[HN Gopher] Where Is OpenCV 5?
___________________________________________________________________
Where Is OpenCV 5?
Author : Tycho87
Score : 295 points
Date : 2023-11-27 09:18 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (opencv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (opencv.org)
| nightfly wrote:
| Where is where is OpenCV 5?
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| Appears to be here:
|
| https://opencv.org/blog/where-is-opencv-5/
| laurensr wrote:
| @dang, could you update the link?
| tlb wrote:
| Updated, thanks.
| speps wrote:
| TL,DR: they're raising funds to release it:
| https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/opencv-5-support-non-prof...
| vdfs wrote:
| raised 8% of $500,000
| dr_zoidberg wrote:
| As of now 9%. I thought hitting the HN front page could have
| a much larger impact on this, but it seems that's about it
| this time.
| phh wrote:
| 500k$ for the impact OpenCV has is dirt cheap. It is a shame they
| need to do a fund raiser at all. It is a bigger shame I hear
| about it only now. There are 7 digits "EU sovereignty of AI"
| projects, that would be so much more efficient by just putting
| 10% of that money in OSS projects...
| nine_k wrote:
| But aren't the "IT sovereignty" projects mostly about adopting
| OSS solutions?
| preisschild wrote:
| Not for the EU. For the EU it just means that the company
| that makes it is located within the EU.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I wonder how open source works in that framework. I wonder
| if "we make the device, but use an open source library, we
| didn't develop it, but could at least fork and maintain
| operations if we needed" is acceptable.
| ska wrote:
| I've seen this argument work in other contexts (along
| with a detailed plan for what "taking over" would look
| like)
| personomas wrote:
| No, even worse, it means the EU has some sort of leverage
| on it or control over the company or entity.
| _ache_ wrote:
| Politics are playing politics. Also, the EU is pretty
| liberal and US big tech company are lobbying a lot against
| FOSS.
|
| Politics don't understand free software, and the people who
| should be teaching it (GAFAM) don't, because it's not in
| their interest. As a liberal, free software worth nothing.
| Big tech worth a lot. They don't understand that's about
| tools and know-how, not about human resources and money.
| ilirium wrote:
| Yes, it is really important piece of software. I use them time
| to time. I donated to them.
| philnelson wrote:
| Thanks for the support
| tamiral wrote:
| i used OpenCV for a facial recognition portion of an
| engineering graduation project and it was a godsend!! I
| rememeber OpenCV3 coming out and trying to utilize the
| functionality. It really is a shame that it needs any funding
| and more focus isnt on OpenCV!
| suyash wrote:
| Is it still relevant in the days of Tensorflow, Pytorch and other
| high level frameworks that solve computer vision with ease?
| fleischhauf wrote:
| as far as I am aware opencv has a lot of classical Computer
| Vision stuff that is missing in tensorflow/pytorch. In case you
| need speed, or can't have data annotation, or something where
| deep learning is not super useful (slam) it's still very
| relevant I'd say.
| ptero wrote:
| Absolutely. Not all computer vision problems are AI related and
| not all AI problems are solved by pytorch. If I need a program
| for, say, soft real-time processing of some industrial
| automation video streams to run on a low power system opencv is
| my #1 choice. My 2c.
| nine_k wrote:
| OpenCV and "AI" can work well together; see YOLO:
| https://pjreddie.com/darknet/yolo/
| jonas21 wrote:
| In that example, they're using OpenCV to display images and
| read from the webcam for a demo. At one point, they make it
| clear that OpenCV isn't used for any of the CV parts:
|
| > _We didn 't compile Darknet with OpenCV so it can't
| display the detections directly. Instead, it saves them in
| predictions.png. You can open it to see the detected
| objects._
| chillfox wrote:
| Yeah, OpenCV is really easy to work with and use in quick
| scripts to process images.
|
| I have used it to group images of the same subject/angle, then
| remove the most blurry ones.
| albertzeyer wrote:
| That was also my thought. I have used OpenCV 10 years ago for
| some small things, but today I would simply look for any
| existing neural network on HuggingFace and maybe train some
| custom classifier on top if I need sth custom. I cannot really
| think of any possible case where this would not work better
| than what you have in OpenCV. And if speed is a concern, there
| are also many small models, or otherwise you can quantize them
| yourself, or maybe train yourself a small model with knowledge
| distillation. You can get this as fast and as small as you
| want, while still probably outperforming everything that OpenCV
| can offer.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| regret to inform you that image preprocessing and IO is done
| in either openCV or PIL or both for every image processing NN
| i've ever worked with.
| saltwatercowboy wrote:
| Yes - not sure how this has been overlooked. For
| Python/torch I tend to use cv2 with an albumentations
| augmentation pipeline, which is much faster than PIL/torch
| transforms.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| sometimes Pillow-simd is nice as well.
| saltwatercowboy wrote:
| Thanks - I'll check it out.
| girvo wrote:
| I can't run those HuggingFace models on low power devices
| (including medium power microcontrollers). I can do OpenCV on
| them at the edge though.
| albertzeyer wrote:
| You can. For example: https://pytorch.org/edge (Just an
| example, there is a lot more, similarly also for
| TensorFlow.)
| girvo wrote:
| I've tried. They simply don't run any decent useful
| models on an ESP32-S3 at a speed that has real use cases.
| Maybe one day, but not yet.
|
| Whereas today, OpenCV and derivatives are already using
| the LX7 vector extensions and run fast enough to be
| useful.
| jpace121 wrote:
| I've worked on plenty of problems where all you need is to
| find what pixels are a specific color. While I'm sure a NN
| could be setup for that, why make things harder than they
| have to be?
| albertzeyer wrote:
| Why harder? My point is, by using some DL framework, you
| would make this simpler. You don't need to have a big NN
| for that, or even any NN at all, and could still use some
| DL framework, and I would assume this is still easier and
| probably faster. E.g. finding what pixels are a specific
| color, this would be sth like:
| torch.all(image == torch.tensor([255,0,0]),
| dim=-1).nonzero()
|
| To get all pixel pairs (x,y) where the color is red
| (255,0,0) of the image of shape (width,height,channels).
| matsemann wrote:
| How do you generate the torch vector to do this? Often
| it's OpenCV!
| albertzeyer wrote:
| torchvision.io.read_image?
| bigbillheck wrote:
| This is like answering "the grocery store" when asked
| where food comes from.
| pbowyer wrote:
| I use OpenCV for blur detection and camera shake detection on
| mobile devices, to qualify the image before handing it along
| to an AI model to extract data. I can't think that 2 extra
| neural networks would be faster at this task than OpenCV is,
| even if they might be better given how subjective blur is.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| And motion detection that runs on the camera itself, to
| decide whether or not to send the video stream to the
| expensive GPU servers in the cloud.
|
| https://www.axis.com/developer-community/open-source/acap
|
| ACAP Computer Vision SDK examples
|
| ACAP version 4 example applications that provide developers
| with the tools and knowledge to build their own solutions
| based on the ACAP Computer Vision SDK.
|
| The open source examples are focused on video analytics
| applications. Giving AI/ML developers the chance to
| experience the smooth and smart develop environment that
| ACAP provide, showing how the powerful capacity of Axis
| devices provides unlimited possibilities for developers to
| build new AI/ML applications.
|
| Being one of the most active repositories we have, you can
| find examples written in C++ and Python performing
| interesting features that varies from object detection, QR
| decoder, and image capture, using popular open source ML
| libraries such as OpenCV.
|
| https://github.com/AxisCommunications/acap-computer-
| vision-s...
| albertzeyer wrote:
| How does it do the blur detection? I assume it's also just
| a convolutional kernel applied on the image in some way. So
| it would do just exactly the same as a tiny neural network
| with one convolutional layer. Thus, they would be exactly
| the same speed, if they would use the same underlying
| native kernels. However, the native kernels in
| TF/PyTorch/etc are more heavily optimized than OpenCV, thus
| I assume that OpenCV would actually be slower here. And
| also more complicated, as you need to mix two big
| frameworks.
| filterfiber wrote:
| Realistically I think you'll often want both depending on
| what you're doing. Especially for things like blur
| detection, what's your acceptable specificity,
| acceptable/scale of performance, where you're running the
| algorithm (on device vs cloud).
|
| I'm not an expert at all but most image processing
| network I've seen generally involve at least a few plus a
| few other layers. I don't think you can get away with a
| single convolution, at least not that well.
|
| OpenCV you could use Laplacian variance which looks like
| it's just a single line of code.
|
| > cv2.Laplacian(image, cv2.CV_64F).var()
|
| Many of the NN implementations look like their finetuned
| off google's ViT checkpoints. I really can't imagine
| these are faster (at least not without spending extra on
| GPU/TPU's) than Laplacian variance but I could be wrong.
|
| And I assume you might be able to get better evaluation
| performance from a finetuned NN but depending on what
| you're doing, that's a ton of work compared to opencv.
|
| https://pyimagesearch.com/2015/09/07/blur-detection-with-
| ope...
|
| https://sh-tsang.medium.com/review-bdnet-blur-detection-
| conv...
