Hello, just few notes: libmv development started specifically for use in blender several years ago. I am not sure if the talk here is about use in compositor too, but libmv is as far as I know mainly targeted for "robust" camera motion matching. At the same time, it should be of course usable for various compositing tasks(point tracking, video stabilisation). I dont know about VXL, but OPENCV has far more than that(so new dep. size is bigger), while I don't remember seeing a good 3d reconstruction demo with it. Sincerely Vilem
> ------------ Původní zpráva ------------ > Od: Troy Sobotka <[email protected]> > Předmět: [Bf-committers] LibMV versus OpenCV / VXL > Datum: 21.4.2011 07:38:55 > ---------------------------------------- > Just read Tom M's posting on LibMV and was wondering where the > discussions have taken place for it regarding future directions. > > Nuke apparently (according to the User Guide[1]) harnesses VXL for > some of its algorithms. OpenCV, for example, has a simple relevant > point optical flow tracking example (lkdemo.cpp 151 lines of code[2]) > that would seem to at least be worth examining, if it hasn't already > been considered.[3] > > I am wondering the upside benefit of pushing LibMV over existing options. > > Sincerely, > TJS > > [1] > http://thefoundry.s3.amazonaws.com/products/nuke/documentation/NukeUserGuide_6.1v5.pdf > [2] > https://code.ros.org/trac/opencv/browser/trunk/opencv/samples/cpp/lkdemo.cpp?rev=4240 > [3] I am aware of Ton's reluctance to add another dependency, but > perhaps the complexity of computing vision here warrants it? > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
