Bureaucrats, dave_user, Administrators
4,650
edits
Changes
→Alarm detection latency verification
Timer displays 50.00x. This means that, in the middle of the exposure window associated with the alarm frame, the timer refreshed all the 7-segment displays from something like 49.xyz to 50.abc. Thus, all the digits were affected by a change during the acquisition and this is the reason why they do not appear consistently.
In conclusion, the number of stored frames is correct (3333) and the assessment of the aforementioned specific frames was completed successfully because the discrepancies are in the order of hundreds of milliseconds, therefore much smaller than the size of the recording window. These checks were repeated over several recordings and similar results were found. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that this analysis does not allow to say that the processing platform behaves like a true real-time system with regard to capturing the high-frame-rate flow of frames and processing the alarm signal. As such, we can not determine the upper bound of alarm detection latency, for example. Rather we can say that the system '''typically''' performs as in the example detailed here. And this This result is enough to satisfy this the PoC's requirements.
