Slashdot Mirror


3D Virtual Reconstructions From Microsoft

Lord Satri writes "New around the corner, Microsoft Live Labs' Photosynth, will 'take a large collection of photos of a place or object, analyzes them for similarities, and displays them in a reconstructed 3-Dimensional space.' There's a demonstrational video and a 'smart photos' example page. From the site Very Spatial: 'The word is that Photosynth will be available for free, at least at first, but no word yet on an exact release date.' I must admit, seems like Photosynth may offer interesting features with an clean interface. This tool will directly compete with Stitcher, and to some extent, Google SketchUp. The virtual world reconstruction tools market is getting crowded, and competition is good. Microsoft doesn't yet have software to tie a photo library with Windows Live Local (Google does), but don't be surprised if it comes to life."

134 comments

  1. Dear Aunt... by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Funny

    If this software is half as good as the famous: "Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.", then we at least should be able to use it to create Escher like visual paradoxes, but if anyone is hoping to seriously convert a few pictures of themselves into 3d models, they may find themselves in a Dali like nightmare.

    1. Re:Dear Aunt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously expect any of our US-American friends would know Dalí?

    2. Re:Dear Aunt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that museum in St. Petersburg, Florida is just an optical illusion.

      http://www.salvadordalimuseum.org/home.html

    3. Re:Dear Aunt... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that museum in St. Petersburg, Florida is just an optical illusion. - but is it an exquisite Escher like optical illusion?

    4. Re:Dear Aunt... by wild_berry · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree with Erich Schubert's blog post (http://blog.drinsama.de/erich/en/2006073102-micro soft-vapourware, found via http://planet.debian.org/) that it's more vapour than some E3 "rendered in-game" footage. Citing the UWash Photo Tour (http://phototour.cs.washington.edu/) whose technology ultimately makes up PhotoSynth, the processing power required is of the scale of two weeks to place 597 of 2635 images using a 3.4 GHz P4. I doubt that too many home computers will have the grunt to do that on a reasonable time-scale before the end of the decade. I expect it will be a serviceon Microsoft Live, where you submit the pictures and use a viewer.

    5. Re:Dear Aunt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an ass.

      I've a Dalí print in my office, Troll.

    6. Re:Dear Aunt... by hobbes75 · · Score: 1

      >I doubt that too many home computers will have the grunt to do that on a reasonable time-scale before the end of the decade. I expect it will be a serviceon Microsoft Live, where you submit the pictures and use a viewer

      Once Vista is ready, a typical low-end 64-core system will do the job in a blink ;-)

  2. Google Earth From User Photos? by gasmonso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This basically looks like Google Earth based on user photos and not satellite photos. I find it quite interesting, but a little too much of a gimmick right now. Pixel zooming into a picture is NOT the same as diving into the scene and looking around like its a virtual world.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
    1. Re:Google Earth From User Photos? by zootm · · Score: 3, Informative

      This isn't really pixel zooming, it "zooms" by determining which of the pictures of the scene it has is closest to the view selected by the user, and switching to that one, rather than zooming in on a specific image. So if you, for example, select to view the head of a statue from a picture of that statue, it looks for a picture of the head of statue, then views that. It's pretty neat.

    2. Re:Google Earth From User Photos? by mrxak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Man-made objects should be pretty easy for software to put together. We tend to build things in a non-random fashion. I'd be a lot more interested to see how well this software works with natural objects like trees (blowing in the wind, no less) than it works with buildings.

    3. Re:Google Earth From User Photos? by zootm · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's what it's really designed for, but you're right that it would be interesting. I'm not sure how automatic the system is in creating its scenes (although to be honest I didn't read a lot of the article, I've just played with the online demo thing for a while).

    4. Re:Google Earth From User Photos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then if you had a picture of a person, it could then show you like pictures of that person where ever they have been?

    5. Re:Google Earth From User Photos? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Heh, all I did was watch the video, and my computer's volume was even muted. But from what it looked like, they were simply using man-made landmarks to show off the software, which considering how symetrical and pattern-based man-made constructions tend to be, I wasn't terribly impressed. Still, if it's free and easy to get, I might try it out someday.

    6. Re:Google Earth From User Photos? by zootm · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there's an interactive demo (of at least one of the features, from reading some of the blurb it looks like it might just be part of it) kicking around somewhere. It's a neat little program in any case, but I'm really not sure if it's even designed to handle non man-made things with any real degree of accuracy.

    7. Re:Google Earth From User Photos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a blog posting by one of the engineers who worked on this product- http://blogs.msdn.com/pix/default.aspx Also, to the gp, the zooming is not just zooming into a particular picture- since it uses seadragon technology, it also allows for seamless zooming in to arbitrarily large images.

  3. Open source sticher? Nasa? by KDN · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does anyone know of any open source photo stichers? And by the way, what does NASA use to generate those awesome collages that they produce?

  4. Real Estate by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This software could revolutionize buying real estate remotely. Imagine, an agent goes in with a cheap digicam and takes a bunch of shots of the house they're selling. They load them into this software which creates a 3D, navigable model of the house, which someone can browse via a browser plugin.

    Sure, this has been around for a while with VRML, but it was complicated and costly for an agent to do. From the looks of this software you can use normal photos as a base. Anyone could create 3D tours with this.

    1. Re:Real Estate by dissolved · · Score: 1

      I am currently househunting and I've seen many "virtual tour" examples on even the most rustic of rural english estate agent sites.

    2. Re:Real Estate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not get carried away, whilst the technology is interesting, it doesnt actually generate a 3D model like you are thinking of. It seems to place all of the photos in 3D space but it doesnt convert them to textured 3D objects.

