ARToolKit | Mailing List Archive |
![]() |
From: | "Luca Degli Esposti" <rei_work@l ........> | Received: | Feb 27, 2003 |
To | "AR Mailing List" <artoolkit@h ..................> | ||
Subject: | Resolutions | ||
Hi all I'we got a simple question: I use see-thrug glasses, so i don't need to display the video stream fron the webcam. Can i grab the frames at 320*240 and then draw objects on a 640x480 or 800x600 window? This should cosiderably reduce the cpu load. Bye Luca |
From: | Jeremy Goslin <jeremy@j ...............> | Received: | Feb 27, 2003 |
To | Luca Degli Esposti <rei_work@l ........> | ||
Subject: | Re: Resolutions | ||
Luca Degli Esposti wrote: > Hi all > I'we got a simple question: I use see-thrug glasses, so i don't need > to display the video stream fron the webcam. Can i grab the frames at > 320*240 and then draw objects on a 640x480 or 800x600 window? This > should cosiderably reduce the cpu load. > > Bye > Luca Yes, there is no relation between camera resolution and 3D rendering resolution. It would be the same if you were using video-see through as well, you would just have to scale the camera resolution to the rendering resolution (best done using texturing). |
From: | Jeremy Goslin <jeremy@j ...............> | Received: | Feb 27, 2003 |
To | Luca Degli Esposti <rei_work@l ........> | ||
Subject: | Re: Resolutions | ||
Luca Degli Esposti wrote: > Hi all > I'we got a simple question: I use see-thrug glasses, so i don't need > to display the video stream fron the webcam. Can i grab the frames at > 320*240 and then draw objects on a 640x480 or 800x600 window? This > should cosiderably reduce the cpu load. > > Bye > Luca Yes, there is no relation between camera resolution and 3D rendering resolution. It would be the same if you were using video-see through as well, you would just have to scale the camera resolution to the rendering resolution (best done using texturing). |