Im trying to do a screen-flashing application, that flashes the screen according to the music(which will be frequencies, such as healing frequencies, etc...).
I already made the player and know how will I make the screen flash, but I need to make the screen flash super fast according to the music, for example if the music speeds up, the screen-flash will flash faster. I understand that I would achieve this by FFT or DSP(as I only need to know when the frequency raises from some Hz, lets say 20 to change the color, making the screen-flash).
But I've found that I understand NOTHING, even less try to implement it to my application.
Can somebody help me out to learn whichever both of them? My email is sismetic_chaos#hotmail.com. I really need help, I've been stucked for like 3 days not coding or doing anything at all, trying to understand, but I dont.
PS:My application is written in C++ and Qt.
PS:Thanks for taking the time to read this and the willingness to help.
Edit: Thanks to all for the answers, the problem is in no way solved yet, but I appreciate all the answers, I didnt thought I would get so many answers and info. Thanks to you all.
This is a difficult problem, requiring more than an FFT. I'll briefly describe how I implemented beat detection when I was writing software for professional DJ equipment.
First of all, you'll need to cut down the amount of data you're dealing with, since there are only two or three beats per second, but tens of thousands of samples. You'll also need to look at different frequency ranges, since some types of music carry the tempo in the bassline, and others in percussion or other instruments. So pass the signal through several band-pass filters (I chose 8 filters, each covering one octave, from low bass to high treble), and then downsample each band by averaging the power over a few hundred samples.
Every few seconds, you'll have a thousand or so samples in each band. Your next tool is an autocorrelation, to identify repetitive patterns in the music. The peaks of the autocorrelation tell you what the beat is more or less likely to be; but you'll need to make up some heuristics to compare all the frequency bands to find a beat that you can be confident in, and to avoid misleading syncopations. If you can manage that, then you'll have a reasonable guess at the tempo, but no idea of the phase (i.e. exactly when to flash the screen).
Now you can look at the a smoothed version of the audio data for peaks, some of which are likely to correspond to beats. Initially, look for the strongest peak over the course of a few seconds and take that as a downbeat. In conjunction with the tempo you estimated in the first stage, you can predict when the next beat is due, and measure where you actually saw something like a beat, and adjust your estimate to more closely match the data. You can also maintain a confidence level based on how well the predicted beats match the measured peaks; if that drops too low, then restart the beat detection from scratch.
There are a lot of fiddly details to this, and it took me some weeks to get it working nicely. It is a difficult problem.
Or for a simple visualisation effect, you could simply detect peaks and flash the screen for each one; it will probably look good enough.
The output of a FFT will give you the frequency spectrum of an audio sample, but extracting the tempo from the FFT output is probably not the way you want to go.
One thing you can do is to use peak detection to identify the volume "spikes" that typically occur on the "down-beats" of the music. If you can identify the down-beats, then you can use a resource like bpmdatabase.com to find the tempo of the song. The tempo will tell you how fast to flash and the peaks you detected will tell you when to start flashing. Have your app monitor your flashes to make sure that they generally occur at the same time as a peak (if the two start to diverge, then the tempo may have changed mid-song).
That may sound straightforward, but this is actually a very non-trivial thing to implement. You might want to read this SO question for more information. There are some quality links in the answers there.
If I'm completely mis-interpreting what you are trying to do and you need to do FFTs for something different, then you might want to look at using one of the existing FFT libraries to do the heavy lifting for you. Some examples are FFTW and KissFFT.
It sounds like maybe you're trying to get your visualizer to flash the screen in time with the
music somehow. I don't think calculating the FFT is going to help you here. At any
given instant, there will be many simultaneous frequency components, all over the audio spectrum (roughly 20 Hz to 20 kHz). But you're likely to be a lot more interested in the
musical tempo (beats per minute -- more like 5 Hz or below), and that's not going to show
up anywhere in an FFT of the raw audio signal.
You probably need something much simpler -- some sort of real-time peak detection.
