<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Neil Jerram <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:neiljerram@googlemail.com">neiljerram@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Assuming I've understood this even half-way correctly...<br>
<br>
It sounds like the accuracy of your triangulation will be limited by<br>
the small size of the FR; and when you add in the hardware and<br>
software path latency, I wonder if this will work accurately enough.<br>
(I'm assuming the marker would be a few metres away from the FR, is<br>
that right?)<br>
</blockquote><div><br>The precision would limited by the sampling rate of the Freerunner on the mic-in channel. Pretty much everything else affecting the precision can be controlled. The sampling rate is the limiting factor.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
I think that points in a similar direction to Al's comment, i.e.<br>
moving some of the solution outside the FR, over USB. That would<br>
allow you to have more distance between the inputs, and so get more<br>
accuracy.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>All the Freerunner would be needed for is processing the input of the mic-in. The freerunner microphone isn't used. Imagine a stick with two microphones glued 400 cm apart and connected to a audio cable. There is more to it, but that's pretty much what it would look like.<br>
<br>-Charles Pax<br></div></div><br></div>