| amelius wrote:
| Only if hallucination is not a problem for your particular
| application.
| filterfiber wrote:
| I really dislike the word "hallucination"
|
| It's not a "hallucination" it's a "miss-prediction".
|
| And the more-classical methods of CV are still very capable
| of miss-predicting.
|
| No matter what method you choose, you must test how accurate
| it is, NN have the benefit of being fine-tuned for specific
| applications as well. If you want to be extra sure then you
| likely want to use both.
| OJFord wrote:
| There are CV applications where techniques you'd currently get
| consensus on calling 'AI' would be overkill (unnecessarily
| intensive to run) or relatively poor performing.
|
| Say you just need to do some edge detection for example.
|
| Of course the 'AI' line is blurry and moving, probably
| 'computer _vision_ ' (vs. 'just processing some image data',
| which of course it is anyway) has been too.
| iamflimflam1 wrote:
| Definitely. There is still a very large class of problems that
| are amenable to image processing pipelines and algorithms . And
| a very large number of problems where there is insufficient
| training data to simply throw deep learning at it.
| matsemann wrote:
| Some of those things could be embedded nicely into OpenCV,
| though. Without me having to learn about all the underlying
| concepts, finetune a model and learn how to deploy it on
| various devices. OpenCV is a wrapper around lots of common
| image functionality, and it could be extended to cover modern
| deep learning approaches.
| orlp wrote:
| Even taken at face value such pipelines often still rely on
| OpenCV for I/O, data cleaning and preprocessing.
| ilirium wrote:
| Yes, it is totally relevant. Creating a product that processes
| images/videos/photos typically requires composing some small
| models, applying classical functions to work with polygons,
| edges, transformation matrices to rotate/shift coordinates and
| pixels, resizing, working with colors, working with
| bright/contrast curves, open/write files, classic filters, etc.
| PyTorch and Tensorflow don't have this or use in their examples
| OpenCV functions to do it.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| There are lots of ways OpenCV complements Tensorflow, pytorch,
| and other high level frameworks. They don't need do all those
| things themselves, because they assume you have OpenCV around
| for stuff like image io, preprocessing, manipulation,
| transformation, color space conversions, edge detection,
| filtering, segmentation, morphological transformations, feature
| detection, video io, real time video capture, camera
| calibration, 3d reconstruction, optical flow, object tracking,
| qr code detection, gui creation, etc.
| rsp1984 wrote:
| Yes. It's a different kind of computer vision. Not the kind
| where you just throw an expensive NN at stuff and hope for the
| best, but one where we're actually dealing with operations at
| the pixel level (corner / edge features, image warping,
| stitching, calibration etc). No neural nets, just _very fast_
| operations on the actual image data.
|
| It's useful either as a preprocessing step that you feed into
| further NN processing or -- super old school -- you are
| modeling your problem by hand instead of letting a NN figure it
| out (for better or worse).
| regularfry wrote:
| It's also got a decent NN implementation. You can have both.
| ale42 wrote:
| It totally is: OpenCV does pixel-level image processing, in a
| deterministic and generally highly optimized way. For some
| computer vision, this is definitely enough, and it will have a
| much better performance than doing it with neural networks. It
| might be complementary to higher-level frameworks (typically
| based on machine learning models), e.g. for object
| detection/classification.
| eurekin wrote:
| Absolutely!
|
| I'm not into that space as much lately, as I have been years
| ago, but in a lot of newer marketing videos I can easily
| recognize the OpenCV signature markings. For example from tesla
| videos (not the typical public facing ones, but on the NVidia
| tegra side) or robotic startups
| j-a-a-p wrote:
| We decided for OpenCV (on a project that provided vision to a
| production line, think 50 images per second). The speed and
| computational cost advantage weighed in favour of OpenCV. I
| don't think this has changed so much in the last couple of
| years.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I know a chap that uses it for Arduino-powered drones. He is
| not a coder.
|
| I agree that projects like OpenCV should be better-supported.
|
| There are a couple of issues, though, that always crop up, when
| talking about supporting open projects:
|
| 1) I don't know of any corporation, anywhere, that actually
| donates for no reason at all. There's _always_ a hook.
| Sometimes, it 's just brand-building (logo on the free swag
| stuff), sometimes, it's to attract future employees (for
| instance, donating to a project that is maintained by a certain
| set of students from a college curriculum, etc.), sometimes,
| it's to influence "hearts and minds," and sometimes, it's a
| pure investment. They need a self-interested reason.
|
| 2) I don't know of any corporation, anywhere, that donates,
| with no expectation of influence. That's one reason why
| lobbying is such a big deal. There's a fig leaf of "no quid pro
| quo," but everyone knows that the donator is expecting a
| return.
