I put the image out at x 176, y 144 and z 14.81831, vertices 6331. see attached pic

it would have worked better if i turned lights on and of at the correct time got it close a couple of times pic`s came out quite clear so if you wont to add out put light control through a arduino that would be cool this year next year when ever.

if you did I think it would be as good or better than the scanner program I use.


* photo.jpg (5.47 KB, 176x144 - viewed 276 times.)
Logged
ArtF
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5620



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2015, 08:30:11 PM »

Hi Dan:

 Thx for the numbers. If the photos are not perfectly timed it will screw it up..no question. Smiley

Art
Logged
DanL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2015, 09:07:45 PM »

yep I will try sticking my spear off next week screen in there to get the correct timing it will make it better, useing twin screens makes it easy
Logged
DanL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2015, 12:31:53 AM »

Hi art had a good play today I have the screen in my scanner box works good forgot to save the last image I did it came out quite well

the confidenc e was 64.899, resolutio n 640 x 480, fire 250ms

couple of thing I found the colour of what you are taking a image of can make or brake a image capture dark colour`s don't work very well at all light colour`s are fine, black pretty much leaves a very white colour, so if the back ground is black it will leave a white back ground.

I will play more tomorrow using a black back ground hopefully I will rember to save the images this time
Logged
ArtF
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5620



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2015, 06:08:13 AM »

Dan:

 Send me a email to support and I can send you the new version with a much different
algorithm .. much faster and pulls much better. You may find it better, but there are no docs
or video for it yet, its a bit more complex as more selection s exist in its operation s.

  But then, the results are much more impressiv e..

Art
Logged
DanL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2015, 07:20:53 PM »

hi art did not see your reply did some playing with a black back ground so much better the area around what I did images off is single colour and flat.

I will add images of result from cut 3D

a is same settings as before as a negative, 3 is image


* a.jpg (58.52 KB, 940x654 - viewed 230 times.)

* e.jpg (57.69 KB, 940x654 - viewed 240 times.)
Logged
ArtF
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5620



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2015, 08:06:04 PM »

lol.. Those look cool..

I see your email, Ill send you a fresh version..

Art
Logged
DanL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2015, 10:03:01 PM »

I have run in to a big problem the X and Y are the same as the aspect size but Z is coming out as just over 3 meter in depth I change x to 200 it goes down to 1 M


* 1.jpg (54.67 KB, 1376x943 - viewed 222 times.)

* 2.jpg (67.77 KB, 940x654 - viewed 220 times.)

* 3.jpg (121.12 KB, 1000x598 - viewed 234 times.)
Logged
ArtF
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5620



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2015, 06:07:22 AM »

Dan:

  Wow, those are pulling out nicely.. just lower your scale slider, it should lower back to a reasonabe l pull, I aim for about 150 as a good scale.. but it varies from data to data set..

Art
Logged
DanL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2015, 04:42:19 PM »

yer they are better than my laser scanner can do I will try that
Logged
DanL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2015, 10:01:09 PM »

Hi art moving the slider down to 1 leaves not a very good image, having it set to 2.5 is a lot better but it has a 80 mm curve ever negative or image it`s all the same.

so the scale of negative to image is good

but the curve is way to much the whole image will be curved cutting the side of helps a little bit.

I have tried a flat black back ground it make`s it worse bigger curve.

A flat white back ground is better, between black and white is 200 mm

it would be good if you can reduce the Gradient scale so if its at 10 it would be 1/4 or less of what it is now but keeping the image just as good or have it how it was in the last version I tried the one on your site had barely any curve to wear there was a flat back ground sorry to be a pain

picks 1 is negative, 1 on gradient scale pick 2 is negative, 2.5 on gradient scale, picks 1a, 2a is image same setting`s 

threshold is 0.1, zero noise gradients is un ticked, ambient correctio n same, fullres resolutio n is 176 x 144 yuy2--format 2
Logged
DanL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2015, 02:09:30 AM »

been playing with the web cam on my laptop the differenc es from the webcam in a box to the one on the laptop is massive everythin g comes out fine with the webcam on my laptop.

I thinks it just that there is no back ground noise in the box so the changes you made are to much if the webcam has no back ground noise and is in a box I will try having the web cam sitting on my laptop to see what happens I will post those latter
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!