Revision history [back]

Note that the behavior for rectifying ROI images has changed in Diamondback. The Cturtle behavior was actually somewhat broken, because it did not account for the fact that the chosen ROI in the raw image may correspond to a different (perhaps not even overlapping!) ROI in the rectified image coordinates due to distortion (ticket #4206). The new, regrettably more complicated behavior is documented in REP 104. image_geometry (used by image_proc) now calculates a distinct rectified ROI that maps well onto the pixels in the raw ROI image.

So the key question is: what is the resolution of /camera/image_rect_color? If it is larger than 704x456, that may explain some drop in frame rate.

In any case, can you open a ticket against image_pipeline and attach to it a small bag of the /camera/image_raw and /camera/camera_info topics? I can double-check if there has been any performance regression, and it will be nice to have test data from another camera.

Note that the behavior for rectifying ROI images has changed in Diamondback. The Cturtle behavior was actually somewhat broken, because it did not account for the fact that the chosen ROI in the raw image may correspond to a different (perhaps not even overlapping!) ROI in the rectified image coordinates due to distortion (ticket #4206). The new, regrettably more complicated behavior is documented in REP 104. image_geometry (used by image_proc) now calculates a distinct rectified ROI that maps well onto the pixels in the raw ROI image.

So the key question is: what is the resolution of /camera/image_rect_color? If it is larger than 704x456, that may explain some drop in frame rate.

In any case, can you open a ticket against image_pipeline and attach to it a small bag of the /camera/image_raw and /camera/camera_info topics? I can double-check if there has been any performance regression, and it will be nice to have test data from another camera.