Technology for Capturing 360 Degree Video

Inzite writes "EnterNetica R&D is working on a new spherical video technology for capturing and presenting full 360 degree scenes using a 180 degree lens, by adaptively predicting the camera's surroundings. Video extrapolation techniques have been proposed in the past, but this is the first time I've heard of an entire hemisphere of the video image being "guessed". The article also talks about feature film presentation using fully-immersive video in the future."

Comments

Cinemoments

[dada21]

OT pondering instilled by TFA...

In Jack McDevitt's Hutch series of books, the passengers on intersolar flights passed thetime by "starring" in movies digitally redone with the passengers as the characters.

I was thinking about how hilarious this would be in real life, and how it could reinvigorate certain movies in theaters with minimal seating if they had decent hardware to sample random audience members (one person per group). I realized a fisheye lens can capture deptch with the right software.

Imagine how "cool" it would be to revisit Indy Jones or Star Wars or Usual Suspects where someone in your group was one of the actors? Even a bit part would lead to great inside jokes, and meeting up with new groups would be easy, too.

I'd spend $20/ticket for the social experience. //OT

check out this ghetto 360 camera "hack"

[enrico_suave]

360 degree camera hack

pretty cool, simplistic yet inventive hack.

e.

VirtuSphere

[mysqlrocks]

This would be pretty cool combined with the VirtuSphere.

What about a spherical lens with camera below?

[RexRhino]

Back in the 90s dot com boom I saw a prototype camera for doing 360 degree panning quicktime static images that was essentially a camera pointed vertically, with an extreme almost spheroid "fisheye" lens. The image would be processed to change the distorted fisheye image into a panoramic 360 degree view (The only direction you could not pan in was down, because the camera was there. Obvously down is the least interesting direction for panning, although I suppose you could have mounted the camera upside down if the ground was important.). The prototype seemed to work fine.

Why can you do the same thing with video? Is it because processing a "fisheye" image is just too processing intensive for 30 frame a second HD video? Is the technique patented and so off limits for other companies? Is it that a video image is too low-res to do translations from a distorted fisheye without blurring? Why do it the elaborate way described in the article when the fisheye technique seems a whole lot simpler?

I saw the prototype in person, so unless the company was commiting outright fraud, I am pretty sure the fisheye thing works.

hurrah Its 1998 again

[Anonymous Coward]

this has been done a long time ago by BeHere, who have done 360 video for years, works with quicktime and realvideo
they even had a couple of short Films on iFilm where you where part of the action (a plane crash video and you as a patient in an old peoples home) and could move the camera around to see people talking to you (sound was stereo too) pretty mind blowing in 98

but whats old is the new new right ?

Re:Not sure how you'd do it..

[lpangelrob]

Well... you wouldn't necessarily have to have action going in every angle at once. That would be a little bit ADD. More likely, you'd have more first person experiences. What we have now is the camera depicting what the main character sees; what we'll have later is the camera dpicting where the main character is, and you can see all around. It's still up to the director to focus the audience's attention on where the action is, taking into account that wildly changing focus like handheld cameras do now would be thoroughly irritating.

That said, about the only good use I can think of for something like this would be scary movies where the tendency of a Really Scary Character to jump into a scene from nowhere, punctuated by the inevitable scream and/or musical blast, is everywhere. Something like that would be much more effective in a 360 degree room.

Heck, ride the Haunted Mansion ride in Disneyworld / Disneyland sometime for the same effect.

Look up instead...

[MadCow42]

360 degree views using a 180 degree lens are perfectly possible: you're just not looking at it right.

If you point the lens directly UP (or down even), then it will cover 360 degrees around you. You could extract a 360 panorama from that fish-eye image and remove the distortion fairly easily (although it would be processing intensive).

MadCow

Let me predict...

[localman]

feature film presentation using fully-immersive video in the future

That will suck. First off, I can't really take in more than what's in front of me anyways. Am I going to have to twist around to see the characters and/or action? I remember a 360 movie in Disney world and it was more annoying than neat. Then there's the fact that part of the art of cinema is putting things in a frame -- if there is no longer a choice of what goes in and what doesn't, it's less and less of an art. Then there is the fact that by increasing the cost of filming, set design, distribution and projection, that these films will be even worse than what we are accustomed to.

I think there's a great untapped use for immersive technology, but feature films are not it.

Cheers.

Re:Not sure how you'd do it..

[Vitriol Angst]

On the TV Show 24, they have multiple images. They control motion and sound to indicate "action". In a circular video, you could easily "direct" attention by increasing activity, sound or some "uniqueness"... it would definitely be more work to pull off. We have been used to a generation of TV and there is a lot of "understanding" between the producer and the audience ... but it isn't necessarily the only way to produce video. When I took classes on the basics, it was interesting to learn the rules of continuity that most of us aren't aware of consciously, but if any of the "rules" are broken, we notice immediately.

I think 3D "puppets" of interactive movies are the future. A host system would render the perspective and real actors "script" the actions of the puppets. The wrap-around movie may be interesting as a novelty... but it would take too much of the director and audience (like 3D glasses on pseudo 3d today). I think it may have a great use in documentaries to "make people feel" like they are there ... a better witness, where you DON'T want to "direct" the audience. Authenticity or information is a fantastic use for this. Perhaps an undersea IMAX (read "fishbowl"). I would love it, but I doubt you'd want to see an action picture this way. A horror movie would be "too intense" to be enjoyable by anyone sane. Just my two cents.

Re:Why not two cameras?

[B1ackD0g]

The issue that you encounter with taping two cameras together is that the depth of field is going to be different between them because the pupils of the cameras are at different points.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but to project this, you have to make room for the viewer. Seems like the difference in perspective would be desireable. I'd think that you'd really want the camera's to be physically placed around the camera in as close to a spherical configuration as possible. This should leave room for the camera person, or, at least, the camera.

My mind flashes back to a Superman comic book where Lex Luthor bends light around himself to become invisible. He is then left blind, because any flaw that allowed him to see out could be used by Superman to find him.