IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

What is "time resolution"?
Axon
post Oct 5 2006, 21:50
Post #1





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



So I've become involved in a rather colorful argument (I'm Publius in the thread) with somebody on stevehoffman.tv. The original thread revolved around shooting down an old audiophile canard, about how subsample delays cannot be represented in PCM. In the course of that debate, I've begun to question a couple things.
  • Is it ever accurate to use the term "time resolution" in any sort of technical context? To the best of my knowledge, it has no universally agreed upon technical definition. Most of the times I've seen it used are either for SACD/DVD-A marketing fluff, or to describe FFT window lengths. I'm tempted to just go quasi-logical-positivist on everybody and say that it is a completely meaningless phrase.
  • Is there any meaningful time-domain constraint on audio quality that is directly related to the sampling period? Subsample delays (as I've shown above) are not meaningfully related. Bandwidth is a frequency-domain attribute. Pre-echo potentially gets more audible at lower sampling rates, but this is not a concern with sigma-delta ADCs, and it is of debatable audibility at 44.1 to begin with. Some DSP operations may be harder to implement at lower sample rates, but most of the issues involve seem implementation-related. I'm suspecting that there are no clear general limits as to what can and cannot be accomplished in PCM, except with respect to very domain-specific or system-specific situations; and so any claims of 44khz always being limited in ways different from bandwidth may be regarded with skepticism.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
2Bdecided
post Nov 15 2006, 14:29
Post #2


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5138
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



So, in short, you want to run an experiment to see what effect a low pass filter has?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post Nov 15 2006, 14:45
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 13:29) *
So, in short, you want to run an experiment to see what effect a low pass filter has?

Yes.

As particular sample rates, do have implicit unavoidable lowpasses -the process of comparing the capabilites of different samplerates, refactors as comparing effects of different lowpasses. It is almost the same thing, although actualy doing the full downsample (as well its implied lowpass) investigates an attained quality of the full process, so would preferable for this charge for actual proof of subsample source/record ambiguity.


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Nov 15 2006, 19:42
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 05:45) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 13:29) *

So, in short, you want to run an experiment to see what effect a low pass filter has?

Yes.

As particular sample rates, do have implicit unavoidable lowpasses -the process of comparing the capabilites of different samplerates, refactors as comparing effects of different lowpasses. It is almost the same thing, although actualy doing the full downsample (as well its implied lowpass) investigates an attained quality of the full process, so would preferable for this charge for actual proof of subsample source/record ambiguity.


So, if the lowpass filter is above the point where your ear captures information, then what have we found?

QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Nov 15 2006, 06:22) *
The second is that you seem to doubt whether lowpass->sample->reconstruct can be shown to have the same effect as just the lowpass. Without quantization, the theory says that the two processes are identical. If you wish to question this then a mathematical treatment will probably be necessary before your demonstration is accepted.



This mathematical treatment can be found in many places. I believe Taub and Shilling deal with it. Certainly Jayant and Noll address it, but not quite in a form a novice will recognize. Any good older book on modems will discuss it in great detail (PSK being exactly what would discover such differences, including quantization, noise, and distortion).

There is a lot of good mathematical treatment out there.

QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 08:53) *
Interesting, in this case however you know what the checkboard looks like, unexpected deviations from a clean checkboard appearance, would introduce innaccuracy. It is a selective example not fully similar to resolving details in waveforms - which we can have few presumptions about.


So, do you LOOK at your audio, or do you listen to it?

QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 09:31) *
So you will observe how the bandwidth limitations of samplerates damages timing and/or survival of time locatable conditions/events in waveform records vs waveform sources.


Once more, it is trivial to calculate this from first principles.

You DO understand that phase shift at a given frequency is a way of measuring time delay, yes?

Now, can you measure the phase shift (removing the ft, or pure delay, part) of your processing?

If you can't, it's not changing the in-band time resolution.

Now, a given level of quantization can be directly related to a given amount of phase uncertainty. Figure out for yourself what that equals at 16 bit quantization levels for a full-scale signal, now. Just go ahead and do it.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post Nov 15 2006, 19:56
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 18:39) *
So, if the lowpass filter is above the point where your ear captures information, then what have we found?

