Re: FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- From: "Bill Davy" <Bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:58:43 -0000
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4922B772.7090503@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
W. eWatson wrote:
It would seem that the FFT is applicable to only data with a number of
observations that are a power of 2. Is that correct? If so, does one only
remove the largest number of observations that are a power of 2, while
ignoring the remainder?
No.
There are FFT algorithms that work for any N, including prime numbers, but
they're a few times less efficient than radix-2 FFTs.
Not sure that's right. I have a feeling that radix 4 and perhaps radix 8
are more efficient than radix 2 and that some transforms (I seem recall one
by Singleton in an IEEE publication) used large factors. And somewhere
there is a program that will generate an efficient FFT program for a
specified number. Of course, if it's a prime, you're stuffed.
Bill
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- From: Phil Hobbs
- Re: FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- References:
- FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- From: W. eWatson
- Re: FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- From: Phil Hobbs
- FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- Prev by Date: Re: lens alignment stage for multiple degress of freedom
- Next by Date: Re: FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- Previous by thread: Re: FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- Next by thread: Re: FFT for N Not a Power of 2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|