| ARToolKit | Mailing List Archive |
|
| From: | Daniel Wagner <daniel@i ...............> | Received: | May 16, 2008 |
| To | artoolkit <artoolkit@l .................> | ||
| Subject: | Re: [ARToolKit] // Performance comparisons between Bazar and Studierstube Tracker // | ||
Hi Julian, Studierstube Tracker runs at 5-10ms on a phone and ~1ms on a PC (per image, not taking image acquisition into account). I haven't tried Bazar myself yet, but I believe that for what it does it should be at least 10-20x slower and uses probably ~100-1000x more memory (StbTracker requires only ~100kb). On the other side such a comparison is quite unfair since Studierstube Tracker tracks only markers, while Bazar does natural feature tracking... Daniel julian wrote: > hi, > > has anyone tested both Studierstube Tracker and the open source Bazar to > track markers with image content? > > Studierstube Tracker boasts fast performance on hand-held devices when > using fiducial markers. while i cannot use Studierstube Tracker, i'm > interested to get an idea of how it compares to Bazar in this case. > > cheers, > > _______________________________________________ ARToolKit mailing list ARToolKit@l ................. http://www.hitlabnz.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/artoolkit |
|||
| From: | Julian Oliver <julian@s ..............> | Received: | May 16, 2008 |
| To | Daniel Wagner <daniel@i ...............> | ||
| Subject: | Re: [ARToolKit] // Performance comparisons between Bazar and Studierstube Tracker // | ||
hola Daniel, ..on or around Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:15:52AM +0200, Daniel Wagner said: > > Studierstube Tracker runs at 5-10ms on a phone and ~1ms on a PC (per > image, not taking image acquisition into account). > I haven't tried Bazar myself yet, but I believe that for what it does it > should be at least 10-20x slower and uses probably ~100-1000x more > memory (StbTracker requires only ~100kb). > > On the other side such a comparison is quite unfair since Studierstube > Tracker tracks only markers, while Bazar does natural feature tracking... ahh my mistake. looking at the image of "Example 4: Tracking from a Frame-Marker with image content." and assumed it was tracking the image content, not the frame. actually reading the caption cleared that! out of interest i sent this several months ago. i wonder why it's reaching the list only now? cheers, julian > > julian wrote: > > hi, > > > > has anyone tested both Studierstube Tracker and the open source Bazar to > > track markers with image content? > > > > Studierstube Tracker boasts fast performance on hand-held devices when > > using fiducial markers. while i cannot use Studierstube Tracker, i'm > > interested to get an idea of how it compares to Bazar in this case. > > > > cheers, > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARToolKit mailing list > ARToolKit@l ................. > http://www.hitlabnz.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/artoolkit -- julian oliver http://julianoliver.com http://selectparks.net messages containing HTML will not be read. _______________________________________________ ARToolKit mailing list ARToolKit@l ................. http://www.hitlabnz.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/artoolkit |
|||
| From: | Daniel Wagner <daniel@i ...............> | Received: | May 16, 2008 |
| To | artoolkit <artoolkit@l .................> | ||
| Subject: | Re: [ARToolKit] // Performance comparisons between Bazar and Studierstube Tracker // | ||
Just this morning about 15 ARToolKit mails (including member ship reminders) from the last 6 months or so arrived in my mailbox. I guess there was a delay somewhere... :) Daniel Julian Oliver wrote: > hola Daniel, > > ..on or around Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:15:52AM +0200, Daniel Wagner said: > >> Studierstube Tracker runs at 5-10ms on a phone and ~1ms on a PC (per >> image, not taking image acquisition into account). >> I haven't tried Bazar myself yet, but I believe that for what it does it >> should be at least 10-20x slower and uses probably ~100-1000x more >> memory (StbTracker requires only ~100kb). >> >> On the other side such a comparison is quite unfair since Studierstube >> Tracker tracks only markers, while Bazar does natural feature tracking... >> > > ahh my mistake. looking at the image of "Example 4: Tracking from a > Frame-Marker with image content." and assumed it was tracking the image > content, not the frame. actually reading the caption cleared that! > > out of interest i sent this several months ago. i wonder why it's > reaching the list only now? > > cheers, > > julian > > >> julian wrote: >> >>> hi, >>> >>> has anyone tested both Studierstube Tracker and the open source Bazar to >>> track markers with image content? >>> >>> Studierstube Tracker boasts fast performance on hand-held devices when >>> using fiducial markers. while i cannot use Studierstube Tracker, i'm >>> interested to get an idea of how it compares to Bazar in this case. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARToolKit mailing list >> ARToolKit@l ................. >> http://www.hitlabnz.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/artoolkit >> > > _______________________________________________ ARToolKit mailing list ARToolKit@l ................. http://www.hitlabnz.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/artoolkit |
|||