Whenever you see a peak greater than some threshold above the average volume,
make your screen flash.
Of course, more complicated visualizations might well take advantage of the FFT,
but not the one you're describing.
My recommendation would be to find a library that does this for you. Unless you have a lot of mathematics to back you up, I think you will be wasting a ton of your time trying to learn FFTs when all you really want out is some sort of 'base hits per minute' number out which you can adjust your graphics to accordingly.
Check out this similar post:
here
It took me about three weeks to understand the mathematics behind FFTs and then another week to write something in Matlab using those concepts. If you are discouraged after three days, don't try and roll your own.
I hope this is helpful advice and not discouraging.
-Brian J. Stinar-
As previous answers have noted, an FFT is probably not the tool you need in order to solve your problem, which requires tempo detection rather than spectral analysis.
For an example of what can be done using FFT - and of how a particular FFT implementation was integrated into a Qt application, take a look at this blog post which describes the spectrum analyzer demo I developed. Code for the demo is shipped with Qt itself, in the demos/spectrum directory.
Related
Shouldn't there be some adjustments for google cardboard? With all different sizes of phones and with everyone having a bit of differences in how far apart our eyes are I was looking for a way to re position the two images closer so that it looked better. I don't need to use all the pixels and I'm thinking if you allowed adjustments to the center placement of each view that this could be more usable. As is I have to hold the phone a bit further from me to see a good image.
The Cardboard is open "technology" and you are free to adjust it to your own personal needs - no one is going to do that for you. If you are on a bigger budget, there are cheap plastic headsets available from various manufacturers. I got my headset for around 35$ with shipping.
I personally use a Color Cross but there are many others. Just make sure to look for some with open back, so you can plug in headphones, for example, or use the camera once that becomes a thing. An adjustable phone holder is a big plus, so be on the lookout for that too. Another important thing is adjustable IPD (Inter Pupillary Distance) for the lenses in the headset - some headsets with fixed lense distance gave me the cross-eyed effect. Also, many headsets have adjustable lens-to-phone distance, which also can be important.
Please note that all this is necessary for an okay-ish experience, and for the very best one available, you should get a whole integrated headset, like the Sony Morpherus, Oculus Rift or SteamVR. Also bear in mind that this technology is still in the RnD phase and there are many problems to be solved.
For an interesting read on some of these problems, check this out:
http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2013/MAbrashGDC2013.pdf
I am working on a project that requires me to detect and track a human in a live video from a webcam connected to a Beagleboard xm.
I have completed this task using Opencv in pixel domain. The results on the board are very accurate but extremely slow. Many people have suggested me to leave pixel domain and do the same task in an h.264/MPEG-4 compressed video as it would extremely reduce the computational overhead.
I have read many research papers but failed to discover any software platform or a library that I can use to analyze and process h.264 compressed videos.
I will be thankful if someone can suggest me some library for h.264 compressed video analysis and guide me further.
Thanks and Regards.
I'm not sure how practical this really is (I've never tried to do it), but my guess would be that what they're referring to would be looking for a block of macro-blocks that all have (nearly) identical motion vectors.
For example, let's assume you have a camera that's not panning, and the picture shows a car driving across the screen. Looking at the motion vectors, you should have a (roughly) car-shaped bunch of macro-blocks that all have similar motion vectors (denoting the motion of the car). Then, rather than look at the entire picture for your object of interest, you can look at that block in isolation and try to identify it. Likewise, if the camera was panning with the car, you'd have a car-shaped block with small motion vectors, and most of the background would have similar motion vectors in the opposite direction of the car's movement.
Note, however, that this is likely to be imprecise at best. Just for example, let's assume our mythical car as driving in front of a brick building, with its headlights illuminating some of the bricks. In this case, a brick in one picture might (easily) not point back at the same brick in the previous picture, but instead point at the brick in the previous picture that happened to be illuminated about the same. The bricks are enough alike that the closest match will depend more on illumination than the brick itself.