|
| 3) I don't know if anyone has noticed (</s>), but the corporate
| environment tends to be, just a bit, on the competitive side. I
| know many corporations may not be willing to donate to a cause
| that will serve their competitors, as well as themselves.
|
| I think that foundations help. They can set up a "step and
| repeat" page, with donors, but keep the branding (and
| influence) off the actual donations.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Corporations could donate in a way that benefits them. For
| example, Intel contributes a lot of code to the Linux kernel.
| Presumably they are at least partially contributing stuff
| that makes it run better on their chips. But lots of people
| run Linux on Intel chips. And while working on stuff that
| benefits Intel, their engineers are probably going to do
| other ancillary tasks that could be helpful. So it seems like
| a win-win.
|
| It should be socially acceptable for open source programs to
| offer the deal: we'll consider patches from your engineers,
| but in exchange you have to chip in enough to support one of
| ours (to keep working on stuff we find interesting), and a
| little bit more (need some engineer-hours to review your
| patches).
|
| It sounds quite biased in favor of the project at first, but
| if the project is popular, the company could get quite a bit
| out of it.
| esafak wrote:
| Is it a bad thing if corporations donate towards features
| that benefit them? That is a signal to the developers to
| allocate their energy towards useful ends.
| killerstorm wrote:
| I very much doubt you can do any image processing on Arduino.
| A typical Arduino has only 2048 bytes of RAM, like, what kind
| of an image can fit in there?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I don't know. I can ask him.
|
| He has just been raving to me about how great OpenCV is. I
| know he's been using ChatGPT4 to give him C drivers for his
| custom rigs.
|
| Like I said, he's a hardware geek, and actively hates
| coding, so I'm not exactly sure what he's been doing.
|
| I will say that his drones and RC vehicles work a treat. I
| drive them around, occasionally.
| idatum wrote:
| I used OpenCV and Yolo on an RPi4 for object detection.
| Worked great. Fun project and I learned a lot from the
| OpenCV community.
|
| I think the ability to learn computer vision from scratch
| (and free) like I did is one of the best aspects of open
| source generally.
|
| But yeah, an Arduino would be tough.
| dannyw wrote:
| There's all kinds of Arduinos now. It's not your typical
| ATxxx microcontroller.
|
| https://store.arduino.cc/products/uno-r4-minima
| ska wrote:
| Could be something like this:
| https://www.pjrc.com/store/teensy41.html
|
| From memory (heh) they come with 1Mb and you can add
| another 8 or 16...
|
| It's a 600Mhz ARM M7 also, you can do a fair bit or work
| with that.
| philnelson wrote:
| In addition to helping keep the library in development member
| organizations of OpenCV get some perks as a result of their
| support such as appearances on our live streams, press
| releases, and pull request priority. We have tiers for Bronze
| ($6k/yr), Silver ($30k/yr), Gold ($100k/yr) members with more
| benefits for each tier.
| marcyb5st wrote:
| Yes, big time. For instance, once you have segmented the image
| you should use something like openCV to extract contours of the
| segmentation mask.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| In addition to the other replies:
|
| Check out the official or unofficial examples for TF, PyTorch,
| and OpenVINO for CV applications; they all use OpenCV as a
| dependency, eg to get get the image data from a camera or RTSP
| URL, process the image, draw debug info and display the results
| etc.
| ska wrote:
| > or high level frameworks that solve computer vision with
| ease?
|
| That's overstating things more than a little.
| nuz wrote:
| "Deep Neural Networks Module: $150k" seems kind of unecessary.
| Torch/tensorflow already fills that niche so well.
| fleischhauf wrote:
| agreed, they should just have a good interoperability
| londons_explore wrote:
| I think this $150k is just for building that
| interoperability.
|
| At today's salaries, that pays for, what, 1 month of some ML
| engineers time to integrate all the big ML frameworks into
| OpenCV?
|
| Doubt you could do any decent job of it in a month...
| wokwokwok wrote:
| Llama.cpp and the entire ecosystem around it show that there's
| clearly space for more than torch in this space.
|
| Why would opencv, the all singing all dancing C++ computer
| vision framework not have a DNN module?
|
| Why would it say "use a Python library"? (And yes, torch is
| deprecating its c++ support).
|
| Not having it would be strange.
| synergy20 wrote:
| what do you mean by saying "pytorch is deprecating c++"
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > Why would opencv, the all singing all dancing C++ computer
| vision framework not have a DNN module?
|
| https://docs.opencv.org/4.x/d2/d58/tutorial_table_of_content.
| ..
|
| In particular, OpenCV DNN is as far as I know the fastest CPU
| implementation for darknet/yolo networks.
| papruapap wrote:
| Isn't C++ support quite minimal for both?
| DonHopkins wrote:
| It would be nice to have a high level API with all the plumbing
| for integrating different popular deep neural network libraries
| like torch/tensorflow, like how Unity has ARFoundation for
| integrating ARCore, ARKit, Magic Creep, and HoboLens.
| 3836293648 wrote:
| 404 now? Has the link been replaced?
