[cm2187]

Out of curiosity, what are the possible use cases for object detection at >100 fps? I assume it would have to be objects that move very fast, i.e. nothing ordinary that I can think of.

[edit] actually stupid question. I assume it's more about throughput than fps, i.e. be able to process lots of streams on the same machine, for instance for doing mass analysis of CCTV streams.

[magicalhippo]

While I'm not into object detection such as this, I can easily imagine this being part of a system where you want the rest of the system to have time to act on the information.

As such the point isn't that you can detect objects >N fps, but rather that the object detection shouldn't take more than X% of the time per cycle so that the overall cycle time can run at a given rate.

[joshvm]

If your pipeline depends on running inference on a single frame at a time, for example some kind of control loop, then you need to be a bit careful about how you measure speed; you have to use the effective time per batch (ie batch size 1), not the amortised frames per second using as big a batch as will fit. You can still interleave processing though.

[briggers]

Very practical question :) Exactly as you say, multi-stream throughput. Also for faster than realtime offline processing of video. Check the caveats section at the end of the post - DeepStream is probably not well suited to high throughput single-stream inference.

[guywhocodes]

For me it's only exciting because it lowers the barrier of how much I can do with a much smaller system than double 2080ti's.

[briggers]

Yeah. A 2080Ti doesn't fit in your pocket or in your AR glasses but the same techniques and tools scale down.

[bufferoverflow]

Self-driving. Ideally you want something around 1000fps and low latency, so it has time to react.

I'm sure military and sports applications are obvious too.

[gugagore]

I don't think you'll find a 1000 fps camera on a "standard" AV platform. And if you did, I imagine it would be too noisy to be useful without a ton of illumination.

[Aeolos]

Smartphones offer 960fps video capture since a while now.

[raverbashing]

Doubt

Humans reaction times are much slower than that. In fact for some things it can take a whole second https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

Maybe racing sports have shorter reaction times, but I'd be frankly surprised if it was something < 100ms

10fps for your average drive should be more than enough

[gcanyon]

But machines aren't (yet) as capable as humans at driving-situation-recognition and driving-decision-making. One way they can compensate for those shortcomings is to be superior in other ways: 100% vigilance and super-fast reaction times/decision-making.

[cm2187]

Answering my own question. Possibly industrial applications like detecting objects on a fast conveyor belt. A recycling facility for instance.

[mhh__]

100ms is generally considered to be the lower bound for a valid start, i.e. 99 would be considered a jump start in F1 iirc

[ineedasername]

No, that's only if you want the human to be able to make the reaction. If the application was self-driving, you'd prefer the car to react faster than a human. For a military application like projectile detection to avoid or destroy the object, you'd want something even faster.

[bufferoverflow]

I'm not sure what your argument is. Any self-driving system should strive to be much better than human drivers. It makes complete sense to have reaction time much better than human.

[TaylorAlexander]

For reference I am making a farming robot that goes at 1 meter per second and I run the main control loop at 10hz. I would absolutely run a car that goes freeway speeds at at least 100hz.

[pantelisk]

Cloud service that needs to serve multiple requests or process many video streams in parallel. (faster performance = less hardware required, bigger scale and potentially improve end user experience - save from their data being on the cloud of course).

On device (eg mobile phone) processing with battery usage that respects the user. Older hardware/models inclusion as well.

Of course the above aren't cases were the stream itself is 100+fps, but more of broader general benefits. For a 100+ fps stream.. well there are many things that go fast, imagine you wanted a robot that tracks or catches a fly before it takes off. Flies have a reaction time of 5ms (200fps), that's why it's hard for us to catch! Expand and apply the same concept to other things (that are fast, or happen very quickly) now...

[stabbles]

Another aspect is you might get better accuracy with larger input dimensions, but the number of pixels scales quadratically with width/height.

[aaronblohowiak]

Food processing, recycling separation? I can imagine lots of small parts moving fast

[TaylorAlexander]

Plenty of robotics tasks could benefit from high FPS tracking of single streams. Generally process tasks where faster=better. But yes, tracking many streams at once is useful too!

[unnouinceput]

tomato / potato sorting while they are on conveyor. bigger fps, more objects to dump on said conveyor.

[dekhn]

this would be useful for sorting cells at high speed. https://www.sinobiological.com/category/fcm-facs-facs

[dragonelite]

Smart missiles and weapons i guess

[zanethomas]

Shooting down drown swarms.

[darepublic]

Roulette spin predictor

[umvi]

Reminds me of:

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/graphics/courses/mobwear/resourc...

[ineedasername]

I guess, but that's generally illegal, and if it became common & easy then casinos would simply require bets to be placed before the ball is dropped.

[izhak]

Hypersonic missiles