Hey Daniel,
Since you couldnt reproduce the bug, i decided to give it another look
and tried to reproduce the NaN matrix. And it seems that there has been
a change in 2.1.0 that removed its existence, even though not on
purpose ;)
with 2.0.2 i get:
ARToolKitPlus compile-time information:
ARToolKitPlus v2.0: built May 2 2006 16:21:46 (GCC 4.0.2);
single precision; 6x 6 marker; LUM pixelformat; RPP support available.
ARToolKitPlus: CamSize 640 , 480
ARToolKitPlus: Dist.Factor 318.00 278.00 -21.23 0.98
checksum: 165340
Found marker 30 (confidence 100%)
Pose-Matrix:
nan nan nan 0.00
nan nan nan 0.00
nan nan nan 0.00
nan nan nan 1.00
----------
And with 2.1 i get:
ARToolKitPlus compile-time information:
ARToolKitPlus v2.1: built May 2 2006 16:17:38 (GCC 4.0.2);
floating-point; single precision; 6x6 marker; RGB pixelformat; custom
memory manager; RPP support available.
ARToolKitPlus: CamSize 640 , 480
ARToolKitPlus: Dist.Factor 318.00 278.00 -21.23 0.98
checksum: 165340
Found marker 30 (confidence 100%)
Pose-Matrix:
0.90 -0.07 -0.42 0.00
0.06 -0.96 0.29 0.00
-0.42 -0.28 -0.86 0.00
45.81 28.94 622.35 1.00
-------------
Now that the NaN bug seems to be resolved, i am afraid i do have one
other bug left in my output, so i will be working on getting a solid
case showing that one. I hoped it was related to the NaN bug.
regards,
Tijs de Kler
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 14:26 +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Raymond de Vries wrote:
> > Attached are the used code and 2 images (640x480 raw) that are
> > generating pose estimations containing NaNs.
> >
> hi Raymond,
>
> I tested the code (basically the simple example that comes with
> ARToolKitPlus) with the images you attached to your emails. Here are the
> results i get:
>
> testImageNaN1.raw:
> 0.90 -0.07 -0.42 0.00
> 0.06 -0.96 0.29 0.00
> -0.42 -0.28 -0.86 0.00
> 45.81 28.94 622.35 1.00
>
> testImageNaN2.raw:
> 0.94 -0.06 -0.35 0.00
> 0.07 -0.94 0.32 0.00
> -0.35 -0.33 -0.88 0.00
> 50.75 27.56 645.26 1.00
>
> no NaN and the results look actually very reasonable (looking at the
> last rows...).
>
> In the sample code you sent me you load "LogitechPro4000.dat". Unless
> you really use that same camera file from the ARToolKitPlus distribution
> (which is btw completely wrong for a wide angle dragonfly lens) i see no
> reason why it would work on my machine and not on yours. I tested your
> files with ARToolKitPlus 2.1, but I doubt that i removed bugs in there
> since version 2.0.2 which would prevent those NaN.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Daniel
>
|