Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- postuloca:comparison [2013-07-15 09:42] – [IPIN 2013 SIMULATIONS] pietro
+++ postuloca:comparison [2014-11-17 15:50] (current) – [New Scenario] pietro
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 The tomographic approach suffers the parameters calibration of the weights of the regularization matrix, as show the values in the TAB.1 with label no noise.
+===== New Scenario =====
+This video shows the PATH1 followed by the target, for a scenario with 24 anchors and the VRTI algorithm{{:postuloca:misure_path1_s24_multi_qtv.avi|}}\\
+This video shows the PATH2 followed by the target, for a scenario with 24 anchors and the VRTI algorithm{{:postuloca:misure_path1_s24_multi_qtv.avi|}}\\
+This video shows the PATH3 followed by the target, for a scenario with 24 anchors and the VRTI algorithm{{:postuloca:misure_path1_s24_multi_qtv.avi|}}
 ===== Tomographic approach =====
@@ Line 104: / Line 110: @@
 ====IPIN 2013 SIMULATIONS ====
-^ SCENARIO                     ^ Comparison^                                                                   ^
+^ SCENARIO                     ^ Comparison^    Simulation Set-Up                                                               ^
-^ comparison_ch14_mo2mu        |{{:postuloca:comparison_ch14_mo2mu.png?200|}}|Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 1 Radio Channel \\ Data elaboration on 4 Radio Channels |
+^ comparison_ch14_mo2mu        |{{:postuloca:comparison_ch14_mo2mu.png?200|}}|Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 1 Radio Channel \\ Data elaboration on 4 Radio Channels, variance sampling window 3 and 5 seconds |
 ^ comparison_ch17_mo2mu        |{{:postuloca:comparison_ch17_mo2mu.png?200|}}|:::                                                               |
 ^ comparison_ch21_mo2mu        |{{:postuloca:comparison_ch21_mo2mu.png?200|}}|:::                                                               |
 ^ comparison_ch24_mo2mu        |{{:postuloca:comparison_ch24_mo2mu.png?200|}}|:::                                                               |
-^ comparison_m12-16-20-24_mu2mo||Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 4 Radio Channel \\ Data elaboration on 1 Radio Channel|
+^ comparison_m12-16-20-24_mu2mo|{{:postuloca:comparison_m12-16-20-24_mu2mo.png?200|}}|Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 4 Radio Channel \\ Data elaboration on 1 Radio Channel, variance sampling window 3 and 5 seconds|
-^ comparison_m17-25_mu2mo      ||Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 2 Radio Channel \\ Data elaboration on 1 Radio Channel|
+^ comparison_m17-25_mu2mo      |{{:postuloca:comparison_m17-25_mu2mo.png?200|}}|Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 2 Radio Channel \\ Data elaboration on 1 Radio Channel, variance sampling window 3 and 5 seconds|
+^ comparison_mono_multi       |{{:postuloca:comparison_mono_multi.png?200|}}|Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 1,2 and 4 Radio Channel \\ Data elaboration on 1, 2 and 4 Radio Channel, respectively, variance sampling window 3, 5 and 10 seconds|
+^ comparison mono-channel to multi-channel, with mono-channel filtered out from multi-channel|{{:postuloca:comparison_ch12_filtered.png?200|}}|Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 4 Radio Channel (12,16,20,24) \\ Data elaboration on 1 Radio Channel filtered out from multi-channel, variance sampling window 3 and 5 seconds|
+^ :::|{{:postuloca:comparison_ch16_filtered.png?200|}}|:::|
+^ :::|{{:postuloca:comparison_ch20_filtered.png?200|}}|:::|
+^ :::|{{:postuloca:comparison_ch24_filtered.png?200|}}|:::|
+^ comparison mono-channel to multi-channel, with mono-channel filtered out from multi-channel|{{:postuloca:comparison_ch17_filtered.png?200|}}|Area 3.6 m X 4.8 m, 20 sensors, Data Collection on 2 Radio Channel (17,25) \\ Data elaboration on 1 Radio Channel filtered out from multi-channel, variance sampling window 3 and 5 seconds|
+^ :::|{{:postuloca:comparison_ch25_filtered.png?200|}}|:::|