--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/315741cd-fa8f-4a55-bd8f-287cc7e43016%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/34e4cf37-4406-4730-9231-2db377f58f21%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/c59bd368-89fe-4692-809e-235a98d0eca1%40googlegroups.com.
If you are implying that top vision takes longer than bottom vision,
I believe that would not apply.
If I understand Jason correctly, I would be assigning the same physical device as used for top vision, but openpnp wouldn't know/care about that and treat it as the normal bottom vision camera.You would get the normal performance of the bottom vision camera, but if this works, subtract the time required to position the part over it.
As for lighting plans, top vision will be using a 50mm (something like that) halo light ring.
and bottom vision a much dimmer ring which I hope is sufficient... We will see.
On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 2:43:22 AM UTC-5, Cri S wrote:If you use top vision, and here lightning is critical, it adds 170ms of processing time per part.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/2dff0cc8-3677-4d30-843f-d5221370101a%40googlegroups.com.
I'm tempted to aproach one camera and mirror design as using 2 cameras involve trouble with bandwidth. But with mirror there are focus trouble. Does someone made automatic adjustable focus for webcam?
Far better than mine but probably still not enough for two mirror approach.. (camera paralel to nozzle 20mm apart)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/6d562dc9-4ecc-45c8-a498-e2e57a93d95d%40googlegroups.com.
I saw a time a go a commercial machine and mirrors where static, positioned along feeders.However all those effort just to spare one single (5$) camera ?
I saw a time a go a commercial machine and mirrors where static, positioned along feeders.However all those effort just to spare one single (5$) camera ?
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:05 PM, eSlavko <esl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Far better than mine but probably still not enough for two mirror approach.. (camera paralel to nozzle 20mm apart)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.
Hmm that's clever too. And probably more safe as it's not possible to crash mirror with probe.