3 ms·

thoughts on tumbling/turning the parts on the belt once identified for more pictures? It wouldn't add anything to the sort speed but it'd get you way more pictu

thoughts on tumbling/turning the parts on the belt once identified for more pictures? It wouldn't add anything to the sort speed but it'd get you way more pictures. Thinking of that machine that tumbled dice automatically. Does the addition/removal of the belt in the background come into the recognition? Otherwise in air shots from a tumble tower or belt with trip on it would get you a lot more images.

jacquesm 10y ago
The belt movement is continuous, parts that do roll around on the belt are coming out crazily warped because in each image the belt has moved 3 to 5 mm and the part has moved the same but probably in a different direction than the one the belt is moving in. Those images are useless. This scheme would work if you could always get the parts out of a single frame on the camera but they're much too long for that (24 studs long is the maximum).
- grogenaut 10y ago
  What cameras are you using? I couldn't see it very well in the writeup. Also thanks very much for this post it's very cool. You should cross post to hackaday blog.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    http://aggregator.foolab.org/node/73382 http://aggregator.foolab.org/node/73382 > You should cross post to hackaday blog. I post my own stuff on my own blog, I don't feel like making accounts in 20 different places. HN and Twitter are my exceptions.
    - grogenaut 10y ago
      I only mentioned them as they're very hardware focused. So why micro imaging instead of macro? I haven't done any of the nn cv stuff yet, can you pair different image sources of the same item?
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > So why micro imaging instead of macro? Because the details between some of the parts are only very minor and yet that can the difference between the part in its normal version or (for instance) its technic version. > I haven't done any of the nn cv stuff yet, can you pair different image sources of the same item? I took a chance on that and it seems to work. I just stack the images and present them as one larger image. Quite possibly that's 'wrong' and I should present the two images separately to two different nets which are then recombined at the end but this trick seems to work.
        grogenaut 10y ago
        Huh I would have tried a 20mp dslr with a nice lens instead figuring it could pick up the differences. You can get Canon ones for about $450 on cl with lenses now. Good to know it worked on the composite. Thanks for the info!

jacquesm 10y ago

The belt movement is continuous, parts that do roll around on the belt are coming out crazily warped because in each image the belt has moved 3 to 5 mm and the part has moved the same but probably in a different direction than the one the belt is moving in. Those images are useless. This scheme would work if you could always get the parts out of a single frame on the camera but they're much too long for that (24 studs long is the maximum).

grogenaut 10y ago
What cameras are you using? I couldn't see it very well in the writeup. Also thanks very much for this post it's very cool. You should cross post to hackaday blog.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  http://aggregator.foolab.org/node/73382 http://aggregator.foolab.org/node/73382 > You should cross post to hackaday blog. I post my own stuff on my own blog, I don't feel like making accounts in 20 different places. HN and Twitter are my exceptions.
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    I only mentioned them as they're very hardware focused. So why micro imaging instead of macro? I haven't done any of the nn cv stuff yet, can you pair different image sources of the same item?
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > So why micro imaging instead of macro? Because the details between some of the parts are only very minor and yet that can the difference between the part in its normal version or (for instance) its technic version. > I haven't done any of the nn cv stuff yet, can you pair different image sources of the same item? I took a chance on that and it seems to work. I just stack the images and present them as one larger image. Quite possibly that's 'wrong' and I should present the two images separately to two different nets which are then recombined at the end but this trick seems to work.
      - grogenaut 10y ago
        Huh I would have tried a 20mp dslr with a nice lens instead figuring it could pick up the differences. You can get Canon ones for about $450 on cl with lenses now. Good to know it worked on the composite. Thanks for the info!