      If you watch the demo it seems to zoom around the scene from photo to photo, it cannot zoom in or view the building as a whole.

      You will not be able to use this technology to generate 3D models like you are thinking of.

    3. Re:Real Estate by vimh42 · · Score: 1

      Not quite. This software takes two dimentional images, basically mapping them to walls. While this works out for a panorama type deal that gives you a 3D perspective rather than the warped perspective usually you usually get with panoramic picutures.

      However it is not particularily 3D and wouldn't give you much in the way of a navigatable model of a house. It would work for taking shots and allowing the user to view the everything without the aforementioned warping. But actually moving arround, no, it wouldn't work well. Th closer you zoom to in, the more pixelated and distored it will become.

      If you want a 3D navigatable world, use 3D software and use one of the many web plugins to output in a format suitable for the web.

    4. Re:Real Estate by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      This is more akin to what you are looking for:
      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/1 4/1830253/

      Mix the two technologies and you'll reach your goal.

      Layne

    5. Re:Real Estate by Phat_Tony · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're a real-estate agent, it's not really that big of an investment to buy a Kaidan 360 lens. It only takes a few seconds to take a picture with, and you only have to snap one picture. Their software builds a quicktime VR of the environment. In my opinion, a quicktime VR gives a better presentation of an environment than what was seen in the MS software anyway. The only benefit to the MS stuff is that it will let you zoom in on particular features you photographed more close-up, where I believe that Quicktime VR is the same resolution all around.

      The MS stuff is still supposed to do all this auto matching-up of different people's photos and stuff, but for a simple VR tour of some location, the Kaidan lens and a digital camera seems like a superior way to go. Of course, if you're not a professional and only want to make one of these every now and then, you might want to use the MS stuff instead of having to invest in a new lens.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    6. Re:Real Estate by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative
      The only benefit to the MS stuff is that it will let you zoom in on particular features you photographed more close-up

      It doesn't just let you zoom in (which, by the way, Quicktime VR can do too); it lets you look at the scene from any arbitrary perspective. It's the difference between just standing still and looking around in Quake and actually running around the level.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Real Estate by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know quicktime lets you zoom in, but that's not what I'm talking about. I said Quicktime only supports one resolution all the way around- you can't have some one object in the image be much higher resolution and support zooming in on that object while the rest of the VR remains blocky. The entire image is one resolution, and you just get to pan around and zoom in and out of that image. The MS stuff lets you have close-up photos of individual features, so you could zoom in to read the fine print on someone's newspaper in a 360 scene of the Astrodome without having to shoot the entire thing in that resolution and try to stitch a petabyte image file and host it on the web.

      Additionally, I was specifically talking not only about using Quicktime VR, but using the Kaidan lens, which makes an entire panorama out of a single shot, including a lot of processing to remove the severe lens distortion. You don't end up with a lot of resolution, and aren't going to be able to zoom much at all.

      As for running around a 3d environment- it wasn't clear from their demo to what extent it lets you do that. The demo of St. Peter's Basilica was much closer to a Quicktime VR than to playing Quake, and I think the MS software would be much more confusing for most users. Furthermore, creating a complete floorplan of a house would require you to have overlapping pictures of the whole thing- every bit of hallway wall, etc. I'm guessing it would take hundreds of shots to allow it to stitch a house together, which sounds like a lot more work than walking into each room and taking a single shot with the Kaidan.

      In fact, I really doubt that it could do that at all. If you had a bunch of different generic shots of similar rooms and hallways, with endless sections of generic white wall, ceiling, and floor, I doubt a person could even get them all matched up right, much less Microsoft's automatic software package.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    8. Re:Real Estate by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      As for running around a 3d environment- it wasn't clear from their demo to what extent it lets you do that.

      Not from their demo, per se, but from their website: "If you've ever played a 3D game you already know how to use Photosynth."

      Furthermore, creating a complete floorplan of a house would require you to have overlapping pictures of the whole thing- every bit of hallway wall, etc. I'm guessing it would take hundreds of shots to allow it to stitch a house together, which sounds like a lot more work than walking into each room and taking a single shot with the Kaidan.

      I'm certain that in their video they talked about building a scene from "hundreds or thousands" of photos, and even speculated about creating a database of every photo on the Internet.

      In fact, I really doubt that it could do that at all. If you had a bunch of different generic shots of similar rooms and hallways, with endless sections of generic white wall, ceiling, and floor, I doubt a person could even get them all matched up right, much less Microsoft's automatic software package.

      Now this, I believe. I'm interested in computer vision myself, and based on the research papers I've read I'm pretty familiar with the huge issues associated with correctly registering objects.

      I do have an idea about how to make something like this work, though: you need to capture the sequence of the images. This way you could tell unambiguously which generic hallway shots were of the same hallway, for example. In addition, if you stuck an accelerometer to the camera you could capture the path of the viewpoint, you could use that information to do more accurate registration.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  5. The world is not static by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about cars and people that change from picture to picture? It's not possible to match them. Does their reconstruction algorithm try to erase them, or to merge them?

    1. Re:The world is not static by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you watch the linked video (which is definitely interesting and the main example demoed is of a square containing many bystanders, by the way) you will see that the software blends photos together. Presumably it does a lot of color matching and softening of hard seams. When the camera moves from picture to picture in the virtual space, people and cars sometimes fade in/out, but it's not jarring and is somewhat hidden in the shift in aspect.

    2. Re:The world is not static by Flibz · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but it's only a matter of time until they add streaming webcam support for it.

