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