You may be able, eventually, to parse and determine that h.264 has an object, but this will not be "object tracking" like your looking for. openCV is excellent software and what it does best. Have you considered scaling the video down to a smaller resolution for easier analysis by openCV?
I think you are highly over estimating the computing power of this $45 computer. Object recognition and tracking is VERY hard computationally speaking. I would start by seeing how many frames per second your board can track and optimize from there. Start looking at where your bottlenecks are, you may be better off processing raw video instead of having to decode h.264 video first. Again, RAW video takes a LOT of RAM, and processing through that takes a LOT of CPU.
Minimize overhead from decoding video, minimize RAM overhead by scaling down the video before analysis, but in the end, your asking a LOT from a 1ghz, 32bit ARM processor.
FFMPEG is a very old library that is not being supported now a days. It has very limited capabilities in terms of processing and object tracking in h.264 compressed video. Most of the commands usually are outdated.
The best thing would be to study h.264 thoroughly and then try to implement your own API in some language like Java or c#.
Are there any open source code which will take a video taken indoors (from a smart phone for example of a home or office buildings, hallways) and superimpose that on a 2D picture showing the path traveled? This can be a handr drawn picture or a photo of a floor layout.
First I thought of doing this using the accelerometer and compass sensors but thought that perhaps one can get better accuracy with the visual odometer approach. I only need 0.5 to 1 meter accuracy. The phone will also collect important information indoors (no gps) for superimposing that data on the path traveled (this is the real application of this project and we know how to do this part). The post processing of the video can be done later on a stand alone computer so speed and cpu power is not a issue.
Challenges -
The user will simply hand carry the smart phone so the video taker is moving (walking) and not fixed
limit the video rate to keep the file size small (5 frames/sec? is that ok?). Typically need perhaps a full hour of video
Will using inputs from the phone sensors help the visual approach?
any help or guidance is appreciated Thanks
I have worked in the area for quite some time. There are three points which I'd care to make.
Vision only is hard
Vision based navigation using just a cellphone camera is very difficult. Most of the literature with great results show ~1% distance traveled as state-of-the-art but is usually using stereo cameras. Stereo helps a great deal, particularly in indoor environments for coping with scale drift. I've worked on a system which achieves 0.5% distance traveled for stereo but only roughly 5% distance traveled for monocular. While I can't share code, much of our system was inspired by this Sibley and Mei paper.
Stereo code in our case ran at full 60fps on a desktop. Provided you can push data fast enough, it'll be fine. With your error envelope, you can only navigate for 100m or so. Is that enough?
Multi-sensor is way to go. Though other sensors are worse than vision by themselves.
I've heard some good work with accelerometers mounted on the foot to do ZUPT (zero velocity updates) when the foot is briefly motionless on the ground while taking a step in order to zero out drift. This approach has the clear drawback of needing to mount the device on your foot, making a vision approach largely useless.
Compass is interesting but will be distracted by the ton of metal within an office building. Translating few feet around a large metal cabinet might cause 50+ degrees of directional jump.
Ultimately, a combination of sensors is likely to be the best if you can make that work.
Can you solve a simpler problem?
How much control do you have over your environment? Can you slap down fiducial markers? Can you do wifi triangulation? Does it need to be an initial exploration? If you can go through the environment before hand and produce visual bubbles (akin to Google Street View) to match against, you'll be much more accurate.
I'm not aware of any software that does this directly (though it might exist) but stuff similar to what you want to do has been done. A few pointers:
Google for "Vision based robot localization" the problem you state is very similar to the problem robots with a camera have when they enter a new environment. In this field the approach is usually to have the robot map its environment and then use the model for later reference, but the techniques are similar to what you'll need.
Optical flow will roughly tell you in what direction the camera is moving, but it won't tell you the speed because you have no objective reference. This is because you don't know if the things you see moving in the video feed are 1cm away and very small or 1 mile away and very big.
