So on website of Unibrain, you can see a limitation of processor when you use one or three camera the ratio of picture
http://www.unibrain.com/Products/VisionImg/tSpec_Fire_i_DC.htm
The minium of processor is 2,6 ghz for two camera 640x480 YUV 4:1:1 (12 bits)
I used Pd or MaxMSP I don't know, if Ps3 eyes works on MaxMSP or pd ( I need to have 20 meters of Cable between MacPro and Webcam ( With unibrain a fiRepeater permit to do it I don't know what is possible with Ps3 eyes)
Olivier
From: pd-list-request@iem.at Subject: Pd-list Digest, Vol 74, Issue 70 To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 12:00:02 +0200
Send Pd-list mailing list submissions to pd-list@iem.at
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to pd-list-request@iem.at
You can reach the person managing the list at pd-list-owner@iem.at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Pd-list digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: opengl performance on osX ; Re: four PS3 Eye on Mac Pro and Pd-ext and GEM (Simon Wise)
- Re: CVs (Simon Wise)
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 15:10:35 +0800 From: Simon Wise simonzwise@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] opengl performance on osX ; Re: four PS3 Eye on Mac Pro and Pd-ext and GEM To: pd-list@iem.at Message-ID: 4DD8B6EB.7060101@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Yep, of course, you have to choose 'no effect' in 'Appearance' to get best frame rate. MacOSX should have this option too.
I haven't used it in a while, but OSX probably still has these options scattered around the place, like choosing whether or not to 'animate' various actions, choosing to auto-hide the dock, choosing transparencies in various places .. but not a single switch and some things are not accessible directly by the GUI but are all settable via CL so a script to turn all off would be straightforward, or use third party preference setting apps to do it for you if unix style CL stuff is not for you - I remember something like 'onyx' was a good one of these.
Simon
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:29:14 +0800 From: Simon Wise simonzwise@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] CVs To: Bryan Jurish jurish@uni-potsdam.de Cc: PD-list@iem.at Message-ID: 4DD8C95A.1010401@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 22/05/11 06:22, Bryan Jurish wrote:
On 2011-05-20 16:05, Simon Wise wrote:
On 19/05/11 23:12, Bryan Jurish wrote:
On 2011-05-19 14:01, Simon Wise wrote:
That is which numbers are directly perceivable, without some more abstract mathematical mapping to guide us?
Zero ;-)
Sorry; that was intended as a joke --
yes of course, but it also seemed a good place to rephrase some of the ideas I was trying (perhaps not so clearly) to articulate!
It is also interesting to consider the fact that words for zero as a number are so recent in languages that we can try to identify when and where they first came to be used. It puts another slant on the distinction between numbers and other ways of expressing some simple quantities. "Nothing" isn't a number, "Zero" is, because we have included it in our numbering system. Likewise the words in the languages I mentioned for "one" "two" "three" "many" may be more like the word "nothing" than the word "zero".
"Pair" is a word of English, and a highly ambiguous one at that -- it might be an ordered pair, an unordered pair, a pair of pants, a pair of aces, 'a pair' (aka "couple"), or whatever. Yes, it's semantically and pragmatically complex. The (abstract) number "2" plays a pretty heavy role in all of its sense I can think of at the moment, though.
yes, this complexity and how closely it relates to the number "two" compared to how a kind of paired-ness can be thought of, and perceived, as something distinct from "two", is exactly what I am trying to think about.
Looking at a group of three things they also form a triangle, something which is also closely related to the number "three", yet also is not a number. Does the word "three" in the above language have more in common with "triangle" than "3"? It would take much careful and interesting research to begin to answer this.
How large an integer can we perceive in a way analogous to these? It seems to that for most people it may be five or six, but for some unusual people it is well over 50.
but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean the semantics usually associated with the feature (singleton vs. non-singleton set) -- it's kinda cool that zero tends to get lumped in with plurals in English (but usually not in German); not sure how other
yes, in the sense that singular it is the way of representing one thing as opposed to not-one, a counting that goes "one" "many". The German usage spoils this idea a bit, as singular in this case does not mean "one of". Quite a few languages, at least from this region, can form the plural by doubling the noun.
I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure where it's going. I'll accept the "directly perceivable" term for current purposes, but there's whole heckuvalot more going on in our heads (brains& associated processes) when we look at and identify a small set of like items as a set-of-N than I'm accustomed to calling "direct", and that's just the stuff we know about...
That is why looking at the language structures is interesting, I am suggesting that sometimes looking at what is encoded in the most basic, oldest parts of human language may help think about what is directly perceivable in the sense I am thinking about, and it is exactly the presence of language forms addressing small numbers that suggest they are something else than small positive integers, add that to the "52"example and it seems that "small" in this case may be larger than I would have expected.
It's a unary predicate, i.e. an intransitive. It takes a single argument. It returns a truth value; albeit in at least one common sense of 'exist' that value depends on the evaluation index (possible world / place and time of utterance / speaker / etc). I'm talking about the kind of existence which is independent of the current index, i.e. __necessary__ existence: existence in every possible world.
Sorry, that was probably annoying. Yes, different people use the word in different ways with different connotations.
not annoying at all, different more or less precise usages get in the way and a few definitions certainly help decide whether a disagreement is about the meaning of the question or the answer.
Warning Will Robinson Danger -- I think what's special about small numbers is special to humans, and not to the numbers as such (i.e. as abstracta). I think 2 (e.g. as the cardinality of the set {0,1}) is pretty special from an abstract standpoint as well (binary numbers simulating alphabets of arbitrary finite size, that darned Turing (1937) again), but I'd guess that the ease of small-number recognition is probably just a contigent human-specific brain-related phenomenon along the lines Chris sketched...
I am suggesting that the size of small sets are not only describable by numbers, they can also be described as a named patterns. No things, A single thing. A pair of things. A triangle of things .... when these descriptions do not need to form a potentially infinite series of counting numbers, they don't even need to be ordered. They just need to be recognisable as a quality of the set. How big a set has a perceivable distinct pattern certainly depends on the brain doing the recognising, my point though is that these patterns, words, whatever, do not need to be ordered to have useful meaning. They do not need to be labelled by numbers. Numbers are of course a very useful way to map those patterns, so useful it is easy to forget and abandon any unordered set of descriptions for these patterns in groups.
Data pending... unfortunately the guy I know who would probably be able to help me out is probably himself wandering around Australia collecting that kind of data at the moment...
sounds very interesting discussion could result
There's a thing I feel obliged to point out here which aspiring linguists get to know as the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" (unrelated to Start Trek): basically it states that `if you can't say it, you can't think it', and it's been pretty much totally discredited by now; i.e. just because you don't have a word for it doesn't mean you can't perceive it / think it / know it / talk about it (indirectly).
yes, I certainly was thinking about this as I wrote that, and was going to say that it wasn't only the language that was being described, for example the story about the river and the isolation went into various other details, and the isolation between nearby groups of people was very striking in many ways.
Certainly wandering way off-topic here ... though ordering, numbers, their mapping to quantities and the encoding of these quantities and the interpretation of them is very much on-topic for pd in general.
Simon
Pd-list mailing list Pd-list@iem.at to manage your subscription (including un-subscription) see http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
End of Pd-list Digest, Vol 74, Issue 70