Slashdot Mirror
Photosynth Team Does It Again
STFS found an update to the
Photosynth stories that we already ran. You might remember the amazing photo tourism demos. Well, this new version kicks things up several notches with paths and color correction to more smoothly transition between photos taken in different lighting conditions. As before, this stuff is worth your time. Check it out.
The color matching section was quite impressive given the wide variety of lighting and color temp in the starting photos; if they wrote their own software to do that, it sure counts as R/D.
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
And THIS is why I tend to take huge numbers of photos and never delete any... Technology like this will account for easy geotagging, date I already have in the EXIF data, whereas people can be tagged with face recognition soon enough.
That done, I'll be able to navigate my tens of thousands of photos by asking for things like photos taken of the kids while outside at the cottage when they were 3 years old.
Also, remember to backup! :)
.: Max Romantschuk
Very cool stuff! Does anyone know (are any of the project team members here?) how much foreknowledge of the object being orbited that is required?
For example, is a 3D wireframe model necessary?
Is a filtering of the photos necessary to ensure that they are all of the same subject?
What level of pre-processing is required on the photos, either automated, or manual?
How well does the system fare when the object being photographed isn't absolutely static? A drawbridge, for example, changes shape. Or Niagara Falls. Or a flag. Or a single person.
Anyone know?
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Shut The Fuckup Sonny - it's what the old guys on Photo.net say when you tell them that photography as we know it is dead - especially if you mention film in the same sentence. It'd be like saying that BSD is dead here on /..
Seems a bit simplistic to me, I'd have thought that they'd turn the photos into a virtual world, using the colour corrected photos to create wireframes and bumpmaps and then being able to apply whatever lighting and other effects to the world. That allows you much more freedom to use other methods (e.g. LIDAR) to populate the database.
Creating 3d models also allows you to remove transient objects (people), or add objects to the scene, e.g. what would David look like on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square.
I suspect the reason they've done it this way is more about the patents than practical application.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
goatse
Awwwww Christ ... now you've put zooming and panning into my head at the same time as goatse.
Thanks.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
I was on an ocean cruise recently, and a little girl was lost... Ship's Security were looking for her.
I later heard she had been found, and as I walked back to my cabin I thought of this software.
Every corridor of the ship has cameras.
The parent could recall the last time she was with the child. An operator could then fly through a 3d map of the ship, from that point in time, with recorded video overlaid, following the girl in fast-forward until the current time was reached.
The flying would be like spectators do in first-person-shooter type computer games.
An observer could even be automatically tethered to the missing person.
Microsoft had better not repeat google's slight miscalculation. The credits given to the flicker accounts tell that they must of had to opt in, unlike streetview. This photosynth system would be incredibly powerful if it used all flicker images or crawled the web. People are clearly visible everywhere in this system, and some may become upset.
If this was an OSS project, your post would have been rated "flamebait".
Obligatory link to the youtube video (not a rickroll, I promise!)
Thanks, Network Mirror!
It needs neither input of coordinates or input of a rough 3d layout. It generates its own 3d model by analyzing the photographs programatically, you do not even need to tell the program they were taking in the same area. The photographs are then automatically applied to the generated 3d model and finally it lets you move freely in the generated 3d world selecting the best photo matching your current viewpoint while applying perspective remapping, color correction and lens correction.
It's a bit dense and involves some cross references, but here's a part which may answer some of your questions. For more detail you oculd always read the paper yourself.
From what I took away from the original demo, they were doing everything algorithmically. The original demo showed a wireframe of the Notre Dame generated completely from amateur pictures, then overlaid with those same pictures to give it texture. So yes, it is quite impressive. I'd be surprised if Google wasn't doing anything similar for Google Maps though.
Erm, isn't that a bit of a long winded complicated way of doing things ? I mean sure, Computer could do that for you but why not just ask instead ?
"Computer, where is " and that would be that. I mean typically she'd be stowed away in the engine room re-configuring the sensor array for some nefarious purpose but that's just kids nowadays I guess.
It looks like taking a video would be easier.
Depending on what you are trying to do... My original point was that technology like this will make it possible to navigate the swamps of data we're accumulating.
I like having a lot of family photos, but traditional albums won't do when we have literally thousands of them. Stuff like this can make it possible to easily call up photos based on suitable criteria. Like I said we need other parts to, like face recognition, but summing it all up we'll eventually have a feasible way to navigate a huge amount of photographic data.
.: Max Romantschuk
There was some discussion recently about the possibility of building an open source photosynth - and creating an 'open voxel space' map of the planet.