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| Still works for me.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Ai companies are in the business of stealing code and ip. Not
| surprised they cant be bothered to donate.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| At least it's a step up from web3 companies in the business of
| stealing and laundering money by burning coal and scamming
| senior citizens.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Agreed - but ai companies are exploiting people's willingness
| to see things which are not there. Still bad.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Honestly it's in large part of the same root cause, isn't it?
| Venture capital hype pipeline.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Again, hyping and investing in something that has practical
| real-world applications is a step up from hyping and
| investing in something that doesn't.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Agreed
| Decabytes wrote:
| We have seen this time and time again. Open source
| libraries/authors begging for a pittance while the large projects
| built on top of them are flush with cash. Sure there are success
| stories like Blender, but those are products of survivorship
| bias. There is no reason that OpenCV should be struggling to get
| 500k with all the projects that use it.
|
| It's really crappy that large organizations can still keep
| benefiting from these projects without putting any resources into
| them. Again I know some companies have donated to open source
| projects, or hired developers but that is the exception. Part of
| me wonders if Copy left viral licenses are the only way to combat
| this. If you are going to use a bunch of critical open source
| projects in your code base, and you aren't going to pay, you
| should at least pay it forward by making your source code
| available.
|
| I've seen some people mention creating some sort of license that
| is Open source, but if you make more than X amount of money or
| have X amount of employees then you have to pay X amount in
| licensing fees. That seems reasonable and still allows small
| projects to still use these libraries like they always have. But
| then again that's pretty hard to enforce. And if the GPL is
| anything to go by, then a license doesn't necessarily stop
| flagrant misuse of the software anyway
| ilirium wrote:
| On the crowdfunding page [1] they revealed causes why they
| decided to run the campaign:
|
| > Our goals with crowdfunding the development of OpenCV 5 are
| several: 1) To make OpenCV 5 our biggest release ever, with the
| most community participation of any version so far, 2) To prove
| to other struggling open source projects that crowdfunding is a
| viable option over seeking corporate donations exclusively, 3)
| _To create a sustainable method of fundraising that OpenCV can
| return to year after year, making the overall organization and
| project more robust to global instability._
|
| > Recently, due to global conflicts and instability, OpenCV has
| _lost several core team members_ , and this has slowed progress
| on both new feature development and the handling of bugs and
| requests in the GitHub repository.
|
| > Crowdfunding development of a big Open Source project like
| OpenCV is a big move. We aren't aware of ANYONE doing it at
| this scale. As a non-profit organization, we are constantly
| fighting to find funding, but we always find support in our
| community. _Instead of spending our time chasing big checks
| from billionaires, we are putting that community front and
| center._
|
| [1] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/opencv-5-support-non-
| prof...
| geerlingguy wrote:
| There are thousands (millions?) of nonprofits who fundraise
| incessantly--any org that's mission driven without a profit
| motive needs to have that activity (and the resulting CRM
| management) as part of their fabric to thrive.
|
| I think a few of the bigger software projects are realizing
| relying on a few generous whales is unsustainable when money
| faucets are turned off... and it's a good thing for the long
| term stability of these groups to figure out how to sustain
| the core project.
|
| As long as it doesn't get annoying (multiple appeals every
| quarter, incessant "support us or we'll DIE!" messages...)
| I'm fine with fundraising initiatives for OSS.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I wonder if they were lost, as in passed away, or just lost
| as in they live in countries that can't do business with the
| organization for legal reasons anymore. Hopefully the latter
| and they'll find some way back eventually...
| mrweasel wrote:
| One of the first open source developers I recall seeing raising
| funds so he could go work on something full time for a year was
| Paul-Henning Kamp (PHK from FreeBSD). He got the money, but
| also an insane amount of bullshit complaints from people not
| wanting to donate because: He pays ~40% in tax, it would be
| cheaper to pay someone in <insert country>, what if he doesn't
| deliver, why not someone else, why FreeBSD. I can understand a
| developer just giving up and not even trying just to avoid the
| negativity and complaining.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| A few years ago I worked for a few months with a machine
| learning team at Google that was using OpenCV. At least at the
| prototype phase.
