http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/rob ot.papers/2000/ARPA.MARS.reports.00/Report.0001.ht ml
This describes a piece of software called FLATFISH that can correct the type of distortion you're seeing.
I'll warn you, it can be a bit tempermental until you get used to working with it, and it's not meant for the faint of heart. But I've personally used it for camera calibration on a robot using a webcam for vision, and I can say that it does work pretty well. It will very likely give you the technical, correct solution, assuming that your lens is radially symmetric. Sadly, unless you spent a lot of money on your camera lens, it's probably not symmetric. But it'll still do a decent job.
I largely agree. There's a couple things associated with this that bother me:
1) This would force the government to consider Open Source Software, but doesn't force them to consider Closed Source Software. If we were going to be forthright, shouldn't we require BOTH to be considered? If OSS is truly better than CSS, wouldn't it win anyway? This is our government - we should want it to operate as efficiently as possible, even if it doesn't support our little pet projects? As it stands, this is rather hypocritical.
2) How do you prove that no appropriate OSS solution exists for a project? There are thousands, maybe millions, of OSS projects out there. This law requires you to maintain documentation that you unsuccessfully scoured the planet looking for OSS software, if you go with a closed source solution, as per section 3. How do you prove that you looked everywhere reasonable? And may god help you if a political opponent of your administration stumbles across an OSS solution that you missed. Even if it's a buggy, undocumented, unfinished program written in swahili found on an out-of-date server in Chile over a 2400 baud modem.
3) Shouldn't section 3 also require an explanation when open source software is chosen over closed source too? This section does nothing but make it more work to go closed source. Actually, this could only work to the advantage of OSS, because each time a good, useful OSS package was found, the government would be required to make a report testifying to the fact.
4)Sections 4 and 5 are too open to interpretation. I know that 90% of/. is going to applaud these sections be cause it "obviously" outlaws Windows and Office. But there is no clear definition of "avoid" - does this mean you can't acquire the software even if there is no comparable solution? What if the software violates these sections, but the offending module of the software can be turned off or removed? As written, I'd say that we still would be legally bound to "avoid" it, whatever that may mean. What if the product can save files in both XML and as a.doc file? Does that constitute enough support of open standards? Hell, with some not-so-fancy literary footwork, I could justify buying any software I can think of.
Don't get me wrong - Open Source is mostly a good thing. But, the law shouldn't be stacked against software companies - there is still some superior CSS work out there. Just make it apply evenly to both OSS and CSS, and make the law explicit in what it intends to do.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/rob ot.papers/2000/ARPA.MARS.reports.00/Report.0001.ht ml
This describes a piece of software called FLATFISH that can correct the type of distortion you're seeing.
I'll warn you, it can be a bit tempermental until you get used to working with it, and it's not meant for the faint of heart. But I've personally used it for camera calibration on a robot using a webcam for vision, and I can say that it does work pretty well. It will very likely give you the technical, correct solution, assuming that your lens is radially symmetric. Sadly, unless you spent a lot of money on your camera lens, it's probably not symmetric. But it'll still do a decent job.
1) This would force the government to consider Open Source Software, but doesn't force them to consider Closed Source Software. If we were going to be forthright, shouldn't we require BOTH to be considered? If OSS is truly better than CSS, wouldn't it win anyway? This is our government - we should want it to operate as efficiently as possible, even if it doesn't support our little pet projects? As it stands, this is rather hypocritical.
2) How do you prove that no appropriate OSS solution exists for a project? There are thousands, maybe millions, of OSS projects out there. This law requires you to maintain documentation that you unsuccessfully scoured the planet looking for OSS software, if you go with a closed source solution, as per section 3. How do you prove that you looked everywhere reasonable? And may god help you if a political opponent of your administration stumbles across an OSS solution that you missed. Even if it's a buggy, undocumented, unfinished program written in swahili found on an out-of-date server in Chile over a 2400 baud modem.
3) Shouldn't section 3 also require an explanation when open source software is chosen over closed source too? This section does nothing but make it more work to go closed source. Actually, this could only work to the advantage of OSS, because each time a good, useful OSS package was found, the government would be required to make a report testifying to the fact.
4)Sections 4 and 5 are too open to interpretation. I know that 90% of /. is going to applaud these sections be cause it "obviously" outlaws Windows and Office. But there is no clear definition of "avoid" - does this mean you can't acquire the software even if there is no comparable solution? What if the software violates these sections, but the offending module of the software can be turned off or removed? As written, I'd say that we still would be legally bound to "avoid" it, whatever that may mean. What if the product can save files in both XML and as a .doc file? Does that constitute enough support of open standards? Hell, with some not-so-fancy literary footwork, I could justify buying any software I can think of.
Don't get me wrong - Open Source is mostly a good thing. But, the law shouldn't be stacked against software companies - there is still some superior CSS work out there. Just make it apply evenly to both OSS and CSS, and make the law explicit in what it intends to do.