I don't have a ton of experience with phone development, but I have done realtime video processing on one.1-2 generation old cell phone also limits your development options, you wouldn't be able to perform image recognition or change the file format of the video, with this you have a lot more control over what you do and how it can be stored or streamed.
It's an article, and I'm commenting on what it said.As for the image resolution, it's 1080p 60fps video, and higher resolution still footage. Look up the hardware first before criticising it?
17. Create a connection to the Raspberry Pi Camera, then set the resolution to 720p.
I don't have a ton of experience with phone development
Unfortunately it appears you don't have experience with the Raspberry Pi either. The Raspberry Pi runs a VideoCore IV GPU, which performs hardware accelerated h264 encoding and decoding. Which it can do in realtime in hardware. There are some limitations on the type of camera used in the CSI port, which may make it 30fps, though there are now at least 4 different types of cameras available to use with the Raspberry Pi with different functionality.It made no mention of 1080p or 30fps.
While many phones /might/ do that in software, most likely do it slightly in hardware, which you could have a small gimbal if you wanted to in the design.probably image stabilization
Easily done with parameters to the image/video capturing software, and/or using the 'noir' version of the camera, and/or adding GPIO controlled infrared LEDs.and some phones have features like a low-light mode
I think you'll be surprised if you do a search for power benchmarks, and since it has a dedicated GPU the power requirements of the CPU for a camera which can be GPU accelerated isn't so important.Also, a pi Zero doesn't have a lot of compute power and is much less energy-efficient
Considering you're commenting on an article where the intent and purpose is to do it on a Raspberry Pi, then it's highly likely that yes, someone will want to be doing this with the Raspberry Pi and won't be doing it with other hardware and will be happy with the advantages given of doing it with the Pi than any other options.Anyway, if you want to use a Pi for this, more power to you! I'm just pointing out that other options exist, with some significant potential advantages.
Then by all means ensure you do your research on the hardware and software capabilities when attempting to appraise them and compare them with others, else it's a bit moot offering other hardware when people probably come here intending on using the Pi.I should add: I support holding authorities to account,
You have no idea what I have experience with.
I don't know how common mechanical stabilization is, in phones. However, they have accelerometers, which are often used to facilitate digital image stabilization algorithms. I have actually implemented image stabilization from first principles, so I know a bit about it.While many phones /might/ do that in software, most likely do it slightly in hardware, which you could have a small gimbal if you wanted to in the design.
It's often more sophisticated than that. Phone SoC's usually have hardware Image Signal Processors (ISP) that exist for the express purpose of implementing advanced image processing algorithms in a power-efficient way. On the Pi, you're basically limited to using the CPU cores (for reasons discussed) and that + the Pi's poor power-efficiency limits what you can do. Also, you have to worry about heat - especially if this thing is sitting in a pocket and you're maxing all the CPU cores.Easily done with parameters to the image/video capturing software,
I was talking about passive night mode. I/R illumination is tricky to do well. Often, you get quite a bit of glare, and it blows out the AGC, leaving everything outside a relatively small radius even harder to see.adding GPIO controlled infrared LEDs.
https://www.phonebunch.com/phone-filter/gpu/broadcom-videocore-iv/page/1/Pi's GPU is vastly weaker than anything you'd find in a mobile phone
https://www.gsmarena.com/broadcom_videocore_iv_records_1080p_video_takes_20mp_photos-news-1328.php#:~:text=Since it's targeted at mobile,video is played over HDMI.Since it's targeted at mobile devices, the Broadcom BCM2763 VideoCore IV is built using a 40nm process. Broadcom estimates that its reduced power consumption will lead to 4-6 hours of video recording and 8-10 hours of video playback on most mobile devices, and up 16 hours if the video is played over HDMI
"OpenCL implementation running on the VideoCore IV GPU of the Raspberry Pi models"if we're talking about the Vidcore IV. That GPU supports neither OpenCL nor OpenGL ES Compute shaders
Not the VideoCore IV, evidently.You have no idea what I have experience with.
We're talking about the Pi here. Don't be vague to prove a point.It's often more sophisticated than that
I was talking about both.I was talking about passive night mode
Those phones are at least 5 years old, or else probably not ever sold in the US. Anyway, let's not make this a game to find the worst phone possible.
Right. Video recording. Just plain, vanilla recording. No fancy image stabilization or HDR processing or anything like that. And certainly not trying to do any kind of object recognition or other advanced image processing.