I refer to previous replies on this matter such as:
QUOTE (chigung)
What is 'accurate enough' is a different matter id not like to confuse the main investigation with.


QUOTE
QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Nov 15 2006, 06:22) *
The second is that you seem to doubt whether lowpass->sample->reconstruct can be shown to have the same effect as just the lowpass. Without quantization, the theory says that the two processes are identical. If you wish to question this then a mathematical treatment will probably be necessary before your demonstration is accepted.

This mathematical treatment can be found in many places. I believe Taub and Shilling deal with it. Certainly Jayant and Noll address it, but not quite in a form a novice will recognize. Any good older book on modems will discuss it in great detail (PSK being exactly what would discover such differences, including quantization, noise, and distortion).

There is a lot of good mathematical treatment out there.

Nice, it still doesnt make comparing waveforms encoded at different samplerates but bandlimited identicaly, any more informative of the realworld situation, where records usualy can utilise their samplerates implied full bandwidths.

QUOTE
So, do you LOOK at your audio, or do you listen to it?

I do all sorts of things with audio, but generaly pcm encoding and its limitations apply to much more material than just human audio.


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Nov 15 2006, 20:01
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 10:56) *
Nice, it still doesnt make comparing waveforms encoded at different samplerates but bandlimited identicaly, any more informative of the realworld situation, where records usualy can utilise their samplerates implied full bandwidths.

Of course it does. Try it some time.
QUOTE
QUOTE
So, do you LOOK at your audio, or do you listen to it?

I do all sorts of things with audio, but generaly pcm encoding and its limitations apply to much more material than just human audio.


So, if you're dealing with other issues, why not state those issues? It seems to me that you have an investigation in search of a problem.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post Nov 15 2006, 20:30
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 19:01) *
QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 10:56) *
Nice, it still doesnt make comparing waveforms encoded at different samplerates but bandlimited identicaly, any more informative of the realworld situation, where records usualy can utilise their samplerates implied full bandwidths.

Of course it does. Try it some time.

I dont need to 'try' what you are saying. I know the difference between comparing two records with the same utilised bandwidth, and two records with different spectrums.

QUOTE
So, if you're dealing with other issues, why not state those issues? It seems to me that you have an investigation in search of a problem.

Why not read my contributions to the thread? The issue i am dealing with is the sensible value we can give for the ability of pcm records to record events in time accurately. "inaudible" is not such a value.




QUOTE (Garf @ Nov 15 2006, 19:18) *
I don't understand a word of what you are saying there.
"unknown frequencies which are unrepresentable at any given samplerate"

Uh?

It is a tired rephrasing of an over repeated explaination:
The frequencies which are unrepresentable at any given samplerate, are of course, those above the nyquist for that samplerate, and being unrepresentable, they are usualy unknowable. Certainly in a downsample of cd audio to 22kHz, the frequency content of the origional CD track above 11kHz -is unknowable. Ok , in some cases we might know the source tracks frequency spectrum, generaly we shouldnt assume so should we?

Im feeling a little distrurbed again, that no one seems to be understanding anything that I have made efforts to explain.

edit: removed extraneous un, from "unusualy uknowable"

This post has been edited by ChiGung: Nov 16 2006, 01:27


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Nov 16 2006, 14:22
Post #8


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5138
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:30) *
Im feeling a little distrurbed again, that no one seems to be understanding anything that I have made efforts to explain.


No, I think I get it perfectly.

When you low pass filter a signal, the positions of the peaks will move (and some peaks will vanish).

You seem to think this is important, and want to perform an experiment to determine how far the peaks move, and then relate this quantity to the low pass filter cut-off frequency. You believe the peak location is related to time resolution, and thus hope to show the relationship between low pass filter cut-off frequency (or bandwidth, or sample rate, etc) and time resolution.

That's your position, isn't it?


No one is doubting that the peaks will move and/or vanish with most signals.

I personally am doubting you can perform the experiment on arbitrary samples, because you won't be able to track the peaks.

More generally, I think everyone (including me) is failing to see the point of the experiment.


I tried, intuitively, so show why I think it's pointless with the 10MHz example...

QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 18:31) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 17:06) *
Well think about this: You can start with a 10MHz sampled signal. Given the lack of a filter, there will be something (mainly noise) up to 5MHz. If you filter the signal at 1MHz, some peaks will move a little.
Thus you have proven that a 1MHz low pass filter does something.
So what?!?!?!?!

So you will observe how the bandwidth limitations of samplerates damages timing and/or survival of time locatable conditions/events in waveform records vs waveform sources.


...but you just re-iterated that the peaks would move/vanish, and the amount may be related to bandwidth. I know. I said that too!

My "So what?!?!?!" wasn't facetious - it was a serious (albeit exasperated smile.gif ) question. Having done your experiment, what have you proven? What conclusion can you draw? What relevance does this conclusion have to anything?


The thing is, I think your experiment is impossible, so we're never going to get trustworthy results from it. That is why I am trying to move things on; Since the fact that the peaks move isn't disputed by anyone, what we want to know is: what conclusion do you draw from that?

(because I suspect its a vastly different conclusion from the one drawn by everyone else!!!)

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post Nov 16 2006, 17:10
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 16 2006, 13:22) *
My "So what?!?!?!" wasn't facetious - it was a serious (albeit exasperated smile.gif ) question. Having done your experiment, what have you proven? What conclusion can you draw? What relevance does this conclusion have to anything?

Hi 2B, thanks for going through what you understand of the investigation I presented. I think we have similar expectations of the outcome of the investigation, although I find the 'best matching' stage (of nodes) less troublesome, because the innacuracy introduced by missed and imaginary matches only tends to increase the appearance of accuracy and i am satisfied to look at flatteringly skewed best case data from practice, rather than isolated formulations or none at all.

The investigation was designed to give us a most optimistic reckoning, of our ability to match the location of instantaneous features apparent in PCM records, to their potential position in their original source material.
The findings could apply to eg, estimating the location of percussive attacks in human audio from audio pcm, or (perhaps fancifully) estimating the edges of a region of different luminousity and/or spectroscopy in an image of space.
As a thought experiment, we are reminded that timings (or positions) derived from pcm, are often/normaly unknowable estimations of the timings occuring in the recordings source.
I believe this relationship of uncertainty and innacuracy between PCM and its potential source is central to the issue of achieved time resolution @ sample rate, and makes claims of confident subsample time resolution highly misleading -misreadings of the fundamental algebraic systems useable to most consistently process PCM.

I appreciate you taking my position head on. I am satisfied that my point is explicit enough now for readers to draw their own conclusions.

cheers'
cg

QUOTE (kwwong @ Nov 16 2006, 09:24) *
Sorry I was wrong..

For a fixed frame size,
44kHz pcm 'frequency resolution' = 0.25*11kHz pcm 'frequency resolution',
44kHz pcm 'time resolution' = 4*11kHz pcm 'time resolution' ohmy.gif

Thanks kwwong, I should try and make less typos really emot-eng101.gif

This post has been edited by ChiGung: Nov 16 2006, 17:03


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SebastianG
post Nov 16 2006, 18:22
Post #10





Group: Developer
Posts: 1318
Joined: 20-March 04
From: Göttingen (DE)
Member No.: 12875



QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 17:10) *
The findings could apply to eg, [...] or (perhaps fancifully) estimating the edges of a region of different luminousity and/or spectroscopy in an image of space.

See? You usually have a model for the kind of thing you search for. For example: Edge = curve that joins dark and bright areas in an image. Usually the signal you recorded is distorted in some ways (noise, nonlinear transfer, ...), so you have to account for that via preprocessing and stuff (oftentimes even a lowpass with Gaussian-like response is used for that, actually).

What you can determine through simulation is that detector algorithm A locates feature type B (eg. edges) with accuracy C (eg. +/-0.2 pixels) when given a signal with distortion D (eg. SNR of 20 dB).

In these cases where the location of features is interesting (like the position of an x-corner for camera calibration or peaks of a cross-correlation to detect movements and stuff) zero-phase-lowpassing (to some extent) hardly affects the accuracy that can be achieved. Most changes you encounter after lowpassing is due to the noise that has been filtered out so it can't disturb the estimated location anymore. Usually the parameter that is directly related to the accuracy that can be achieved is a combination of noise power and sampling rate. But increasing the sampling rate doesn't necessarily imply that the accuray you get with "detector A" will improve because you also collect more high frequency noise that isn't filtered out anymore ...

