5 ms·
I'm working at a small company that does computer vision and image processing stuff, doing a lot with embedded systems. At some point, I was asked to write cod
by wolletd 4y ago
I'm working at a small company that does computer vision and image processing stuff, doing a lot with embedded systems.
At some point, I was asked to write code to save images on live systems to be downloaded and used for... CV stuff. Also, the images had to be (although weakly) encrypted for IP reasons.
The issue being that those cameras run at 200fps when there's anything of interest and use their compute to do image processing. The flash memory used also isn't made for this kind of write speed.
All that is to say: JPEG is insanely efficient. It takes a moment to compress the image, but only encrypting 10% of the data saves a lot more and the flash memory can keep up way longer than with raw images.
I had to generate some difference images though to convince some CV and management people that we don't need raw images. If our analysis results would depend on a dozen pixels not being off 1-2 gray values, it's broken. There's more noise in every single image than JPEG-induced errors.
- brucethemoose2 4y ago> 200 fps TBH that sounds like a job for a video codec.