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

Why not two cameras?

[AKAImBatman]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the article doesn't explain why they don't simply place two cameras back to back, then use their software to splice the result and apply the correct perspective. All they say about it is that "it's against the laws of physics to take a 360 degree photo. That just seems odd.

Re:Why not two cameras?

[AKAImBatman]

I knew I'd seen this technology somewhere, so I went digging. Here's a story that discusses IPIX using two fisheye lenses back to back.

NetCam is a development of the original iPIX bubble camera, a unit that featured a pair of cameras with fish eye lenses in a single housing the size of a standard SLR camera. What was so special about the iPIX bubble camera was the fact those CCDs and lenses were facing away from each other.

(Emphasis mine.)

Re:Why not two cameras?

[Surt]

Well duh, they can't put two cameras back to back and take a 360 degree photo, that would be against the laws of physics. And man you do not want to be pulled over by god for a physics violation, that is a bad scene.

Re:Why not two cameras?

[zev1983]

It is odd seeing as there is a lens system in existence that can take 360 degree pictures. It uses a funky lens that goes all the way around like a donut IIRC, and the camera is mounted below the lens assembly... OH, here's one http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol34/f eaturing2.html and here http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_main/036-0360 d.html , hell just type in 360 lens into google and tons of stuff pops up. Looks like the people marketing this are full of shit, and don't know anything about physics, or optics. Article is /.ed so I can't check out anything past the /. summary and what you said.

Re:Why not two cameras?

[op12]

He let me off with a warning.

Re:Why not two cameras?

['t is DjiM]

This lens does not offer you the possibility to record a full 360 image... There is no data about what can be seen below and above the viewer. What they do is creating a spherical image, not just a doughnut (which is what your "funky lens" is capable of).

The recorded image can then be viewed (my guess is by a kind of VR goggles) allowing the viewer full viewing freedom.

Next time you say somebody is full of shit, make sure you're not mistaken yourself.

Re:Why not two cameras?

[modecx]

You're confused by the terminology, I think. The guys in the article want to capture a full spherical image (which is possible with 180 degree fisheye lenses, taking 6 pictures at various angles, and stitching them together), those lenses you presented capture 360 degrees in a cylindrical fashion, also cool, but not what they want.

I've seen sperical quicktime files, a LONG time ago. They were neat.

Re:Why not two cameras?

[eMartin]

"This lens does not offer you the possibility to record a full 360 image... There is no data about what can be seen below and above the viewer. What they do is creating a spherical image, not just a doughnut (which is what your "funky lens" is capable of)."

The only requirement for "360 degrees" is that it see from a certain point in all directions on a single plane. Adding up and down means means adding another dimention to the process. Something that can cature a full spherical view would have to be called 360x180 degrees, where you capture 180 degrees of vertical for every one of the 360 degrees of horizontal.

Or something.

Great, now all we need is...

[Stormwatch]

...a 360 Degree TV to watch it!

Re:Great, now all we need is...

[justforaday]

There goes the illusion that my pizza delivery job makes me irresistable to women.

Well duh! You need to get into the plumbing business...

Link / Movies?

[RUFFyamahaRYDER]

Here is google cache: thanks google.

I can't wait to see what movie theatres do with this technology. Maybe not our typical theatres, but yenno... like the one's at theme parks or something. I'm sure can make a pretty cool short movie with this.

Why guess?

[sakusha]

The patent on Disney's Circlevision camera system has expired.

Google search results

[karvind]

Seems like we killed it again.

Google links on EnterNetica

(a) OPTICS ADVANCES BRING VOLUMETRIC VIDEO TO LIFE

(b) Pressbox link

(c) Cleaner, Crisper Volumetric Images

Company webpage

Re:Woa!

[WormholeFiend]

This way we can be INSIDE of a pr0n movie!

No frickin way!

Assuming that the slashdotted article also describes a 360 degree viewing screen, you'd be looking at the porn in front of you, getting all aroused, and then you'd look behind you and see the filming crew with the dodgy looking pron director and his clapper.

This would totally ruin the experience, IMO.

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.

Not sure how you'd do it..

[nathan s]

...as a director.

I mean, part of the idea of a "film" is controlling the perspectives and what you present to your viewer. Somehow I have a hard time imagining this going past the art-house type movie, because the amount of work that the director has to do increases dramatically. Since you can't be sure what direction your audience is looking it, it would make it difficult to have a feature film in the sense that we're used to it...for example:

Jim: Wow, that guy just robbed a bank!
Sue: What guy? I was looking at those flowers over there.
[Camera whirls around, both get dizzy and throw up since they can't tell where to focus]

I'm being silly, but it just seems pretty difficult. That said, it's a cool technology, and if someone could tell me how they plan to deal with that whole focus issue in the context of a feature film, I'd be interested to hear it.

This isn't new...

[fragmentate]

There were teams using Amigas doing this years ago. I recall 2 such products: ProVu, and Cosmo. ProVu was used for "interior design." And Cosmo was used by cosmetic surgeons.

You can buy two existing similar systems

[Thagg]

At Siggraph this year, there were two similar systems on display. They are unbelievably cool.

1) Point Gray's Ladybug2 has five cameras mounted in a box about the size of, say, a stack of three decks of cards.

2) Immersive Media's system has 11 (!) cameras in a sphere about 2 inches on a side.

Both systems do real-time stitching of the multiple images into a panorama.

We're looking into them for the obvious motion-picture visual effects applications. The resolution (both spatial and dynamic) is not ideal for motion-picture work, but the ability to have an extremely small, lightweight, panoramic capture is a tradeoff that is worthy of pursuit. In the past (say, on The Fast and The Furious) we used six ARRI 435 cameras mounted to the side of a motorcycle, to the tune of several thousand dollars a day rental, hundreds of pounds of weight, and fairly compromised images in other ways (bad lens flare, extremely bouncy images.)

Thad Beier
Hammerhead Productions

Re:Woa!

[Orrin Bloquy]

with the dodgy looking pron director and his clapper. So that's what you kids are calling it today.

How would Red Green solve this?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Or you could, like, duct tape a bunch of cheaper camers into, like, a ball.

4 \pi Steradians

[benhocking]

For it to be truly immersive, shouldn't they be bragging about 4 \pi steradians instead of 360 degrees? One's a measure of a spherical surface area and the other only describes a circle!

Also, why doesn't π or π give me \pi? It seems to work in general HTML... Interestingly enough, & still works (and a handful of others).