If you know the camera matrix of the camera recording the images you could try partial 3D scene reconstruction techniques to take a stab at the speed. Note that you can do the 3D scene stuff without the camera matrix (this is the "uncalibrated" part you see in the title of a lot of the google results), the camera matrix will let you add real world object sizes (and hence distances) to your reconstruction.
The amount of images/second you need depends on the speed of the camera. More is better, but my guess is that 5/second should be sufficient at walking speeds.
Using extra sensors will help. Probably the robot localization articles talk about this as well.
I am a little overwhelmed by my task at hand. We have a toolkit which we use for TWAIN scanning. Some of our customers are complaining about slower scan speeds when the deskew option is set. This is because if their scanner does not support a hardware deskew, it is done in post-processing on the CPU. I was wondering if anyone knows of a good (i.e. fast) algorithm to achieve this. It is hard for me to say what algorithm we are using now. What algorithms are out there for this, and how do they rank as far as speed/accuracy? If I knew the names of the algorithms, it could be easier for me to do a google search on them.
Thank You.
-Tom
Are you scanning in Color or B/W ?
Deskew is processor intensive. A Group4 tiff or JPEG must be decompressed, skew angle determined, deskewed and then compressed.
There are many image processing algorithms out there with deskew and I have evaluated many over the years. There are some huge differences in processing speed between the different libraries and a lot of it comes down to how well it is coded rather than the algorithm used. There is a huge difference in commercial libraries just reading and writing images.
The fastest commerical deskew I have used by far comes from Unisoft Imaging (www.unisoftimaging.com). I assume much of it is written in assembler. Unisoft has been around for many years and is very fast and efficient. It supports different many different deskew options including black border removal, color and B/W deskew. The Group4 routines are very solid and very fast. The library comes with many other image processing options as well as TWAIN and native SCSI scanner support. It also supports Unix.
If you want a free deskew then you might want to have a look at Leptonica. It does not come with too much documentation but is very stable and well written. http://www.leptonica.com/
Developing code from scratch could be quite time consuming and may be quite buggy and prone to errors.
The other option is to process the document in a separate process so that scanning can run at the speed of the scanner. At the moment you are probably processing everything in a parallel fashion, one task after another, hence the slowdown.
Consider doing it as post-processing, because deskew cannot be done at real-time (unless it's hardware accelerated).
Deskew consists of two steps: skew detection and rotation. Detecting the skew angle can usually be done on a B&W (1-bit) image faster. Rotation speed depends on the quality of the interpolation. A good quality deskew will take a lot of time to run, much more than scanning pages.
A good high speed scanner can do 120 double-sided pages per minute, if it has hardware JPEG or TIFF Group 4 compression, and your TWAIN library takes advantage of it (hint: do not use native mode). You barely have enough time to save the file to the hard drive at that speed, let alone decompress, skew detect, rotate, re-compress. Quality deskew takes several seconds per page, unless you can use the video card's hardware accelerator to rotate and compress.
Do I correctly understand you already have such algorithm implemented? If so, are you sure there is no space for optimization? I'd start with profiling existing solution.
Anyway, I guess you should look for fast digital Radon transform algorithm.
Take a look at http://pagetools.sourceforge.net. They have deskew algorithm implementation.
I'm looking for a C or C++ API that will give me real-time spectrum analysis of a waveform on Windows.
I'm not entirely sure how large a sample window it should need to determine frequency content, but the smaller the better. For example, if it can work with a 0.5 second long sample and determine frequency content to the Hz, that would be wicked-awesome.
I used FFTW a few years ago. It is supposedly fast (though I didn't use it for anything real-time myself) and was certainly pretty easy to use, even on Windows.
Regarding the window size, see the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
(I imagine there are other issues involved when using a window on the data, particularly for low frequencies, but I'm no expert and I couldn't find any useful-looking info about this, so maybe I'm wrong.)
For details of how to generate a power spectrum and how to determine frequency resolution of same, please see my answer to this question: How to extract semi-precise frequencies from a WAV file using Fourier Transforms