Difference between revisions of "Performance:BoofCV"
From BoofCV
Jump to navigationJump to searchm |
m |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* [[Performance:SURF|SURF Performance: Stability and Speed]] | * [[Performance:SURF|SURF Performance: Stability and Speed]] | ||
** Comparison of BoofCV, OpenSURF, OpenCV, Reference SURF, JOpenSURF, JavaSURF, and Pan-o-Matic | ** Comparison of BoofCV, OpenSURF, OpenCV, Reference SURF, JOpenSURF, JavaSURF, and Pan-o-Matic | ||
* [[Performance:QrCode|Study of QR Code Scanning Performance in Different Environments]] | |||
** BoofCV, Quirc, ZBar, and ZXing | |||
Internal Benchmarks: | Internal Benchmarks: | ||
* Point Region Descriptors | * Point Region Descriptors | ||
Revision as of 10:13, 7 October 2018
Performance of BoofCV
Constant evaluation of BoofCV's performance is part of its development cycle, see validation page. Inside each package there is a benchmark/directory which contains source code for simple runtime and other simple benchmarks for specific families of algorithms. While in the boofcv/evaluation/benchmark there are more robust high level tools for comparing algorithms internal and external to BoofCV. Below are two performance studies which compare BoofCV against other popular libraries.
Comparison to external libraries:
- Image Processing Speed: BoofCV vs. OpenCV
- SURF Performance: Stability and Speed
- Comparison of BoofCV, OpenSURF, OpenCV, Reference SURF, JOpenSURF, JavaSURF, and Pan-o-Matic
- Study of QR Code Scanning Performance in Different Environments
- BoofCV, Quirc, ZBar, and ZXing
Internal Benchmarks:
- Point Region Descriptors
