[Bf-committers] LibMV versus OpenCV / VXL

François T. francoistarlier at gmail.com
Sat Apr 23 00:15:15 CEST 2011


OF is just an algorithm, it is not a mean as it is. By just integrating this
you won't get anything :p
OCV is mostly a research platform, but I honestly doubt you would like to
build an application on top of that. It covers way too much stuff related to
CV (pretty much everything actually). Again if you want to make some CV
research and use blender as 3d visualization framework, then yes it might be
a good idea. But if you are an artist looking for VFX tool to integrate CG
stuff in your plate, I don't think OCV is the best approach at all.
All those questions as been asked before, and the libmv team is not working
entirely from scratch w/o looking at what is done or not. they also work(ed)
with algorithm like stif, surf, of, ... (cf their wiki) and also using
librairies for different places as from the CVlab when licence permit it I
guess.
Their goal is to provide a usable matchmove / 3d reconstruction lib tool. so
something which benefict of all the different algorithm you can find in all
the places, put together, rewrote, redesign to make the best tool out of
it.
I don't think there any project out there doing that with this purpose which
at the end will insure (hopefully) licence compatibility.

cheers

F.

2011/4/22 Troy Sobotka <troy.sobotka at gmail.com>

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Matthias Fauconneau
> <matthias.fauconneau at gmail.com> wrote:
> > While OpenCV or VXL are only bricks which may help you implement match
> > moving algorithms, the goal of libmv is to implement a complete
> > tracking system in the library so that an application (like Blender)
> > can use it without any algorithmic knowledge.
>
> I am aware of the design goals of libmv. My issue is that:
>
> 1) Computer vision is obviously complicated. Relying on an internal
> representation library may open Blender up to significant additional
> bugs and further tax developers. Judging from the libmv stagnation, I
> think this isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination.
> 2) The existing libraries of VXL and OpenCV have the vast majority of
> the hard work already done, as well as a set of interested eyes and
> developers monitoring the code base.
> 3) Fresh technology. OpenCV implemented SIFT recently thanks to a
> relatively healthy developer community interested in computing vision.
> This would also benefit Blender with a limited amount of resources to
> update the code base.
>
> > It is now being rewritten as a complete modular framework with clean
> > interfaces and automatic testing.
> > I think improving libmv and using it in Blender is the best way to
> > implement the first open source match moving application.
>
> And I don't disagree entirely.
>
> I am just curious if perhaps the upsides versus downsides have been
> fully considered at this point.
>
> Judging from the code sample for optical flow tracking, I wonder how
> much more difficult it would be to see a native implementation in
> Blender based off of one of those two libraries.
>
> With respect,
> TJS
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>



-- 
____________________
François Tarlier
www.francois-tarlier.com
www.linkedin.com/in/francoistarlier


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list