Add Metric Equivalents #963
Conversation
|
I'd prefer mm as the unit as they are more standard. |
|
I am not sure what you mean? Was there something you didn't like? I generally stuck with mm until it started getting large enough that cm was required for a couple of things. |
|
Sorry, ignore what I posted. I only briefly looked and not thoroughly. |
source/docs/software/vision-processing/introduction/identifying-and-processing-the-targets.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Another thing is that most of the sizes are rough approximations that are rounded I think its fit to indicate this with a tilde (
|
|
I have made changes for all of the comments so far let me know if anything still looks incorrect! I only included the "may work" disclaimer at the top for the tools list. I think this makes sense as all of the tools should be collected at this point and saying it for every conversion seems excessive. |
| Image sizes shared by the supported cameras are 160x120, 320x240, and 640x480. The M1011 and 1013 have additional sizes, but they aren’t built into WPILib. The largest image size has four times as many pixels that are one-fourth the size of the middle size image. The large image has sixteen times as many pixels as the small image. | ||
|
|
||
| The tape used on the target is 4 inches wide, and for good processing, you will want that 4 inch feature to be at least two pixels wide. Using the distance equations above, we can see that a medium size image should be fine up to the point where the field of view is around 640 inches, a little over 53 feet, which is nearly double the width of the FRC field. This occurs at around 60 feet away, longer than the length of the field. The small image size should be usable for processing to a distance of about 30 feet or a little over mid-field. | ||
| The tape used on the target is 4 inches (~10 cm) wide, and for good processing, you will want that 4 inch (~10 cm) feature to be at least two pixels wide. Using the distance equations above, we can see that a medium size image should be fine up to the point where the field of view is around 640 inches, a little over 53 feet (~16 m), which is nearly double the width of the FRC field. This occurs at around 60 feet (~18 m) away, longer than the length of the field. The small image size should be usable for processing to a distance of about 30 feet (~9 m) or a little over mid-field. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I figured that since 53 feet is already an approximation of 640" then saying 16m again was redundant. I am also not opposed to reformating this. Thoughts?
5 participants
Closes #844
According to what I read there wasn't a good/common metric equivalent of 1/16 allen.
I left things that were context sensitive. Let me know if I missed anything!