relecture proceeding et corrections : regarder commentaires sur figure et phrase…

… que je ne comprends pas

relecture proceeding et corrections : regarder commentaires sur figure et phrase…
… que je ne comprends pas
jfriedt
1 parent cd5530b2a6
Showing 1 changed file with 6 additions and 4 deletions Side-by-side Diff
ifcs2018_proceeding.tex
@@ -85,15 +85,17 @@
 not only the coefficient values and number of taps must be defined, but also the number of bits defining
 the coefficients and the sample size.
  
-Ideally the coefficient are expressed as floating point value but this notation isn't a efficient way to
-work with FPGA. Instead we prefer convert this floating point values into integer values. However this
-conversion result in some precision loss. Actually as show figure \ref{float_vs_int}, we see that we aren't
+The coefficients are classically expressed as floating point values. However, this binary
+number representation is not efficient for fast arithmetic computation by an FPGA. Instead,
+we select to quantify these floating point values into integer values. This quantization
+will result in some precision loss. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{float_vs_int}, we see that we aren't
 need too coefficients or too sample size. If we have lot of coefficients but a small sample size,
 the first and last are equal to zero. But if we have too sample size for few coefficients that not improve the quality.
  
+% JMF je ne comprends pas la derniere phrase ci-dessus ni la figure ci dessous
 \begin{figure}[h!tb]
 \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/float-vs-integer.pdf}
-\caption{Illistration of coefficients choice impact}
+\caption{Impact of the quantization resolution of the coefficients}
 \label{float_vs_int}
 \end{figure}
...	...	@@ -85,15 +85,17 @@
85	85	not only the coefficient values and number of taps must be defined, but also the number of bits defining
86	86	the coefficients and the sample size.
87	87
88		-Ideally the coefficient are expressed as floating point value but this notation isn't a efficient way to
89		-work with FPGA. Instead we prefer convert this floating point values into integer values. However this
90		-conversion result in some precision loss. Actually as show figure \ref{float_vs_int}, we see that we aren't
	88	+The coefficients are classically expressed as floating point values. However, this binary
	89	+number representation is not efficient for fast arithmetic computation by an FPGA. Instead,
	90	+we select to quantify these floating point values into integer values. This quantization
	91	+will result in some precision loss. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{float_vs_int}, we see that we aren't
91	92	need too coefficients or too sample size. If we have lot of coefficients but a small sample size,
92	93	the first and last are equal to zero. But if we have too sample size for few coefficients that not improve the quality.
93	94
	95	+% JMF je ne comprends pas la derniere phrase ci-dessus ni la figure ci dessous
94	96	\begin{figure}[h!tb]
95	97	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/float-vs-integer.pdf}
96		-\caption{Illistration of coefficients choice impact}
	98	+\caption{Impact of the quantization resolution of the coefficients}
97	99	\label{float_vs_int}
98	100	\end{figure}
99	101