Im using OpenCV on Windows CE 6.0 R2 on and the performance is quite weak. I can do 300 YUV to RGB conversions per second (using my code), but OpenCV takes 3 seconds to perform a single cvGoodFeaturesToTrack() on a VGA image. I know OpenCV uses STL a lot, does anyone have experience with STL on Windows CE?
Thanks,
Filip
cvGoodFeaturesToTrack() is a heavy function that uses a lot of floating point operations. If your platform does not support FP ops that would explain what your are seeing.
Try using the FAST features which are, well, FAST.
Related
I am working on a GPU server from my college with the computing capability less than 3.0, Windows 7 Professional, 64-bit operating system and 48GB RAM. I have tried to install tensorflow earlier but then I got to know that my GPU cannot support it.
I now want to work on keras but as tensorflow is not there so will it work or not as I am also not able to import it?
I have to do video processing and have to work on big video datasets for Dynamic Sign Language Recognition. Can anyone suggest me what I can do to get going in the field of Deep Learning with such GPU server? Or if I want to work on CPU only, then will there be any problem in this field of video processing?
I also have an HP Probook 440 G4 Laptop with Windows 10 Pro so is it better than the GPU server I have or not?
I am totally new to this field and cannot find a way to work properly in it.
Your opinions are needed right now!
The 'dxdiag' information for my laptop is shown and .
Thanks in advance!
For Keras to work you need either Tensorflow or Theano. Your Laptop seems to have a GeForce 930M GPU. This card has a compute capability or 5.0 according to the NVIDIA documentation (https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus). So you are better off with your Laptop if my research was right.
I guess you will use CNN with your video processing and therefore I would advise you to use a GPU. You can run your code also on a CPU but training will be much slower since GPUs are made for parallel computing and CPUs are not (the big matrix multiplication profit a lot from the parallel computing).
Maybe you could try a cloud computing provider if you think training is too slow on your laptop
I have been putting enormous effort trying to get GPU acceleration for my Imagemagick resize operations using Go and its imagick library: https://gopkg.in/gographics/imagick.v2/imagick
I have built imagemagick with OpenCL support and OpenCL acceleration works perfectly well when used in command line. However when using the resize operation in my Go code using imagick, no GPU acceleration happens. I have verified this through performance tests.
I have also tried modifying the imagick library in my own fork by adding support for explicitly initializing OpenCL (InitImageMagickOpenCL) but this provided no solution whatsoever.
I'd really appreciate if someone had a solution to this issue.
Thank you in advance.
So, we've got a little graphical doohickey that needs to run in a server environment without a real video card. All it really needs is framebuffer objects and maybe some vector/font anti-aliasing. It will be slow, I know. It just needs to output single frames.
I see this post about how to force software rendering mode, but it seems to apply to machines that already have OpenGL enabled cards (like NVidia).
So, for fear of trying to install OpenGL on a machine three time zones away with a bunch of live production sites on it-- has anybody tried this and/or know how to "emulate" an OpenGL environment? Unfortunately our dev server HAS a video card, so I can't really show "what I've tried".
The relevant code is all in Cinder, but I think our actual OpenGL utilization is lightweight for this purpose.
This would run on windows server 2008 Standard
I see MS has a software implementation for OGL 1.1, but can't seem to find one for 2.0
Build/find some Mesa DLLs.
It will be slow.
I want to make a 2D desktop GUI application with DirectX but I don't know which version to use. I initially tried Direct2D but it never really gained popularity, thus there isn't a lot of community support or documentation for it compared to the rest of DirectX, so it's not an option.
So I have three options:
DirectX 9.0c
DirectX 10
DirectX 11 (not 11.1, I'm not getting Windows 8)
A knowledgeable friend of mine strongly encouraged DirectX 9.0c saying that's all I need, but I am wary of using an 8-year old platform. Microsoft is pretty much the zenith of legacy support but I think that they must have a limit. I have no idea of the difference between DX10 and DX11.
Keep in mind that I'm very much a novice programmer so this is mostly a learning project.
Any advice is appreciated!
Edit: I'd also appreciate advice on any significant differences in functionality or programming paradigms between the versions.
What version of DirectX should I use to make a 2D desktop GUI application?
DirectX 9, because you'll get more users.
A knowledgeable friend of mine strongly encouraged DirectX 9.0c saying that's all I need, but I am wary of using an 8-year old platform.
Many DirectX 7 and DirectX 5 games still work just fine, not to mention titles that use DirectDraw. So there's no problem with 8-year old platform. Using newer (than 9) version might not even benefit you, so blindly going for higher version number isn't a good idea.
Depending on your circumstances you could also consider using OpenGL but that choice makes sense only if your app has to be cross-platform. If you know that application will be windows-only, then choosing DirectX 9 makes sense.
Microsoft's primary commitment is to its Windows customers. Who still run 15 years old games that use whatever DirectX version was in use back then. IDirectDraw is alive and well. Clearly you'll benefit from that as a developer secondarily. And sure, DX 9 is most widely supported by hardware so that's an excellent choice. Consider something higher if your game performs poorly on old hardware, the DX version is an automatic selector.
Are you writing this for work, or for fun?
If it's for work, then you have to go by the minimum system requirements that someone in business or marketing has defined. If your minimum OS can be Win7 or Vista SP2 w/ Platform Update, then Direct2D is a viable option. Otherwise, DX9 is the way you have to go.