|
| The entire $500k donation they're looking for here would have
| been basically 1 or 1.5 SWE salary.
|
| So yes, there's definitely something wrong with the
| compensation and financing model of open source infrastructure.
| And now that the market is contracting, and VC and BigCorp
| money isn't flowing as freely, people are finally starting to
| bitch about it, instead of just being happy that a) their
| projects are being used and b) that that is leading to job
| opportunities etc.
|
| _" but if you make more than X amount of money or have X
| amount of employees then you have to pay X amount in licensing
| fees"_ -- sad to say, projects with licenses like this would be
| immediately blacklisted at places like Google. Not just for
| use, but for Googlers to contribute to. And because of the
| motivation economy in OSS right now, someone else would just
| fill the niche.
|
| Even the GPL is controversial to these companies (and to many
| people on this forum, in fact).
|
| We need to name and shame BigCorps that are using and
| exploiting the very generous and liberal nature of Apache-style
| licensed projects without (majorly) contributing back.
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| > We need to name and shame BigCorps that are using and
| exploiting the very generous and liberal nature of Apache-
| style licensed projects without (majorly) contributing back.
|
| The corporations are following the exact spirit of the
| license. If you want to shame them, put it in writing. Make a
| new license. But it would be proprietary, because you'd be
| saying some entities are too big to exercise Freedom 0
| without paying money to a central organization that held the
| license.
|
| That's the licensing model for the two big game engines,
| Unity and Unreal - Gratis, to a point. It seems to work for
| them, but it ain't FOSS. And for your central benevolent
| organization to hold that power over the license, they'll
| also have the power to do worse things to the project. One of
| the appeals of FOSS was that it's de-centralized. You can
| always fork it, if you have the code you have the right. A
| license that required "BigCorps" (because every small company
| is inherently good?) to pay would have to deny the right to
| fork.
| infotainment wrote:
| _> Part of me wonders if Copy left viral licenses are the only
| way to combat this._
|
| It's a good thought, but we've already seen what happens when
| this is attempted, such as with GPL V3. The projects just get
| forked, or even outright replaced (as was the case with Bash in
| MacOS).
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's going to require a broader mindset change in the
| developer community. Copyleft and the free software mindset
| fell out of fashion because, I think, it "felt" to many that
| there was penetration of open source ethic into the corporate
| world and the very liberal Apache/BSD-style licenses were
| leading to take-up and contribution of OSS by those parties.
|
| And frankly a lot of "open source" work actually ended being
| either "resume" material or "corporate contribution" work.
|
| But I think we're seeing more and more where this can lead --
| your thousands of hours of work can just turn into a new
| product launched on AWS etc that does nothing to enrich you
| or reward your community for its efforts.
|
| The copyleft model was supposed to counteract this by at
| least demanding contributions back. And if companies felt
| they wanted/needed a proprietary license, they could always
| negotiate that separately. But as you say, tossing GPL on a
| project has become kind of radioactive. And the copyleft
| model didn't really scale well into the SaaS world.
| demosthanos wrote:
| > Part of me wonders if Copy left viral licenses are the only
| way to combat this. If you are going to use a bunch of critical
| open source projects in your code base, and you aren't going to
| pay, you should at least pay it forward by making your source
| code available.
|
| This is a tough decision, and one that is going to be different
| for each project.
|
| GPL will disuade most commercial projects from using your
| library, which for some people may be a good goal in itself.
| But the flip side of that is that a GPL'd library has a smaller
| target audience, which means that the project as a whole will
| tend to never become as popular as OpenCV has*. That's probably
| good for the maintainer's health--GPL serves as a good
| gatekeeper to push away a good chunk of the entitled demands
| (except for the entitled demands to change the license)--but it
| may be counter to the maintainer's goal if they set out to make
| a library with wide reach.
|
| * The notable exceptions to this rule, like Linux, aren't
| libraries, they're applications or operating systems which can
| be _used_ without paying it forward.
| davisr wrote:
| > GPL will disuade most commercial projects from using your
| library
|
| Maybe, but it might just as well persuade others who value
| free software ideals to contribute.
| demosthanos wrote:
| Yeah, like I said, for some projects I could see it being a
| net positive: using GPL almost certainly increases the
| ratio of contributors:users, which reduces the burden on
| the maintainer. If the maintainer is fine with the now-
| limited reach of the project, then that might be a great
| tradeoff to make!
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I try to make my company to donate money to open source
| projects but it's difficult. They would rather spend 100k on
| some BS enterprise thing that wraps open source software
| instead of spending 1k on giving directly to the devs.
|
| It's a weird mindset.