  6. Escher by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

    What happens if you throw some Escher drawings at it?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:Escher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you photoshop goatse into alot of different photos, so you zoom into a painting to find that there are goatses in the details.

      Also makes interesting ideas for spam/banners and other trolls.

      On the other hand, how well does this work for getting 3d models of people. mmm, 3d celeb pr0n webcam.

  7. Just wait till the trolls get ahold of this by antifoidulus · · Score: 0

    goatse man in 3D! Best horror flick imaginable...

    1. Re:Just wait till the trolls get ahold of this by rolyatknarf · · Score: 1

      "goatse man in 3D! Best horror flick imaginable..."

      That is a truly disturbing mental image for this early in the day - or for any time of day in fact.

    2. Re:Just wait till the trolls get ahold of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must... not... zoom... in... !

    3. Re:Just wait till the trolls get ahold of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Flythrough!

  8. Obligatory Blade Runner by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Deckard: Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop. Move in, stop. Pull out, track right, stop. Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance 34 to 36. Pan right and pull back. Stop. Enhance 34 to 46. Pull back. Wait a minute, go right, stop. Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop. Enhance 15 to 23. Give me a hard copy right there.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Obligatory Blade Runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like:

      Deckard: Enhance 224 to 176.
      Microsoft: *BSOD*

    2. Re:Obligatory Blade Runner by radarsat1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      But keep in mind Microsoft's speech recognition woes..

      A more likely transaction might be: "Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop. Stop. STOP. Dear aunt? Move in, stop. Pull out. No, pull OUT. Pull out. Pullllll out. DAMN IT. Dear aunt? Track right. No, RIGHT. Whoa.. okay... left. Pull left. LEFT. STOP. FUCK!"

    3. Re:Obligatory Blade Runner by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      I never quite understood how that photo-magnification/voice-recognition machine that Deckard uses could reveal an object that's behind ANOTHER object in the original (apparently 2-dimensional) photo. Did photos grow a 3rd dimension and cameras the ability to see around objects? Does Deckard have a giant fiber-optic periscope?

    4. Re:Obligatory Blade Runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot "I'm glad you are enjoying this." I think that line is crucial for the wholeness of the experience.

    5. Re:Obligatory Blade Runner by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never quite understood how that photo-magnification/voice-recognition machine that Deckard uses could reveal an object that's behind ANOTHER object in the original (apparently 2-dimensional) photo.

      I don't know how much processing power it would take, but if I were going to write software like that, it would:

      - Build up a basic 3D model of the room based on what's visible in the photo.
      - "Sketch in" the missing parts using a combination of interpolation and looking at cast shadows.
      - Map the known colours from the photo onto the 3D model.
      - Look for reflections in shiny objects and reverse-project them onto what appears to be the source.

      Maybe it could do a couple of passes, going back and forth building up various possible models and using the synthetic data to re-interpret the original image.

      I imagine the result would usually be pretty fuzzy, but so was what he got out of the machine in the film.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  9. Not as 3D, but be sure to check out by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

    I have to say, this would be pretty neat - take all of the images on Google Images for instance and be able to take a high-def virtual tour of places around the world.

    Be sure to check out PlayAnywhere too - another neat tech that's being made over at Microsoft Research.

    1. Re:Not as 3D, but be sure to check out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another neat tech that's being made over at Microsoft Research.

      hi, whore! i think you're "neat"!

  10. What are the legal implications? by Brix+Braxton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks like panarama software on crack. Lots of legal implications I would think - depending on how the photo's are shared or linked - since it is taking photo's that you may or may not have shot and combining them all together - the question might be "who owns the final composite?".

    Looks amazing though - can't wait to see it come out.

    --
    www.wildpad.com
    1. Re:What are the legal implications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depends on the photo's what?

    2. Re:What are the legal implications? by Brix+Braxton · · Score: 1

      Because if you watch the demo - they say something like "here is a photo - and lets say you want to zoom in on this area here but you didn't have sufficient resolution to do so - someone else somewhere else might have and if so, it will automatically and seemlessly update".

      So I'm just curious since it allows so many images to be used together seemlessly and in 3d - when you get a final composite - who actually has ownership of the artistic content. It could be a dozen pictures from a dozen people that might have made photo's that contributed to the final product.

      It's not bad - just interesting to ponder.

      --
      www.wildpad.com
    3. Re:What are the legal implications? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      From the point of view of creating technology, who cares?

      Once it can be demonstrated, then you can worry about the legal issues of combining photos from disparate sources with, presumably, disparate rights.

      If MS can deliver the technological goods, that will be quite an accomplishment. Especially since so little of the cool stuff MS Research does gets to see the light of day.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    4. Re:What are the legal implications? by Brix+Braxton · · Score: 1

      I agree - it's amazing stuff. I want it now.

      --
      www.wildpad.com
  11. Similar stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out the demos here, similar application, also very interesting: http://phototour.cs.washington.edu/

  12. Re:Open source sticher? Nasa? by pooya · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, there is this software: http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~nowozin/autopano-sift / It is GPL'ed but the problem is that it is using a patented algorithm (SIFT features) so it is not free to use in commercial applications without paying I guess.

  13. very cool... by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

    This is doable, if this product is for real and sells at a good price it will be great. The only software that can do this right now is very expensive camera tracking tools, like :Bijou

    --
    Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    1. Re:very cool... by pontifier · · Score: 1

      That company seems to be doing some amazing things in the area of computer vision. Their demo movies showed some scenes from tv and movies that I had seen, and wondered how they were done. I figured the makers of the scenes had had some way of superimposing computer graphics seamlessly over the real world images from a camera. It seems this companys software makes that possible by calculating how the camera moves through a 3d space. It seems that they even have a working realtime version for augmented reality. Truly remarkable stuff.

      --
      -John Fenley
  14. Re:Open source sticher? Nasa? by bhima · · Score: 1

    you are looking for 'Hugin', generally is does a good job.

    --Rant--
    however it does suffer from the fact that it is a font-end for a series of command line apps which have widely disparate design paradigms. One particularly annoying app is written in C# and thus one must down the whole of mono crap in order to use it (if memory serves it is a 28 meg download for a 780K application). Also due to the same issues there is not really consistent handling of filetypes, size, colour depth, compression, and error returns. A corollary problem is that the developers are very enamored with algorithms and not so with implementation details so when things go well they go very, very well and when things go wrong... well it's a bit of mystery.

    --Rant--

    However I must be clear despite all that I complain about hugin it sucks much less than realviz or any other closed source app I've tried.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  15. Cool use of technology by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Funny

    Upload Natalie Portman.

    Then fly over her 3D body in realtime. Excellent!

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:Cool use of technology by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Will it be able to Nakidify(tm) and Petrify Natalie? Will it then be able to cover her in hot grits?

      Until this software can do all that, I fear it is useless.

    2. Re:Cool use of technology by grimJester · · Score: 1

      In a spaceship with hot grits bombs! Imagine the possibilities!

    3. Re:Cool use of technology by mgblst · · Score: 1

      If get enough pictures, each with a different piece of skin showing, the software will sow them altogether removing her clothes completely. (I imagine it to work similar to the software that removes tourists from pictures of statues)

  16. Maybe Microsoft will become like IBM by Rotten168 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A formerly despised and hated company actually ends up doing new neat stuff, whilst a new protaganist takes over, formerly loved as an underdog, treats everyone like crap and becomes hated.

    1. Re:Maybe Microsoft will become like IBM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you watch the videa on channel 9, you will see that it isnt Microsoft that made the technology. It was made by a small company which has now been purchased by the great MS

    2. Re:Maybe Microsoft will become like IBM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      If you watch the videa on channel 9, you will see that it isnt Microsoft that made the technology. It was made by a small company which has now been purchased by the great MS


      Which is exactly how IBM got started in a lot of areas that it went on to do interesting things.

    3. Re:Maybe Microsoft will become like IBM by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      A formerly despised and hated company actually ends up doing new neat stuff, whilst a new protaganist takes over, formerly loved as an underdog, treats everyone like crap and becomes hated.
      Now, who on Google Earth could you be thinking of?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Another gimmick from MS by foniksonik · · Score: 0

    Seems to me Microsoft keeps rolling out new applications just to prove that they can do betas too.... but with out any target. These toys, I'll call them toys cause they seem to server no inherent purpose, are applications looking for an audience. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the wisdom of the ages dictate that first you find a need and then deliver a solution? Even ye' olde Buggy whip had a purpose during it's day.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    1. Re:Another gimmick from MS by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the wisdom of the ages dictate that first you find a need and then deliver a solution?

      It depends on your goal. If your sole goal is to make money, they you are correct. As far as general scientific and technological advancement you are REALLY wrong.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    2. Re:Another gimmick from MS by ericlondaits · · Score: 1

      Microsoft develops tons of experimental projects that are not meant to see the light of day (at least commercially) at Microsoft Research and MS Live Labs. Some of those are not publicly divulged, but are shown internally to other MS Employees. This is nothing new...

      --
      As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
    3. Re:Another gimmick from MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Microsoft's tradition of little R&D apps predates the existence of Google. Once upon a time, sandbox.research.microsoft.com was just chock full of little goodies. Microsoft turned maybe 2% of them into products, and liscensed the other to third party companies (bit of trivia - iPod scroll wheel developed by Microsoft Research as a volume control for VoIP phones, they didn't use it and liscensed it out).

      The big difference is that Google started adding a limitted level of release support to their betas, and it became a very popular program. Microsoft is definitely leaching the idea that these apps should be consumed by the public at large, but Microsoft Research has been and continues to be the single largest best-funded CS-related research group on the planet, and they come up with some truly amazing stuff.

    4. Re:Another gimmick from MS by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Apparently this publicly announced and publicly available project can be considered R&D? Who knew that such applications which have been around for more than a decade in a commercially available and pretty much final form minus the 'social' aspect, would count as research and development = notice lowercase... that's how much I think of this concept.

      Did i really miss something of significance here or is this YASNT (Yet Another Social Networking Toy)?

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  18. This company has been doing this for years by fiber0pti · · Score: 2, Informative

    REAL VIZ has been doing this stuff for years. They even have a few movies under their belt where their software has been used. http://www.realviz.com/

    1. Re:This company has been doing this for years by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      REAL VIZ has been doing this stuff for years. They even have a few movies under their belt where their software has been used.

      I've never tried REAL VIZ, but from scoping out their web site it actually seems rather different. From the looks of it, REAL VIZ can either create a 2D panorama from several photos, or a 3D model based on a single photo. This new thing from Microsoft will allow you to create a 3D model aggregating the information from multiple photographs.

    2. Re:This company has been doing this for years by fiber0pti · · Score: 1

      Have a look at their product ImageModeler. From their website "ImageModeler allows to measure and create photo-textured 3D objects from multiple photographs taken all around the objects." I have used a couple of times and it works very well. Their other products are quite inovative, at least, at the time they were created.

    3. Re:This company has been doing this for years by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      My mistake, thanks for the info.

  19. Re:Open source sticher? Nasa? by et764 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I use Hugin Panorama Tools. I think it works really well, though I don't have a lot of experience with other stitchers. It can do panorama stitching, and also correct for barrel distortion and such.

  20. Re:Where is the OSS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for the outraged poster explaining that he's already done exactly the same thing (if not better!) using only grep, cat, dc, and imagemagick (along with 2 lines of perl), before going on a tirade about obvious patents.

  21. Wikipedia, not MSN Encarta by danielsanII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Their website shows wikipedia, not MSN Encarta :)

    1. Re:Wikipedia, not MSN Encarta by ettlz · · Score: 1

      Have they attributed the photo they used anywhere, as per its CC license?

  22. Very interesting by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    I know that I may get trolled down for this, but it looks like Microsoft has actually created a cool piece of software here. Granted, it is NOT true 3D worlds. However, I have taken enough photographs in places that do overlap that I think it will be a fun gimik. There are a couple of things I am wondering about. Will Microsoft be selling this software, or is it bundled with Vista? What type of processor do you need? How long does it take the computer to do the calculating and create these "Virtual 3D worlds"? From the way it sounded, I am supposing that their will be internet connectivity to build bigger worlds based on what other users have taken. What about differences in cameras and color settings, how does the software determine which is true color?

    Still, may be worth poking around with.

    1. Re:Very interesting by gsn · · Score: 1

      Also be interesting how it stiches together photos taken at different times. Then you could dive in spatially but also see something like a time lapse movie of how a structure evolves. If you have fine enough time resolution you can track how things move from frame to frame in your 3D model.

      So imagine a whole bunch of webcams around St. Peters taking snaps say every 30 secs and stiching this all together. You could see birds flying, people moving all in a 3D world. Does sound computationally intensive but would be very cool, and I can already imagine quite a few uses for this in science. Micron sized particle tracking in 3D when you have multiple CCDs imaging a sample or tracking near earth asteroids (long baseline needed but in principle combine something ground based and space based...) come to mind.

      I hope they do a google and release a free version and a paid pro version or something.

      --
      Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
    2. Re:Very interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that I may get trolled down for this, but it looks like Microsoft has actually created a cool piece of software here.

      I hope you get modded down for this, as you are a troll.

      MS didn't "create" anything; they bought it.

      Sorry to interrupt... You can go back to your ill-informed boot-licking and delusional hero-worship now.

  23. Release date? by sensei85 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...but no word yet on an exact release date.

    Maybe it's being bundled with Vista. *snigger*

    1. Re:Release date? by BasilBibi · · Score: 0

      *sracist*

    2. Re:Release date? by eMbry00s · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, and just think what they could do with the technology!

      I can't wait till I get to play Duke Nukem Forever: Redmond

  24. Live labs != Microsoft by jhfry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what little I can make of everything I read, LiveLabs is more of a think tank that is funded by Microsoft. I don't believe they are even under much if any creative control by MS. I would think of this more like a small startup with an idea and an enormous budget... memories of the dotcom era.

    So because of this affiliation, MS comes out looking innovative and creative when it's merely a small team of appearently very creative developers who have probably never touched any code of any of MS's major income generators (Office, Windows, etc).

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
  25. MS past has biased me by sysadmintech · · Score: 1

    Why does this feel like MS is about to steal some other companies software and everyones digital media they produce? The video sounded like a MS Labs commercial or marketing an excuse for stealing before public out cry. Expect some EULA that says all our digital media belongs to MS but we can buy a license for it.

  26. Re:Open source sticher? Nasa? by zootm · · Score: 1

    hugin does photo-stitching pretty well, I find, and is open source.

  27. you can wait forever for this thing .... by vr_so_informed · · Score: 1

    did you notice that the guys in the video do not show _how_ the 3d environment was made from the photos, they just give a nice presentation of assembled pictures. they probably spent hours on adjusting and calibrating the images. the automatic recognition of the marker points in the images will never be fully automatic - especially not if you consider all the low quality pictures of amateur photographs. probably there will be the user doing endless clicking as in those 3d reconstruction tools like imodeller (see http://www.imodeller.com/ ) and image modeler ( see http://www.realviz.fr/ ). btw. you need a lot of pictures and a lot of well picked (error less than a pixel) feature points to robustly estimate the camera geometries...

  28. Re:Where do you get the model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This system does not involve pictures being put on a elsewhere generated model but instead on the models being generated based on the pictures that you put into it.

  29. I didn't take all of my happy pills this morning by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But this isn't even alpha. It's blogoware - concepts and a video trailer.

    Wake me up when it's over.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  30. Three words by everphilski · · Score: 1

    Research and Development

    Sometimes you do things, not to fulfill a specific task but to explore a concept or an idea, even. Lots of money is spent this way - not just by venture capitalists or companies looking to make a buck, but by research firms who have an honest interest in progressing the sciences - yes, eventually they will make money but in the short term research like this is important just for the sake of knowlege. Imagine for example the defense application. Send a UAV through a remote hostile location with a camera snapping pictures every tenth of a second. Stitch the pictures together into a battlefield scenario that can be imported into a 3D visualizer. Research leads to products.

  31. Robert Scoble is Mini-Microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  32. Basic Research by shagoth · · Score: 1

    Right now this is basic research. Some potentially cool applications but nothing yet. Unsurprisingly, it's Microsoft doing the basic research anymore. I remember when other companies funded such things. Apple used to have an entire skunkworks dedicated to basic and advanced research. Sigh. Well, at least we'll be able to see the new and creative appear from the academic computing centers, it'll just run on Vista first.

  33. Microsoft Brain Wash? by mrxak · · Score: 1

    Anybody else catch that bottle of Microsoft Brian Wash in the video? At least somebody's got a sense of humor of there...

    1. Re:Microsoft Brain Wash? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Wow I butchered that post. Should say: "Anybody else catch that bottle of Microsoft Brain Wash in the video? At least somebody's got a sense of humor over there..."

      (Sorry)

    2. Re:Microsoft Brain Wash? by wildsurf · · Score: 1

      "Microsoft Brian Wash"

      Any relation to Microsoft Bob?

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    3. Re:Microsoft Brain Wash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Anybody else catch that bottle of Microsoft Brian Wash in the video? At least somebody's got a sense of humor of there
      Careful, you are entering the realms of slashdot heresy.

      For Bob's sake, don't let slip that any MS software but not be 100% evil, useless and bloated, for then you will be cast into the pit of Digg.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  34. Check out the SIGGRAPH video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is based on research at University of Washington called Photo Tour. They have a video (mov, wmv) for the paper being presented tomorrow at SIGGRAPH that gives a much better feel for how the tours are automatically created from photos (showing Trebi Fountain, Notre Dame, Yosemite, and the Great Wall)-- it's very cool.

  35. Actual bottle of brain wash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just pointing out to the mods that there's an actual glass bear-style bottle of "Microsoft Brain Wash" near the beginning on a close-up shot of a guy moving the mouse.

    Mod parent up, funny.

  36. What happened to QuickTime VR Authoring Studio? by Cannelloni · · Score: 1

    Apple's venerable QuickTime VR Authoring Studio was once the virtual reality application of choice. It would have been nice to have something like the photo editing machine thingy Rick Deckard (Harrison Volvo) used in Blade Runner built right into it. But sadly, Apple let QTVR Authoring Studio lose itself in time, like tears in rain...

    --
    Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
  37. Microsoft DOES have a photo library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Microsoft doesn't yet have software to tie a photo library with Windows Live Local"

    They do now. Microsoft just bought these guys, who write one of the most respected photo library management applications on the planet.

  38. Re:Open source sticher? Nasa? by frenchbedroom · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know you asked about an Open source stitcher, but there's also Autostitch to have a look at. It's Windows-only, but from what I can tell, their demo version has no time limit, and it does an impressive job with braindead simplicity : select pictures, click go.

  39. Don't use the word "tie" by Ancil · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Microsoft doesn't yet have software to tie a photo library with Windows Live Local (Google does), but don't be surprised if it comes to life."

    OK, I won't be surprised.

    I also won't be surprised when slashdotters gush and fawn over Google's product, then go ape-shit over Microsoft "tying" a software product to Windows Live Local.
  40. Re:Open source sticher? Nasa? by bitslinger_42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    There was a long discussion of pano tools, both free and commercial, over at dpchallenge.com a while back. That link is to the first page where the discussion starts, way down at the bottom. From that thread, it would appear that, while a major PITA to install and learn to use, Hugin produces results that are typically at least as good as most of the major commercial tools and are far better than many of them.

  41. hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds more like Stitcher than Imodeller or Dsculptor. I bought Imodeller a while back, since it's cheaper than dsculptor (still have a demo version of dsculptor that I got off of a magazine cd cover a while back), and intend on using it to create some stuff for turbosquid and other online 3d shops. Did I jump the gun on that purchase? I don't think so.

  42. Good for Investigations by seven+of+five · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can see where this would be a big help in investigations, journalistic, scientific, criminal, etc. Reconstructing a 3-D scene would help understand where people and things were when something happened.

    Today there are mic's placed in some high crime areas that identify a gunshot and where it happened. Cameras placed at strategic locations would complete the "picture".

  43. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Informative

  44. Checkout hugin by Petronius · · Score: 1

    A very nifty tool, not very well known: http://hugin.sourceforge.net/

    --
    there's no place like ~
  45. Sounds good by Kanasta · · Score: 1

    "What is that tower called? Just photograph it.
    Photosynth could eventually connect you to everything on the Web related to it."

    Replace 'tower' with 'picture of naked girl' and you realise the real possibilities.......

  46. The next step - video by Chairboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The next logical step (as the algorithms improve, hardware gets faster, and demand grows) will be to do the same with video. See http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pg f.gif to see a cursory example of how motion picture data can be used to build a persistent environment.

    Another poster earlier in the thread speculated that a real estate agent could photo a house to make a virtual tour. Even better, maybe, would be to just carry a high def video camera of some sort through the house, waving it around to get at least a little bit of footage of everything. With that data, an intelligent program could composite a 3D representation with even fewer blackout spots. Combine this with an accelerometer/gyro field that gives a non-software correlation to the video stream, and it's essentially bulletproof.

    In the form demonstrated, this is a fantastic heavy duty software solution, but physical tracking data would both make this job easier and improve the quality.

    I suspect that in the near future we will see the following technologies made ubiquitous in cameras:
    1. GPS
    2. Tilt/Compass
    3. Accelerometer/motion tracking for video.

    Items 1 and 2 would enable any camera to provide very accurate geo-located data. #3 with video gives you tracking where GPS fails plus the super accurate tracking data needed to take this to the next level.

    "But Chairboy, you tool, why would the camera companies go to the expense?"

    The features listed have become incredibly cheap (both in cost and power consumption) over the past few years. Within a couple years, it'll probably be hard to NOT have them in one of the shared chipsets the camera manufacturers use, and at that point, why fight it?

  47. Anyone know... by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

    (And this is probably off-topic, but what the hell)

    Anyone know of software that can take 2 (or more) digital pics of, say, a person's face from slightly different angles and then try to make a 3d model of it? I assume it exists, I just have no idea what it would be called.

    Tried googling, and am getting a bajillion results for stuff that just isn't related.

    Anyway, it would be really quite interesting to see the tiling software like this coupled with the perspective/parallax type of 3d modelling and ultra high-res photos. Obviously the hardware to do this would be... uh, intense, but it would be very cool to just snap a few shots around my place (or put a camera on a tripod, set it to automatically rotate and snap, then raise up, do it again, etc, all the way from floor to ceiling) and poof, instant 3d model of the entire place. Then let me edit the model to seperate objects - coffee cup from desk, desk from floor and wall, etc. Or hell, build a library of shapes for the software and have the computer do it automatically, calling in a human only when the shapes are too complex/confusing. Heck, could even then apply textures and reflection etc. options based on the photos, create and position light sources etc. The geeklet in me is drooling at this :)

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  48. I got that wrong by DirkK · · Score: 1

    From the abstract I thought at first this was something like Canoma (developed by Kai Krause's MetaCreations, then bought by Adobe, then - dropped?). With it you could make and texturize(!) 3D models from a photograph. Actually it was even working with comics.

  49. Flickr by nailchipper · · Score: 1

    I wrote something about using this technology to build massive 3D maps, with photo repositories such as flickr.

    --


    what is nailchipper?
  50. Didn't Carnegie Mellon U. do this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, a little different....
    take a SINGLE photo and convert to 3d...

    time to merge these two technologies together?

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dhoiem/projects/popup/index .html

  51. I wonder how it scales? by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm rather curious to see how well their approach scales. For example, what if you just dumped all the 1,853 photos of Times Square from Flickr into their interface? Scaling even more, in the future could one use this to aggregate all the photos in a particular city, or even have a Google Earth-like interface aggregating photos from all over the globe and integrating it with satellite data? There's some interesting computational problems with arise in trying to find correspondence between that many visual features.

    I'm also like to see if they can deal with pictures taken at different times of day. I'm guessing it's still too difficult to actually adapt a day image to a night image, so it'd probably just end up treating photos taken at different times of day as different scenes.

    1. Re:I wonder how it scales? by erichschubert · · Score: 1

      It will take probably 1.5 weeks, and the result will contain some 400 of these images.
      The result will however be good.

      Don't even think of doing it with just some 20 pictures. You need a full coverage! Best hire some professionals for that, and maybe a cluster to compute it a bit faster than in 10 days.

      (The Notre Dame example they had took two weeks on a 3.4 GHz computer. That was some 2500 images, of which only 500 ended up in the result).

      No, nothing for your aunt^Wmommy and her holiday photos.

      --
      Debian GNU/Linux - apt-get into it.
    2. Re:I wonder how it scales? by Blink+Tag · · Score: 1

      Why stop at different times of the day? The effect of light on an object, or it's perceived color under different colors/intensities of light would be a nice addition.

      Even better, integrate time stamps and see the long-term effects of time (e.g. erosion, rust) on an object from any angle.

  52. Immense computations needed by erichschubert · · Score: 2, Informative
    Actually it's not particular "microsoft" research, but University of Washington: http://phototour.cs.washington.edu/
    Their video is also MUCH better. Much more impressive, they show some very cool features Microsoft did not. Still, both videos only show the User Interface. Not the calculation of the dataset. It is however no secret that Microsoft PhotoSynth is basically this with a different UI. Or maybe completely the same. (Notice that the Microsoft name is both present on the PhotoTour homepage and the paper for SigGRAPH).
    Do also read the SigGRAPH paper. This is the actually tech part. http://phototour.cs.washington.edu/Photo_Tourism.p df
    Some interesting facts you'll find there:
    • They used a 3.4 GHz computer.
    • The Notre Dame example took two weeks to compute.
    • only 597 of the 2635 images were used, the rest was discarded.
    This definitely isn't of much use to "home" users. You'll need a semi-professional photographer to cover the whole location. If there are some bigger holes in the imagery, you'll probably not get a useful result. If the images don't overlap, how is the software supposed to calculate their relative position?
    --
    Debian GNU/Linux - apt-get into it.
  53. Stalker's dream by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Or take a picture of anyone you really fancy and find out where they live....

  54. Art history & reconstruction by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Another application for software like this - doing reconstruction work on historical/artistic/cultural sites.

  55. why not video? by justo · · Score: 1

    why stop with photos? as technology continues to leap, having a real-time "computer" navigable model of data via cameras would allow intelligence to capture and process data.

    where would these cameras be? why would they have to be mechanical, why not biological cameras? insects, or "bugs", that have been genetically designed to transmit their image data over "wifi". and who would have control of the data? net neutrality?

  56. Photo stitching with Live Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS Research does have this thing called MapCruncher that lets you stitch photos and overlay them on Virtual Earth (a/k/a Live Local).

    See their cool demonstration of a mosaic of photos the developers shot from their airplane: Forks, Washington.

  57. Why not just Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not film an object with a camcorder. You should end up with enough data then to recreate 3-D objects no?

  58. BBC has a speculated and stupid use. by twitter · · Score: 0, Troll
    of course the bbc reported this and asked the obvious question, "who will use this and why?" The answer was:

    Dr Szeliski said:

    1. "I think the photo-sharing websites will be early-adopters of this technology. "Wherever people share photos, instead of just seeing a gallery of unorganised photos, now you can pull everyone else's photos together and make a rational sense out of it."
    2. The other obvious application, he added, would be for tourism and property, where a city could provide a virtual tour or a hotel could potential visitors walk through its lobby.