Anyone know if there's been any progress on this?
http://lists.burri.to/pipermail/geowanking/2008-June/005373.html
You just give it the photos - it figures out the rest. It works by stitching them together in 3D, so if there is a photo of one part of the subject that is not overlapped by one other, the photo won't be part of the finished "model". If you download the old demo, you can see the Yosemite demo, which shows what happens with movement (hikers climbing a mountain). If it can match up most of a scene in an image, the image can still be used. I'm sure it'll only get better. Another great example is in the old demo, where they simply searched Flickr for "Notre Dame", and then constructed the entire cathedral. It picked up a photo of a poster in someone's house, and seamlessly integrated it into the model. It recognised what it was from, and where on the cathedral it was positioned, and reflected that by putting that image exactly where it should be in the finished "model". Of course this is just stuff I've gleaned from watching the demo videos, using the demo, and reading as much as I can about it, so I might be wrong on some of it, but that was the impression I got. If I'm far off, I'd appreciate being put right, as this technology is nothing short of stunning.
Because you can, say, search Flickr for a landmark, get the images, run them through this, then you can navigate through the space in 3D, looking at high-res imagery of the subject, from all available angles, without having to previously know anything about the subject. Even the system doesn't need to know anything about the subject, it only needs the photos. It is ENTIRELY automatic, using only images. If you look at the old Notre Dame demo, you can see that it even correctly inserted a photo of a poster of Notre Dame into the 3D model, in the exactly-correct position. 100% automatic. That's the breakthrough.
Microsoft have turned Photo Tourism into something incredibly more powerful. But don't let that get you off your high horse. Some of us don't play the "them" and "us" game.
Huh? Why not get out there, meet people from those countries, eat the food they eat, get drunk with them, and actually experience the world?
Of course! Because every familiy has the time and resources to visit every possible interesting place on the planet.
Huh? Why not get out there, meet people from those countries, eat the food they eat, get drunk with them, and actually experience the world?
Ummm, because we can't afford it? Taking six people to Greece would consume our family vacation budget for 3-4 years. I'd rather stay closer to home and spend more time with my kids.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I thought one of the previous stories said it would do that.
What I was curious about is, how? A distinguishable photograph could be associated. But, even with one of the examples in the display, the Statue of Liberty, if this is automated, how would it be able to distinguish the real statue of liberty with say a souvenier sitting on my coffee table? Basing it on size and distinguishing shapes, it would match either one. Basing it on those, and the background objects is impossible. It already has to take into account that there are changes in the foreground (people, extra objects like light poles that are not present in very similar views). Background objects like clouds come and go, and leave entirely different images.
For not quite as distinguishable objects, it would be a lot harder. Say you used the Statue of Liberty as your starting point. If you were to travel into Manhattan, there are many very similar shapes for buildings and storefronts. Sure, unique buildings would be obvious, but for every obvious building, there are dozens of almost identical buildings.
Even then, you would have to know the city. Similar architecture can show up in a variety of cities, and be close enough to match. Cameras may record timestamps embedded in the original image (assuming unedited photos are added to the system), but there is nothing useful like geographic coordinates included.
All the photos were shot from the same perspective. It was as if they were shot by one or more photographers of about the same height. There should have been a more significant change to the view from say a 4' tall child to a 6'8" tall man. I don't claim to be a "great" photographer, but I'm pretty good. One of the essentials between being someone who can take snapshots, and someone who can take photographs, is making the composition of your photograph to illustrate the view. That frequently involves changing height and view. Maybe you want to lay on the ground for one, and climb on a ladder for another.
I took some photographs at the World Trade Center on 9/9/2001. Those photographs aren't just of the skyline, although I did take some snapshots at the time. Some are composed lookup up towards the top of the buildings from the ground, and down while leaning on the glass of an observation deck window. Photography isn't documenting a first person view. It's beautifying and romanticist a view, without necessarily changing anything about what's in the composition of the photograph.
There are other features that I don't see how they're getting, such as the zones where photos were shot from. That takes an awful lot of extrapolation. What's the difference between a photographer 10 feet away, and a photographer 200 feet away with a good zoom lens? Almost nothing, except maybe a little focal distortion at the edge of the photo. That varies with the quality of the camera and lens anyways.
I did a little project once years ago. I was sitting in the hills just under the Hollywood sign. We were sitting on top of a hill, so I had a good panorama view. I tried to keep the horizon centered, and I shot frames the whole way around. When I stitched them together in Gimp, I noticed that each frame had variations in it's color. It wasn't because of AWB, it was because the camera (good for the time) had some weird variance, so there was a difference in color from the left to the right side. So, two shots from the same camera at the same settings were significantly different.
I would be willing to suggest that the demo shown isn't a demonstration of a functional piece of software. It is a good example of what can be generated with a computer. I could do the same thing in Gimp or Photoshop. If my job let me play like this for a few weeks, I could have made a better example of vaporware.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
NTSC is worse than you described; you have two 1/60th second exposures interlaced together. Utterly worthless for still frames.
Once progressive HD video cameras become cheap, then video will suck slightly less for the average family archive.