4 ms·

Haha, a reasonable request. We're working on a good way to let people demo our technology. Part of the problem is that this is computationally intensive, and

by bkrausz 16y ago

Haha, a reasonable request. We're working on a good way to let people demo our technology. Part of the problem is that this is computationally intensive, and we didn't want all of TC killing our processing servers. The other part is we found that people demoing the software are less likely to follow the instructions (since they're not getting paid) and we worried about having a lot of poor tracks that would look bad. Our testers have been amazingly good at following instructions :).

jacquesm 16y ago
It's only computationally intensive because you're using the processor on your end to do the work. Why not have a large portion of the work done on the clients machine?
- bkrausz 16y ago
  Two main reasons: 1) Our processing can't be done realtime (i.e. it takes more than 1 second per second of video), at least for now, so there would need to be a lag that can get significant if they user has a slow enough computer. 2) We currently don't require any software to be installed client-side (we use Flash + JS), which we consider a big perk.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I can see the advantage of not having to install client side stuff, but if that's such a performance penalty that you have to charge so much more you're opening yourself up to competition by someone that does the same thing but finds a way to do it client side. Looks like you have a bunch of tough optimisation ahead, much good luck with that. Very nice idea by the way, eye tracking used to be the domain of specialised setups using cameras behind half-transparent mirrors, it's quite impressive that you've gotten this far with just a cheap webcam as an input device.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    Maybe you could offer to pay your testers more if they're willing to do the processing (which requires a download). Depending on how much your processing costs are you could even distribute it @home style.
artaak 16y ago
Have you tried to employ Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) to do the computation-intensive tasks? I could imagine that using CUDA-enabled kernels might be of help for processing images.

by bkrausz 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

It's only computationally intensive because you're using the processor on your end to do the work. Why not have a large portion of the work done on the clients machine?

bkrausz 16y ago
Two main reasons: 1) Our processing can't be done realtime (i.e. it takes more than 1 second per second of video), at least for now, so there would need to be a lag that can get significant if they user has a slow enough computer. 2) We currently don't require any software to be installed client-side (we use Flash + JS), which we consider a big perk.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I can see the advantage of not having to install client side stuff, but if that's such a performance penalty that you have to charge so much more you're opening yourself up to competition by someone that does the same thing but finds a way to do it client side. Looks like you have a bunch of tough optimisation ahead, much good luck with that. Very nice idea by the way, eye tracking used to be the domain of specialised setups using cameras behind half-transparent mirrors, it's quite impressive that you've gotten this far with just a cheap webcam as an input device.
- jonknee 16y ago
  Maybe you could offer to pay your testers more if they're willing to do the processing (which requires a download). Depending on how much your processing costs are you could even distribute it @home style.

artaak 16y ago

Have you tried to employ Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) to do the computation-intensive tasks? I could imagine that using CUDA-enabled kernels might be of help for processing images.