{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/issues/251","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/issues/251/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/issues/251/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/issues/251/events","html_url":"https://github.com/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/issues/251","id":83706815,"number":251,"title":"Minimum hardware requirements (general question, not a bug or an issue)","user":{"login":"anshulvj","id":1171507,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1171507?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj","html_url":"https://github.com/anshulvj","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/anshulvj/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":16,"created_at":"2015-06-01T21:41:33Z","updated_at":"2015-06-05T18:54:54Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I'm currently testing the Kinect v2 to see how low of a hardware will suffice to get the depth image, in somewhat-real-time :) (wanna put it on a ground robot for navigation problems). I'm using a small form factor pc which is giving me depth (it doesnt have a dedicated graphics card) but it's really slow. It's dropping a lot of frames and updating the depth image once a second with significant lag (I've commented out the rgb and registration part of the code to reduce the bottlenecks). \r\n\r\nI am aware that the Kinect v2 requires significant computational power to account for the cool ToF system it has underneath, but if a minimum hardware threshold is known, I can go and do the needful to get that. The requirements on MS website are obviously more than enough to run it; a lower threshold should also work. I myself have tried Kinect v2 with libfreenect2 on an i5 with 8 GB ram and integrated graphics card (small tower) and it works very nicely.\r\n\r\nSo I wanted the authors' idea (if you know anything top-off-your-head) on what is the minimum hardware requirements with which the kinect v2 can perform in real-time (i.e. I don't need 30 fps per say, even 5fps depth map updation is ok). I understand if there's no black and white answer to this.\r\n\r\nCurrently I'm using a small form factor embedded PC with the following configuration:\r\n\r\nIntel® Celeron® N2930 1.83 GHz [details](http://ark.intel.com/products/81073/Intel-Celeron-Processor-N2930-2M-Cache-up-to-2_16-GHz)\r\nRAM: 2GB (I've also tried with 8GB with only marginal improvement)\r\nUSB 3.0\r\n\r\nI have commented out the registration part of the code but I don't see any improvement. I'm not that aware of, and have never coded for the drivers for Kinect V2. If someone has suggestions on whether this performance can be improved (either by modifying some section of this code, or by adding better hardware) I'd appreciate it.\r\n\r\nThanks\r\nAnshul\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/issues/comments/109397166","html_url":"https://github.com/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/issues/251#issuecomment-109397166","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OpenKinect/libfreenect2/issues/251","id":109397166,"user":{"login":"floe","id":90756,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/90756?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe","html_url":"https://github.com/floe","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/floe/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-06-05T18:54:54Z","updated_at":"2015-06-05T18:54:54Z","body":"If you have an idea how to solve the point cloud issue \"properly\", please do submit a pull request. I think PCL has a quasi-standard format for point cloud data, maybe we could use that? Little warning, however: the registration code will change a bit when I merge PR #253."}}