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| > There is no reason that OpenCV should be struggling to get
| 500k with all the projects that use it.
|
| The reason is tragedy of the commons. The software is gratis,
| and they're getting paid the asking price.
| hawski wrote:
| There was a discussion here lately about how the budget is
| fulfilled at the end of a year by spending all the rest of the
| money on some bullshit. Now I wonder if it could be spent on
| OpenSource projects the company is using either directly or not
| and would it count for the auditors to receive at least the
| same amount of money next year.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >We have seen this time and time again.
|
| What if you're a company that built on top of a prior version
| OpenCV that does everything you need, and contributed at the
| time but do not need any of the new things?
|
| Do you and your moral stance think they should continue to chip
| away at their earnings in yet another rent-seeking play?
| elric wrote:
| I worked in fintech for a long time, building a product which
| leveraged a bunch of open source components from the Apache
| Software Foundation. For years, I advocated with management to
| sponsor the ASF, or to hire a contributor to build some feature
| for us. Every time, I was shot down with bullshit arguments.
| "We don't have money", "It's complicated", etc.
|
| Somehow, there was plenty of money for bonuses for sales
| weasels, but never any money for key technology. I tried to
| commit bug fixes whenever I could, and did my best to help out
| other users on the mailing lists. It would have been nice if
| the company could have spared a small part of the millions they
| were raking in ...
| Rochus wrote:
| I'm still using OpenCV 3 and am more than happy with it. Why does
| every library or application have to be blown up so much that it
| ends up being too big and complex for a voluntary open source
| project?
| cma wrote:
| Machine vision is presumably still advancing and new techniques
| are added, or are they only adding complexity?
| Rochus wrote:
| Well, the term "computer vision" (CV) is apparently too vague
| and unstable to restrict the functional scope of a still
| manageable library with it. Perhaps they should consider to
| move the parts that are now apparently beyond the scope and
| for which they are collecting money into a new library under
| a new name, rather than endlessly inflating something mature
| and proven.
| dr_zoidberg wrote:
| When I moved some projects from OpenCV 3 to 4 I got a nice
| speed up pretty much everywhere, some things no speed up at all
| and some others pretty big. I can't really remember the
| numbers, but at the moment it was a global 10 to 20% perf
| improvement just on updating a library.
|
| Might want to check that. Also 4.something got SIFT as part of
| OpenCV (instead of living in the contrib module) because the
| patent expired and you can now use it for free.
|
| As for blowing up with NN packages and such... I don't really
| use those parts, but if the NN module had easier support to run
| networks trained on popular frameworks I might've used it.
| Disclaimer: it's been quite a while since I last tried to use
| those parts, so maybe now the latest version has fantastic
| support and I'm talking nonsense.
| jphoward wrote:
| I like opencv, but can there be a stretch goal where if they
| raise $1M they agree to move from Blue/Green/Red colour channel
| order by default to RGB in OpenCV5, like everyone else on planet
| earth? I genuinely avoid opencv for this reason because I know I
| will forget to BGR->RGB on loading and RGB->BGR before saving
| occasionally, and so I'd rather stick to skimage/imageio/PIL. Or
| hell, add an `as_rgb=False` parameter to the load/save functions
| or something!
| addandsubtract wrote:
| > The reason the early developers at OpenCV chose BGR color
| format is that back then BGR color format was popular among
| camera manufacturers and software providers. E.g. in Windows,
| when specifying color value using COLORREF they use the BGR
| format 0x00bbggrr.
|
| For anyone curious about why OpenCV uses BGR:
| https://learnopencv.com/why-does-opencv-use-bgr-color-format...
| maille wrote:
| Isn't OpenCV mostly developed/funded by Intel?
| ormax3 wrote:
| While OpenCV was born at Intel, I don't think it's solely
| developed by Intel anymore, there's now a non-profit
| organization in charge of the project:
|
| https://opencv.org/opencv-platinum-membership/
| voqv wrote:
| Yes, same impression here. I remember trying to get some
| documentation fixes into the codebase and felt like it all got
| shelved because the Intel team didn't see those things as
| necessary. Some community PRs/fixes just went stale like that
| too. Kind of now hard to merge that in my head that they now
| need to crowdfund.
| orangepurple wrote:
| If I remember correctly there was a team in Belarus working
| full time on OpenCV at one point. Anti-Russia sanctions may
| have killed OpenCV if this is true.
| philnelson wrote:
| Intel offers some support, but not at the level they were
| before.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| OpenCV is great and I would love to donate to them. But it seems
| like a substantial percentage of the donation goes to Indiegogo
| or their fees.