Anyhow ... I guess I can say that most of us don't agree with you that a definition of "time resolution" based on how peaks will move around, vanish or appear due to band-limitation makes much sense/is any practical.

This post has been edited by SebastianG: Nov 16 2006, 18:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Axon   What is "time resolution"?   Oct 5 2006, 21:50
- - benski   Subsample delays are relatively easy to implement ...   Oct 5 2006, 22:04
- - Axon   Well, duh. I showed in that thread that 1/20,000 ...   Oct 5 2006, 22:19
- - krabapple   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 16:50) So I...   Oct 5 2006, 22:28
- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 13:50) Is it ev...   Oct 5 2006, 22:57
- - ChiGung   Yo, that was me (felimid) QUOTE Is there any meani...   Oct 5 2006, 23:07
|- - Axon   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 17:07) Yo, t...   Oct 6 2006, 00:11
|- - legg   AFAIK, time resolution is most commonly used to re...   Oct 6 2006, 00:28
- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 13:50) So I...   Oct 5 2006, 23:20
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE ("woodinville")The first issue is ...   Oct 6 2006, 00:46
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 16:46) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 02:10
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Oct 6 2006, 02:1...   Oct 6 2006, 04:30
||- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 20:30) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 06:27
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 19:46) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 06:21
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 16:46) Howev...   Oct 6 2006, 08:26
- - Woodinville   Well, considered for Guassian vs. Gaussian, dt * ...   Oct 6 2006, 00:35
- - kjoonlee   Does "higher sampling rates mean higher tempo...   Oct 6 2006, 00:47
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (kjoonlee @ Oct 6 2006, 00:47) Does...   Oct 6 2006, 00:57
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 18:57) QUOTE...   Oct 7 2006, 05:12
- - 2Bdecided   ChiGung, You can prove sub-sample time domain acc...   Oct 6 2006, 10:30
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE We're assuming the signal is band limite...   Oct 6 2006, 16:32
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 11:32) I can...   Oct 6 2006, 16:54
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE But perhaps for starters, you can describe i...   Oct 6 2006, 17:08
||- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 12:08) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 21:11
||- - MedO   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 18:08) Look....   Oct 7 2006, 10:43
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 08:32) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 20:54
- - Axon   Okay, so this has gone completely f*cking off topi...   Oct 6 2006, 17:49
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 6 2006, 12:49) Okay, so...   Oct 6 2006, 20:51
- - Canar   QUOTE Ask yourself: "is there any meaningful ...   Oct 6 2006, 21:20
- - Canar   Exactly, kwwong. ChiGung, consider this: In the co...   Oct 7 2006, 08:04
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 01:43) No, ther...   Oct 7 2006, 18:00
|- - MedO   QUOTE That assumption is a bit of a problem, in my...   Oct 7 2006, 18:42
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 09:42) Of cours...   Oct 7 2006, 20:57
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 09:42) Of cours...   Oct 7 2006, 23:18
|- - MedO   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 00:18) the p...   Oct 8 2006, 00:13
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 8 2006, 00:13) QUOTE (C...   Oct 8 2006, 00:28
- - Canar   ChiGung, it is increasingly apparent you are not i...   Oct 8 2006, 00:26
- - Canar   I've provided a mathematical example of why yo...   Oct 8 2006, 01:05
- - cabbagerat   For your viewing pleasure, here's a quick demo...   Oct 8 2006, 08:07
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Oct 8 2006, 08:07) Fo...   Oct 8 2006, 15:02
- - Canar   So because sinc() interpolation is weird, PCM fail...   Oct 8 2006, 15:28
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 06:02) This ...   Oct 8 2006, 15:51
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Oct 8 2006, 15:51) I ...   Oct 8 2006, 16:10
- - KikeG   As others have said, time resolution of PCM is the...   Oct 8 2006, 17:59
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 8 2006, 17:59) As othe...   Oct 8 2006, 18:14
|- - KikeG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 18:14) So yo...   Oct 8 2006, 18:24
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 8 2006, 18:24) Resolut...   Oct 8 2006, 18:55
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 10:14) So yo...   Oct 8 2006, 19:37