If it's for fun on your own personal time, then do whatever you think will be the most fun :) Direct2D will certainly be MUCH easier to work with if you just want to do 2D graphics. I wouldn't worry much about the "it hasn't gained popularity/community support" angle, especially because it's being used by all the major desktop apps nowadays (Firefox, Internet Explorer, and even the next version of Paint.NET). Also, Win8 will update Direct2D with a whole bunch of interesting new features (and this update will also be available for Win7 from what I understand).
Direct2D can be clumsy to work with at first, but that's mainly due to all the COM stuff. Once you get used to it and build up your own little utilities warchest, it's really not any more complicated than GDI+. In fact, I've been able to port a bunch of old GDI+ code to using Direct2D/DirectWrite and often it's just a line-by-line substitution, e.g. SolidBrush -> SolidColorBrush (this is in the Paint.NET 4.0 code base, btw).
I used the Direct 2D to render graphs of functions and it's pretty easy to use - I'd say, as simple as GDI+. I'd guess, that level of complexity of DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 (in terms of 2D graphics) is quite similar, so don't worry about that.
DirectX 9.0 runs on (let's say) all modern computers, and 11 restricts you to Windows Vista (with platform pack) and Windows 7. Take into consideration, though, that Windows XP will eventually vanish and DirectX will evolve, so I'm not sure, is it worth investing your time into technology, which won't be developed anymore. I would suggest DirectX 11's Direct2D then.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I've been thinking about starting a new graphics project and I want to use Java. Java has wrappers for all of the relevant GL functionality but I wonder how many people, including casual users, actually have decent GL drivers installed. By decent, I mean somewhat stable and fairly new (GL 1.5 support would probably do although the GLSL support that comes with 2.0 would be great). I could DirectX, even with Java, but I pretty much hate it and this project is supposed to be 'fun'. Also, I like the at least near-cross-platformedness of GL. So, anyone know of any non-imaginary stats on what percentage of Windows users have the drivers to run a GL app?
The Steam Hardware Survey is probably the best and most detailed source for info about what gamers have. Accurate statistics for the general population will be harder to come by. Instead, you should look at this in terms of how recent you want the graphics hardware. For example, any ATI chip from the R300 series (Radeon 9550+) onward supports OpenGL 2.0. On the NVidia side, any GeForce 6000+ series chip will support OpenGL 2.0, and their predecessors, the FX series, almost supported OpenGL 2.0. The R300 series and the FX series were both introduced in 2002, so if you know what portion of your target market is using a PC from 2003 or later, you'll have a fairly good idea of how widespread OpenGL 2.0 support is among users with discrete graphics.
If you want to support integrated graphics (which are the largest segment of the market, but aren't particularly common with those who are serious about graphics of any kind) your users will need at least a GMA X3000 for hardware acceleration of OpenGL 2.0 features, which means their system has to be from 2006 or later.
If you're interested in support on other operating systems, any Intel Mac will support OpenGL 2.0 with software fallbacks, and hardware acceleration whenever the chip would support it under Windows. On Linux, any system with Mesa 7 or later (June 2007 or later) will support OpenGL 2.0 software rendering. Hardware acceleration is less reliable, but there are decent open-source drivers for ATI chips from R300 and newer.
Every modern day video card supports OpenGL ... Shouldnt you be questioning how many Windows boxes have the Java runtime?
As I recall, Windows XP comes with 1.1 support out of the box. Vista upgrades this to 1.5. So you can at least count on those as an absolute minimum.
Apart from that, the GPU drivers from pretty much any vendor gives you at least 2.0 support.
But if I were you, I'd reconsider DirectX. I don't know what you hate about it, but it does have some advantages. The tool support is vastly better (ie, there are tools available. And PIX is nothing short of amazing), the API is up to date, and well designed, rather than accumulated over 20 years of a committee working at cross purposes, and if this is limited to Windows anyway, cross-platform doesn't really matter. (On the other hand, of course, if you do need cross-platform capabilities, it doesn't really matter what else DirectX can offer, it won't deliver that one killer feature)
Nearly everybody has SOME form of OpenGL support. Experience has shown that the actual drivers involved can be quite poor when dealing with ATI and especially Intel hardware, but it will at least work, aforementioned bugs notwithstanding. If nothing else, Windows can fall back to its built in 1.1 (XP and earlier) or 1.4 (Vista and higher) implementation. It won't work well, but it will work.
Windows XP comes with OpenGL 1.1 (quite slow though). Windows Vista also comes with OpenGL 1.1 (but for some special applications it has OpenGL 1.4 emulator on top of D3D).
When you install a graphics driver on Windows, it installs a more OpenGL version. OpenGL 1.5 is roughly "DX9 shader model 2.0" capable hardware. How many machines have that kind of hardware depends on your target market. In traditional/hardcore games space, almost all will (see Steam Hardware Survey).
In more casual/small games space, quite a lot of machines have much older hardware (see Unity Hardware Stats - almost 30% in 2009 Q1 are older than "DX9 shader model 2.0"). Also, a lot of machines in that space do not have custom drivers; they use whatever display drivers are shipped in Windows (which do not provide anything more than GL 1.1). Again, see Unity Hardware Stats - the most popular driver versions are the ones that come with Windows.
Stability wise, I'd strongly suggest using D3D9 on Windows instead of OpenGL. Driver quality is much better for D3D9 (less crashes inside drivers, less incorrect rendering, better performance, ...).
I'd say that all Windows users have some support for OpenGL. The latest versions usually are reserved for Vista users, gamers, and developers.