Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

adding depth_registered_filtered injection #12

Conversation

jbohren
Copy link
Member

@jbohren jbohren commented Sep 13, 2014

This enables the "injection" of a depth image filter into the middle of the rgbd processing pipeline. This is useful for efficiently removing known structure from the point cloud like a robotic manipulator.

It's done by defining the "depth_registered_filtered" argument, which then gets used by the point cloud processing node instead of the raw "depth_registered" topic.

@@ -19,6 +19,10 @@
<!-- For distinguishing multiple register/XYZRGB nodelets. Default fails if rgb
or depth contains a namespace. -->
<arg name="suffix" default="$(arg depth)_$(arg rgb)" />
<!-- For filtering depth images, set depth_registered_filtered to the
filtered depth image topic -->
<arg name="depth_registered_filtered" default="depth_registered" />
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the default value should read $(arg depth_registered)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That sounds right.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you update and test again? I don't have an Indigo system right now to test the change.

@130s
Copy link
Member

130s commented Apr 5, 2016

@piyushk this PR sits untouched for 1.5 years. Can we merge, release and wait for the users' report?

@130s 130s mentioned this pull request May 7, 2016
@130s
Copy link
Member

130s commented May 7, 2016

Let me close this in favor of #25 and if the tests on travis I'll consider merging.

@130s 130s closed this May 7, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants