Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Develop Genuine 3D Camera
cylonlover writes "Cameras that can shoot 3D images are nothing new, but they don't really capture three dimensional moments at all — they actually record images in stereoscopic format, using two 2D images to create the illusion of depth. These photos and videos certainly offer a departure from their conventional two dimensional counterparts, but if you shift your view point, the picture remains the same. Researchers from Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) hope to change all that with the development of a strange-looking camera that snaps 360 degrees of simultaneous images and then reconstructs the images in 3D."
Does anyone know if the Microsoft Kinect is classified as a "true" 3d camera under these criteria?
So I RTFA and WTFV , and the asshole at the computer put on some fucking glasses, I call shenanigans..
of Stereoscopic....it's polyscopic? I dunno...this still seems like more of the same.
Unless it's doing a lot of moving around, it's just stereoscopic on steroids. If it stays in a fixed position, even though it has more than two cameras, all the objects are at fixed points. Until it can accurately judge the height, width and depth of an object without faking it in reconstruction, or making an educated guess - it's just more of the same. Humans suffer from the same limitations, but they fix this by moving the viewpoint around until a coherent 3D image is constructed.
Unless you have cameras that can accurately measure objects and move in the X and Y dimensions enough to cover the entire scene and all viewpoints for a given object, you're stuck in the same position - educated guessing.
I never knew I was using such worthless vision capabilities until now.
I do hope to upgrade to the far superior bug eyes which will allow me truly see in three dimensions.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
It may be 360 degree, but not 3d. It doesn't process depth any more than a traditional 2d camera, it just takes a wider angle of view.
...you still have your work cut out for you, blade runner.
Insert self-referential sig here.
You're right, it's nothing new. It's not even real 3D, it's "stereoscopy" to a higher degree. We were doing true 3D analysis 15 years ago; video analysis of gait and other motions on a treadmill. We used multiple cameras mounted orthoganally, and a digital mixer to combine and record onto SVHS tape w/a SMPTE time code. Post recording analysis was done using Peak Performance (brand) software. This was way before the cinematographers and game makers started doing this. There's little new in science.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Whoever tagged the story "france" got it wrong. The *real* Ecole polytechnique is of course in France, but this one is in Switzerland.
There's only one kind of "genuine" 3D camera, and it requires very special film and one of absolute stillness or high-power pulse lasers. We call the process "holography," and if it doesn't do that it's not a real 3D "camera."
Words mean things.
It sounds like this is a combination of the Kinect and the Google Street View or yellowBird camera. It had to read the article and watch the video twice, because initially it sounded like they were promising more than this could do. Turning a town or campus into a 3D model for a game sounds quite doable; you just need to move the camera around a ton as it records. As for getting a different perspective at a concert, he said you need several cameras. If you have a lot, then yeah, I can see a smooth perspective transition in real time being possible, but you would need a lot of these in the area.
Here's a 5 cam version already commercialized http://bit.ly/aHDafK
"2. Make a camera with multiple 2D sensors placed at different focal lengths, and somehow transparentified, perhaps with half silvered mirrors. This more complex camera can shorten the exposure time significantly, if there is enough light." You want them to create a lens designed to capture light AND be transparent? I think you missed a few physics classes back in high school.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Stereoscopic images are not acquired with a 2D array of 2D cameras, they are aquired with a 1D array (single line, one next to the other) of 2D cameras. A 2D array would be a GRID. The camera in TFA could be described as a 2D array of 2D cameras (with the array bend in the 3rd dimension to create a semi-sphere.