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 8 2006, 19:37) Y...   Oct 8 2006, 19:57
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 11:57) Yeah ...   Oct 9 2006, 18:00
- - Canar   ChiGung, despite your frequent reassertions to the...   Oct 8 2006, 20:08
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Canar @ Oct 8 2006, 20:08) I would...   Oct 8 2006, 20:28
|- - ChiGung   I think that it is being claimed, almost unanimous...   Oct 8 2006, 21:44
|- - legg   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 15:44) I hav...   Oct 9 2006, 01:32
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (legg @ Oct 9 2006, 01:32) QUOTE (C...   Oct 9 2006, 02:16
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 21:44) The e...   Oct 9 2006, 15:08
- - legg   Fine forget about the code and do try to provide m...   Oct 9 2006, 03:27
|- - MedO   If I understand you right, you are saying that the...   Oct 9 2006, 09:35
|- - ChiGung   Hello all, I left this discussion in a tizz and ha...   Nov 15 2006, 01:16
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 14 2006, 19:16) 44kH...   Nov 15 2006, 09:50
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (kwwong @ Nov 15 2006, 03:50) QUOTE...   Nov 16 2006, 10:24
- - 2Bdecided   Here are some nice pictures... I worked at 16-b...   Oct 9 2006, 15:24
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 9 2006, 06:08) It...   Oct 9 2006, 16:54
- - Axon   So I was mainly pissed off in my earlier post beca...   Oct 9 2006, 17:30
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 9 2006, 09:30) The form...   Oct 9 2006, 18:41
- - 2Bdecided   ChiGung, Your experiment wouldn't work. By kn...   Nov 15 2006, 13:00
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 12:00) .....   Nov 15 2006, 13:45
- - 2Bdecided   So, in short, you want to run an experiment to see...   Nov 15 2006, 14:29
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 13:29) So...   Nov 15 2006, 14:45
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 05:45) QUOT...   Nov 15 2006, 19:42
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 18:39) ...   Nov 15 2006, 19:56
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 10:56) Nice...   Nov 15 2006, 20:01
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 19:01) ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:30
||- - AstralStorm   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:30) It i...   Nov 15 2006, 22:43
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:30) Im f...   Nov 16 2006, 14:22
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 16 2006, 13:22) My...   Nov 16 2006, 17:10
||- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 17:10) The ...   Nov 16 2006, 18:22
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 16 2006, 17:22) Q...   Nov 16 2006, 18:51
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 09:51) I be...   Nov 16 2006, 22:48
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 16 2006, 21:48) ...   Nov 16 2006, 23:32
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 14:32) ...   Nov 16 2006, 23:44
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 16 2006, 22:44) ...   Nov 17 2006, 00:15
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 18:42) ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:14
|- - Garf   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:14) The ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:18
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 11:14) Im n...   Nov 15 2006, 23:35
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 22:35) ...   Nov 16 2006, 01:20
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 05:45) It i...   Nov 15 2006, 15:22
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Nov 15 2006, 14:22) T...   Nov 15 2006, 15:51
- - 2Bdecided   I wish you understood the theory CG, because witho...   Nov 15 2006, 16:18
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 15:18) It...   Nov 15 2006, 17:01
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 17:01) QUOT...   Nov 15 2006, 18:06
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 17:06) Yo...   Nov 15 2006, 18:31
- - SebastianG   I also don't see the point in checking the pos...   Nov 15 2006, 16:48
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 15:48) I...   Nov 15 2006, 17:16
- - SebastianG   I happened to code a subpixel detector for "x...   Nov 15 2006, 17:30
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 16:30) I...   Nov 15 2006, 17:53
|- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 17:53) It w...   Nov 15 2006, 17:59
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 16:59) Q...   Nov 15 2006, 18:21
- - MoSPDude   I've been trying to follow this as well, and e...   Nov 17 2006, 00:21
- - Woodinville   QUOTE (MoSPDude @ Nov 16 2006, 15:21) If ...   Nov 17 2006, 00:40
2 Pages V   1 2 >


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2014 - 18:06