... The most notable features, which are not supported by the VC4CL implementation are images ...
First, don't change the subject. The article is not using a Pi v4. Second, the VideoCore 6 is only about 50% faster, which still leaves it in the dust of modern cell phones' GPUs. I mean they're literally like 10x as fast - no exaggeration!"The GPU bundled with Raspberry Pi 4 is a VideoCore VI capable of OpenGL ES 3.2, a significant step above the VideoCore IV present in Raspberry Pi 3 which could only do OpenGL ES 2.0 "
In fact, I was talking about the night-shooting modes of cell phones. The vagueness is by necessity, because they differ in capability. I cited it only as a potential advantage, meaning one could potentially find a phone that's proficient in low-light video. Unless we're going to start getting into the details of specific phone models (can we please not?), I can't be specific.We're talking about the Pi here. Don't be vague to prove a point.
Still, it was used in a mobile phone, which was the point.Those phones are at least 5 years old
Again back to the previous point of the development cycle being very different on a phone and what you can have access to versus using a self-built solution on single board computer hardware. Android only breaks out so much on its API.People can read the reviews of phones' video capabilities and hopefully find one that's suited to the task.
That goes for any hardware, even mobile phones. You're really picking and choosing what you're going on here aren't you?Just plain, vanilla recording
You're welcome to perform benchmarks, rather than spouting something isn't possible.Plus, we don't even know if you can run OpenCL simultaneously with video recording, or whether it'll impact the video recording, or how much of the GPU capability will be left to do anything in OpenCL.
First, don't change the subject. The article is not using a Pi v4.
Not changing the subject.the VideoCore IV present in ... could .. do OpenGL ES 2.0
You're forgetting people are reading this article to do a project with the Raspberry Pi. Not an old phone. Else I would have google searched for "How to make a body cam with an old phone" not "How to make a body cam with a Raspberry Pi".With an older, lower-end phone, it should be no problem to find 2-5x
At this point I'm really not convinced you're aware of difference in capability here. You've admitted that you don't know what it would take to do this project on an old mobile phone, you're reluctant to admit that you don't know the features of the VideoCore IV (aside from saying 'oops'), and you're adamant in denouncing this blog post because you insist that a 'mobile phone would be better technology to do this with' without any comment on the specifics of which device would be better, why, and how you'd code it.The vagueness is by necessity, because they differ in capability
If you think that proves anything, it just shows you've lost the plot.Still, it was used in a mobile phone, which was the point.
No, many phones offer filters and other processing when you're recording video. So, it doesn't necessarily apply to phones.That goes for any hardware, even mobile phones. You're really picking and choosing what you're going on here aren't you?
What's not possible?You're welcome to perform benchmarks, rather than spouting something isn't possible.
Your quote was about VideoCore 6, which is only present in the Pi v4. That's what I meant about "changing the subject".Not changing the subject.
Even if that's so (and it's certainly not the only way to land here), they might still be considering whether it's a good idea, or whether there could be better alternatives.You're forgetting people are reading this article to do a project with the Raspberry Pi. Not an old phone. Else I would have google searched for "How to make a body cam with an old phone" not "How to make a body cam with a Raspberry Pi".
You're not the only one with doubts about the counterparty, in this discussion.At this point I'm really not convinced you're aware of difference in capability here.
Don't put words in my mouth. I was about to walk away from this, but it really bugs me when someone mischaracterizes my statements and expertise.You've admitted that you don't know what it would take to do this project on an old mobile phone, you're reluctant to admit that you don't know the features of the VideoCore IV (aside from saying 'oops'), and you're adamant in denouncing this blog post because you insist that a 'mobile phone would be better technology to do this with' without any comment on the specifics of which device would be better, why, and how you'd code it.
If you want the last word, you'd better make it a nice one. You can't just lob a grenade over the fence and assume a response isn't in order.I think it's time to lay this to rest
I take an issue with the intention of building a pi-based body camera. That's not only obvious, it's essentially what I said in my first post.because you obviously take an objection with the intention of this blog post
Even though I agree, it sounds somehow hostile when you put it that way.and frankly, I think we can say, this project isn't for you.
That neither nullifies my right to weigh in on it, nor renders my opinion irrelevant.It looks like it isn't even aimed at you, or intended for you.
In fact, it is 100% okay for us to comment on articles however we see fit. That's the point of the commenting system on this site.That's ok, however shutting it down because of your opinion based on the hardware used, isn't ok.