[PD] Pd-list Digest, Vol 74, Issue 70

Sun May 22 14:22:53 CEST 2011

So  on website of Unibrain, you can see a limitation of processor when you use one or three  camera  the ratio of picture 

http://www.unibrain.com/Products/VisionImg/tSpec_Fire_i_DC.htm

The minium of processor is 2,6 ghz for two camera 640x480 YUV 4:1:1 (12 bits)  

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)

Olivier


> From: pd-list-request at iem.at
> Subject: Pd-list Digest, Vol 74, Issue 70
> To: pd-list at iem.at
> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 12:00:02 +0200
> 
> Send Pd-list mailing list submissions to
> 	pd-list at iem.at
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	pd-list-request at iem.at
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	pd-list-owner at iem.at
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Pd-list digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: opengl performance on osX ; Re:  four PS3 Eye on Mac Pro
>       and Pd-ext and GEM (Simon Wise)
>    2. Re: CVs (Simon Wise)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 15:10:35 +0800
> From: Simon Wise <simonzwise at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PD] opengl performance on osX ; Re:  four PS3 Eye on Mac
> 	Pro and Pd-ext and GEM
> To: pd-list at iem.at
> Message-ID: <4DD8B6EB.7060101 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> 
> > Yep, of course, you have to choose 'no effect' in 'Appearance' to get
> > best frame rate. MacOSX should have this option too.
> 
> I haven't used it in a while, but OSX probably still has these options scattered 
> around the place, like choosing whether or not to 'animate' various actions, 
> choosing to auto-hide the dock, choosing transparencies in various places .. but 
> not a single switch and some things are not accessible directly by the GUI but 
> are all settable via CL so a script to turn all off would be straightforward, or 
> use third party preference setting apps to do it for you if unix style CL stuff 
> is not for you - I remember something like 'onyx' was a good one of these.
> 
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:29:14 +0800
> From: Simon Wise <simonzwise at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PD] CVs
> To: Bryan Jurish <jurish at uni-potsdam.de>
> Cc: PD-list at iem.at
> Message-ID: <4DD8C95A.1010401 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> On 22/05/11 06:22, Bryan Jurish wrote:
> > On 2011-05-20 16:05, Simon Wise wrote:
> >> On 19/05/11 23:12, Bryan Jurish wrote:
> >>> On 2011-05-19 14:01, Simon Wise wrote:
> >>>> That is which numbers are directly perceivable, without some more
> >>>> abstract mathematical mapping to guide us?
> >>>
> >>> Zero ;-)
> 
> > Sorry; that was intended as a joke --
> 
> yes of course, but it also seemed a good place to rephrase some of the ideas I 
> was trying (perhaps not so clearly) to articulate!
> 
> It is also interesting to consider the fact that words for zero as a number are 
> so recent in languages that we can try to identify when and where they first 
> came to be used. It puts another slant on the distinction between numbers and 
> other ways of expressing some simple quantities. "Nothing" isn't a number, 
> "Zero" is, because we have included it in our numbering system. Likewise the 
> words in the languages I mentioned for "one" "two" "three" "many" may be more 
> like the word "nothing" than the word "zero".
> 
> > "Pair" is a word of English, and a highly ambiguous one at that -- it
> > might be an ordered pair, an unordered pair, a pair of pants, a pair of
> > aces, 'a pair' (aka "couple"), or whatever.  Yes, it's semantically and
> > pragmatically complex.  The (abstract) number "2" plays a pretty heavy
> > role in all of its sense I can think of at the moment, though.
> 
> yes, this complexity and how closely it relates to the number "two" compared to 
> how a kind of paired-ness can be thought of, and perceived, as something 
> distinct from "two", is exactly what I am trying to think about.
> 
> Looking at a group of three things they also form a triangle, something which is 
> also closely related to the number "three", yet also is not a number. Does the 
> word "three" in the above language have more in common with "triangle" than "3"? 
> It would take much careful and interesting research to begin to answer this.
> 
> How large an integer can we perceive in a way analogous to these? It seems to 
> that for most people it may be five or six, but for some unusual people it is 
> well over 50.
> 
> 
> > but I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Do you
> > mean the semantics usually associated with the feature (singleton vs.
> > non-singleton set) -- it's kinda cool that zero tends to get lumped in
> > with plurals in English (but usually not in German); not sure how other
> 
> yes, in the sense that singular it is the way of representing one thing as 
> opposed to not-one, a counting that goes "one" "many". The German usage spoils 
> this idea a bit, as singular in this case does not mean "one of". Quite a few 
> languages, at least from this region, can form the plural by doubling the noun.
> 
> > I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure where it's going.
> >   I'll accept the "directly perceivable" term for current purposes, but
> > there's whole heckuvalot more going on in our heads (brains&  associated
> > processes) when we look at and identify a small set of like items as a
> > set-of-N than I'm accustomed to calling "direct", and that's just the
> > stuff we know about...
> 
> That is why looking at the language structures is interesting, I am suggesting 
> that sometimes looking at what is encoded in the most basic, oldest parts of 
> human language may help think about what is directly perceivable in the sense I 
> am thinking about, and it is exactly the presence of language forms addressing 
> small numbers that suggest they are something else than small positive integers, 
> add that to the "52"example and it seems that "small" in this case may be larger 
> than I would have expected.
> 
> > It's a unary predicate, i.e. an intransitive.  It takes a single
> > argument.  It returns a truth value; albeit in at least one common sense
> > of 'exist' that value depends on the evaluation index (possible world /
> > place and time of utterance / speaker / etc).  I'm talking about the
> > kind of existence which is independent of the current index, i.e.
> > __necessary__ existence: existence in every possible world.
> >
> > Sorry, that was probably annoying.  Yes, different people use the word
> > in different ways with different connotations.
> 
> not annoying at all, different more or less precise usages get in the way and a 
> few definitions certainly help decide whether a disagreement is about the 
> meaning of the question or the answer.
> 
> 
> > Warning Will Robinson Danger -- I think what's special about small
> > numbers is special to humans, and not to the numbers as such (i.e. as
> > abstracta).  I think 2 (e.g. as the cardinality of the set {0,1}) is
> > pretty special from an abstract standpoint as well (binary numbers
> > simulating alphabets of arbitrary finite size, that darned Turing (1937)
> > again), but I'd guess that the ease of small-number recognition is
> > probably just a contigent human-specific brain-related phenomenon along
> > the lines Chris sketched...
> 
> I am suggesting that the size of small sets are not only describable by numbers, 
> they can also be described as a named patterns. No things, A single thing. A 
> pair of things. A triangle of things .... when these descriptions do not need to 
> form a potentially infinite series of counting numbers, they don't even need to 
> be ordered. They just need to be recognisable as a quality of the set. How big a 
> set has a perceivable distinct pattern certainly depends on the brain doing the 
> recognising, my point though is that these patterns, words, whatever, do not 
> need to be ordered to have useful meaning. They do not need to be labelled by 
> numbers. Numbers are of course a very useful way to map those patterns, so 
> useful it is easy to forget and abandon any unordered set of descriptions for 
> these patterns in groups.
> 
> > Data pending... unfortunately the guy I know who would probably be able
> > to help me out is probably himself wandering around Australia collecting
> > that kind of data at the moment...
> 
> sounds very interesting discussion could result
> 
> > There's a thing I feel obliged to point out here which aspiring
> > linguists get to know as the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" (unrelated to
> > Start Trek): basically it states that `if you can't say it, you can't
> > think it', and it's been pretty much totally discredited by now; i.e.
> > just because you don't have a word for it doesn't mean you can't
> > perceive it / think it / know it / talk about it (indirectly).
> 
> yes, I certainly was thinking about this as I wrote that, and was going to say 
> that it wasn't only the language that was being described, for example the story 
> about the river and the isolation went into various other details, and the 
> isolation between nearby groups of people was very striking in many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly wandering way off-topic here ... though ordering, numbers, their 
> mapping to quantities and the encoding of these quantities and the 
> interpretation of them is very much on-topic for pd in general.
> 
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list mailing list
> Pd-list at iem.at
> to manage your subscription (including un-subscription) see
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> 
> 
> End of Pd-list Digest, Vol 74, Issue 70
> ***************************************
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20110522/a8b430b0/attachment.htm>