Difference between revisions of "Performance:BoofCV"

From BoofCV
m
m
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
** 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]]
 
* [[Performance:QrCode|Study of QR Code Scanning Performance in Different Environments]]
** BoofCV, Quirc, ZBar, and ZXing
+
** BoofCV, OpenCV, Quirc, ZBar, and ZXing
 
Internal Benchmarks:
 
Internal Benchmarks:
 
* Point Region Descriptors
 
* Point Region Descriptors

Latest revision as of 19:55, 16 January 2019

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:

Internal Benchmarks:

  • Point Region Descriptors