|
| Based on [1], it seems like 8% of your donation goes to Indiegogo
| and processing fees. Is that right or am I misunderstanding?
|
| 1. https://learn.indiegogo.com/pricing-and-fees/
| geerlingguy wrote:
| I read that as 5%.
|
| And when you donate you can set the "tip" to 0% so all your
| donation goes to the org.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| I think it adds to 8%. This page [1] makes it clearer. They
| charge 5% and their "payment processor also charges a
| processing fee" which in the US is 3%.
|
| The tip seems to be something entirely separate, which is
| _additional_ money, on top of your donation, that only goes
| to IGG, based on another [2] article.
|
| You probably have more experience here though. Your work is
| great and I always appreciate your posts.
|
| 1. https://support.indiegogo.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/204456408-Fe...
|
| 2. https://computerengineeringforbabies.com/blogs/news/why-i-
| ha...
| ok123456 wrote:
| I made an $11 donation, and Indigogo used a dark pattern,
| automatically selecting it, to try to make me "tip" Indigogo
| $10 on top of that! A 90.9% "tip!" NO THANKS.
|
| A tip is for a service rendered. Not for being a mendicant
| middleman.
| elric wrote:
| Does it even matter? When I pay for bread with my credit card,
| a large portion of the price of the bread goes to the credit
| card company and the payment processor. Should that stop me
| from paying for bread?
|
| Sure, the baker -- or OpenCV -- would be happier if they got a
| bigger slice of the pie, but that's just the cost of doing
| business.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| > Does it even matter?
|
| Yes, I think to me it does. How much of my money is "wasted"
| (which we all might define differently) does matter to me.
|
| There's also a factor of what I receive from it. In your
| bread analogy, there is an exchange of money for a good
| (bread) received. In a donation, like with OpenCV, there is
| no guarantee of a good received, so I care more about how my
| dollars are "spent" getting to the recipient. I (and many
| others) look at the filings of charity to understand how much
| goes to administrative overhead, for the same reason.
|
| > When I pay for bread with my credit card, a large portion
| of the price of the bread goes to the credit card company and
| the payment processor.
|
| Unless you are buying a single slice of bread, a large
| portion does not go to the credit card company. About 3%
| does, 5% lower than IGG fees, just like with IGG. A lot of
| food places around me offer a 3-5% discount for using cash
| and I generally choose that option if I have cash on me.
| People have long cared about what "middleman" is scraping
| money of the top of their spend.
|
| Where is your cutoff for percent taken by the processor?
| elric wrote:
| It's your money, you're certainly free to spend it how you
| like. However, if you oppose giving money to the middle
| man, and the net result is that OpenCV gets nothing, I
| can't help but question the wisdom in that decision.
| ris wrote:
| Indeed, I'd be much happier donating through e.g.
| opencollective.
| philnelson wrote:
| We'll look at Open Collective for future fundraising... if we
| have future fundraising.
| victor9000 wrote:
| Donate all you want but, most importantly, talk to your manager
| about making a corporate donation.
| philnelson wrote:
| This is true
| v3ss0n wrote:
| I am surprised to see that OpenCV don't have backers till now.
| Many large corps might had made billions just using openCV as
| core tech.
|
| - Military projects
|
| - KYC Services
|
| - Goverment projects
|
| - Survelliance projets
|
| - Drones
|
| Those are the biggest users of openCV and those are billion
| dollar industries.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| They won't pay until they're made to.
| sroussey wrote:
| Those are people that prefer not to advertise their supply
| chain.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| I pitched in $21. OpenCV is magic.
| philnelson wrote:
| Thank you!
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Ah yes, openCV at one time made ImageMagick easier to use, and
| could be compiled in C. There were even projects focused on
| transparent fpga hardware acceleration for video streams.
|
| Now, it is a C++ dependency nightmare with conflicting
| documentation of basic data structures, version specific bugs,
| and hidden impossible-to-license patents.
|
| It is a cautionary tale of allowing a Second-system effect to
| twist a project into a set of use-cases for a smaller subset of
| users.
|
| The core issue was not major version releases, but constant
| breaking library changes in sub dot version releases. Thus, they
| turned most of the user-base into full time Beta testers.
|
| They should have forked the library at 4, but knew no one would
| change what already worked. =)
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| It is interesting browsing the OpenCV website. I didn't find
| anything saying what it is, at least not fewer that 3-4 clicks
| away.
| philnelson wrote:
| I agree with this one
| dzign wrote:
| Python elevated OpenCV to a new level. I Think
| node/graph/workflow interface would do the same. Examples are not
| missing: Blender, ComfyUI, FFmpeg.guide, ...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-27 23:02 UTC)