The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jrinconr For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2010-10-21
, 10:17
|
Posts: 323 |
Thanked: 180 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Gent, Belgium
|
#2
|
![]() |
2010-10-21
, 11:35
|
Posts: 32 |
Thanked: 14 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Alcala de Henares, Madrid, Spain
|
#3
|
very interesting from a scientific point of view. Is there visible practical use during 'normal', non-Matlab/camera assisted lab experiment environment ?
I guess after going through all calibration steps, either on the PC or on -possibly- a N900 version of the calibration tools, using both distortion values into the Fcamera driver might possibly result in better photos. But would the results be visibly clearly better ? Any idea ? Any examples to show made by similar hardware ?
Also, are the production parameters of the N900 (or in general) camera module lenses tight enough to do the calibration once and then use it for all N900s ? Or are there normally significant differences between production runs possible ?
TO come back to your question : Look here
http://wiki.maemo.org/N900_Hardware_VGA_Camara_module
And click through to the datasheet :
Pixel size 2.2 μm x 2.2 μm
This is a first approach of the calibration parameters of the camera. (you can follow this procedure http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bougue...doc/index.html)
To obtain a more accurate calculation, I need more information, like the pixel size in microns at the sensor.
in theory, with this information, the lens distortion can be corrected. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics))
See you!