    Use 1 is silly because the combination defeats the purpose of photo sharing. People mostly want to share pictures of their friends with their friends. Unless they have stone friends, those are not going to show up on the composite. They also want to share some unique perspective, which will obviously be lost as well.

    Use 2 makes more sense but it's going to take much more work than first meets the eye for a real estate agent to turn a house into a virtual tour. Every surface will have to be photographed to make a gapless model and the program will need a lot of help constructing interior spaces. It might be cheaper and faster to borrow your architect's CAD model or make one.

    Such tools will eventually become common, but M$ is neither the originator nor will they be the first to provide one that works well. They have yet to provide an OS that works well and should spend their effort their instead of trying to take over every photo album. Most people don't want their photo albums rendered into some kind of impersonal "rational sense" that looks like Hitler art, devoid of people.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:BBC has a speculated and stupid use. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG!! j000 @R3 t3h pwnx0r ownage m@$t3r 0f @11 th1ngz!!!11!!11!1!!ELEVENTYONE!

      Typical slashdrone, completely missing the point, it spins the story into something that it can bitch about in order to validate it's own sad, pointless existence. All the while it contributes nothing of use to society, knows that everyone else is wrong, but is too stupid to be able to explain what should be done besides "give up your opinions and do it our way". I think the usefullness of the bill gates-borg picture has been outlived. It should be replaced with drones made out of any number of open source advocates, or maybe that damned penguin.

    2. Re:BBC has a speculated and stupid use. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm quoting this paragraph from your post:

      Such tools will eventually become common, but M$ is neither the originator nor will they be the first to provide one that works well. They have yet to provide an OS that works well and should spend their effort their instead of trying to take over every photo album. Most people don't want their photo albums rendered into some kind of impersonal "rational sense" that looks like Hitler art, devoid of people.

      Because I think it captures very well what you're trying to do. You said absolutely nothing of value, yet you managed to dismiss Microsoft's efforts, claim that they're trying to "take over" photo albums (WTF?), do a veiled push for what I assume is Linux (because everybody knows anything else is useless), mention Hitler, and call them "M$". The rest of your post is devoid of value (if one can distill any value from the second part at all).

      Whatever it is you think you're doing (evangelizing? fighting for "freedom"? trying to "stick it" to Bill Gates?) you need to either rethink the way you do it, or just stop doing it altogether. You come across as nothing more than a zealot who knows how to structure long sentences out of seemingly unrelated words - nothing more. Maybe if you had a point people would actually understand what it is you're saying. Just "hating" Microsoft and using that tired "M$" deal doesn't make you smarter or cooler - nor do you bring anything of value to the discussion at hand.

      Cheers,
      --bono

  59. Zapruder film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand the Zapruder film has been cleaned up and digitally remastered. Sounds like a good application to me!

  60. Not the first solution of this kind... by ALoopingIcon · · Score: 1
    There is a European Community funded project, called Epoch, that is offering a somewhat similar solution, i.e. reconstruction of 3d models starting from just a set of uncalibrated, hand-taken photos. The main target is Cultural Heritage documentation and preservation, so there are not so many bells and whistles... You can find more info on this 3d reconstruction service and the open tools developed/supported by Epoch for this purpose

    http://www.epoch-net.org/index.php?option=com_cont ent&task=view&id=46&Itemid=88

  61. Tolkien gave that a name by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

    It's called the Leaf by Niggle effect.

  62. Wikipedia? by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    Microsoft related website showing image of wikipedia?? http://labs.live.com/photosynth/images/page_6.jpg

    Amazing...

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  63. Running Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Activate traveling mat"

  64. Re:What are the legal implications? Pfft! by Slashcrunch · · Score: 1

    IANAL ... and I'm really pleased I'm not! Man, who cares? Is this all people think now?

    "Oh cool. Imagine the fun the lawyers will have with this"

    Theres been plenty of cases regarding who owns images when a person or object is out in public. Enough already, /. is a tech site, not a friggen legal shit-fest.

  65. Pretty awesome in person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having actually seen this in action - and used it - it's pretty awesome. I haven't seen it used on anything except what they're demoing. But part of the idea is to be able to have it draw images off the web and stitch them together on the fly. Now if they can achieve that, wow.

    Putting together architecture is fairly easy. People is significantly harder - look at the troubles with facial recognition. And a tree blowing in the wind? For now, forget it. Unless they figure out some way to animate it (now that would be awesome). Then again, they could potentially stitch together using background artifacts and not just the tree itself.

    The most interesting thing here is what do they propose to have as the final, usable product?

  66. Re:What are the legal implications? Pfft! by Brix+Braxton · · Score: 1

    I wasn't talking about who owns a likeness (building or otherwise) - if you watch the video - he specifically says that you might choose to zoom in to an area where you weren't able to capture enough detail. The software then automagically looks out in cyberspace to see who else might have captured the data. When it finds more source art, it recompiles it to the same perspective you were trying to view your original picture with. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a photographer.

    So the question isn't whether or not taking a picture of a certain church or building is legal, but rather - if it auto-recomposites the image for you using sources from all over the place - who owns the final composited image?

    It's similar to sampling - you can sample sound up to I think 16beats before you are crossing a legal threshold.

    Besides - last I checked, "Your Rights Online" was still a topic on /. so pooey on you.

    --
    www.wildpad.com
  67. Re:I didn't take all of my happy pills this mornin by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    It's blogoware - concepts and a video trailer.
    Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  68. Re:Open source sticher? Nasa? by hugg · · Score: 1

    AutoStitch is a research project from the U of BC, but the demo app is advanced enough that you can just drop a dozen images into the thing and it figures out the rest. Much easier than any other tool I've used.