Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Bins smaller than pixels. was: WX GUI FFT Sink Performance

2013-05-28 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 05/28/2013 01:54 PM, Mark McCarron wrote: I think the best approach is just to include every possible method in GNURadio. This can only make the platform more versatile. I make use of overlapping a lot because computation times are a pain. The trade-off in resolution is acceptable to me b

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Bins smaller than pixels. was: WX GUI FFT Sink Performance

2013-05-28 Thread Mark McCarron
to do the FFT at different resolutions. SETI do the same thing with the BOINC platform, only on a far greater scale. Regards, Mark McCarron > Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:36:19 -0400 > From: j...@febo.com > To: discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org > Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Bins smaller

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Bins smaller than pixels. was: WX GUI FFT Sink Performance

2013-05-28 Thread John Ackermann N8UR
On 5/28/2013 1:28 PM, Simon IJskes wrote: On 17-05-13 02:22, Marcus D. Leech wrote: Again, given the fact that your display geometry is likely less than 1280 wide, you'll simply lose information for FFTs larger than that. I one is looking for weak CW signals, in a waterfall, wouldn't a wide b

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Bins smaller than pixels. was: WX GUI FFT Sink Performance

2013-05-28 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 05/28/2013 01:28 PM, Simon IJskes wrote: On 17-05-13 02:22, Marcus D. Leech wrote: Again, given the fact that your display geometry is likely less than 1280 wide, you'll simply lose information for FFTs larger than that. I one is looking for weak CW signals, in a waterfall, wouldn't a wide

[Discuss-gnuradio] Bins smaller than pixels. was: WX GUI FFT Sink Performance

2013-05-28 Thread Simon IJskes
On 17-05-13 02:22, Marcus D. Leech wrote: Again, given the fact that your display geometry is likely less than 1280 wide, you'll simply lose information for FFTs larger than that. I one is looking for weak CW signals, in a waterfall, wouldn't a wide bin, make this signal invisible in among th