Also, for which use are they flawed? If you want to render a scene from any direction, then yes, you most likely need more than a 1D array of 2D cameras, however if the scene is intended to be viewed from 1 perspective only (like a movie scene) then a 1D array of 2D cameras is sufficient since that's all we HUMANS use to interpret the final images.
he/she missed a few geometry classes too, because he/she thinks you can capture 3D with only one camera. and some other geometry classes, because he/she thinks a 2D array of 2D cameras makes a 4D camera.
simple explanation for apparent stupidity: we just fed a troll.
new sig
TFA gets it wrong, too... Sure, it may be great for immersive experiences, but it doesn't even address the question of 3D. For that, we are still stuck with holograms.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I'm glad to see people calling "bullshit" on this. I'm big into developments of PhotoSynth/Bundler/PMVS and other interesting 3D photogrammetry, so this is close to my heart. I'd just like to clear up a confusion though: "You can do a better job of 3D scene reconstruction with three or four Kinects in different places[...]" Unfortunately you can't, as the Kinects use structured light reconstruction, and the IR light patterns from multiple Kinects would confuse each other.
Personally I'm just glad they finally have a 2D camera out there. I keep cutting myself on my 2D one, and once I set it down on a flat surface I can't pick it up again.
You cannot simply add the dimensions, it depends on how you integrate the image data together. Us people who don't know very much call this integration 3D reconstruction. "The image is 3D" - do you mean the real world is 3D ? The image, as you put it, is a projection from 3D onto a 2D plane and is most definitely 2D.
Humans possess a stereoscopic vision system, each eye is capturing a 2D image at any moment in time. I expect you would call that a 4D vision system ?
So now you add a third dimension - time. And the concept of Depth from Focus is not your idea at all, it has been around for a very long time.
Your other idea involving "somehow" doing something cannot be considered prior art. In the grand scheme of things an invention has to be realisable.
If I could see a smiley on the above line I wouldn't think you are an idiot.
From the article & video, all I can see is a higher-resolution version of an Omnidirectional camera, which is very common in mobile robots. Such as this list of about 50 different types! "http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~kostas/omni.html"
They keep referring to the notion of depth being used, but unless there is some big technology that they completely forgot to mention in the article & video, it just does the equivalent of pointing a camera into a bowl shaped mirror, allowing you to see in all 360 degrees at once. eg: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnidirectional_camera"
That is quite different to say it is truly 3D, since it is still a 2D image without depth, just that its wrapped around a circle shape instead of rectangle shape.
Stereoscopic images are not the same as 3D.
The difference is 2 pictures versus a line of pictures.
A 2D array of 2D cameras give 4D.
Here is a picture of it:
http://images.gizmag.com/hero/3d360camera.jpg
The flaw is an inefficiency of about 100 due.
No. A video wall have the LCDs in the same plane as the LCD planes, so that is just re-use of dimensions.
The only Quantum Physics in LCDs are their polarizing filters and the transistors. (And LEDs in the newer ones.)
| You cannot simply add the dimensions, it
| depends on how you integrate the image data
| together. Us people who don't know very much
| call this integration "3D reconstruction".
You misunderstood. There are 4 dimensions to the
data captured by the camera:
http://images.gizmag.com/hero/3d360camera.jpg
1. The X axis on the light sensors.
2. The Y axis on the light sensors.
3. The radius of the cameras from the top of the dome.
4. The angle of the cameras from the top of the dome.
| "The image is 3D" - do you mean the real world
| is 3D ? The image, as you put it, is a
| projection from 3D onto a 2D plane and is most
| definitely 2D.
The light reflected from a scene is 3D.
If I know the light in a 3D volume,
I can calculate it forwards and backwards in time.
The same goes for light passing through a plane
during some time. Plane is 2D, while time is 1D.
So 3D is enough to represent all information in light. 4D is therefore a waste.
| Humans possess a stereoscopic vision system,
| each eye is capturing a 2D image at any moment
| in time. I expect you would call that a 4D
| vision system ?
I would call that stereoscopic vision.
It is just 2 times 2D.
| And the concept of Depth from Focus is not
| your idea at all, it has been around for a very
| long time.
I do not believe you.
You are welcome to disprove me by showing an
example of someone that have done 3D from a
depth change movie.
| Your other idea involving "somehow" doing
| something cannot be considered prior art.
Yes it can. I have worked enough with patents
to have seen it done.
| In the grand scheme of things an invention has
| to be realisable.
To me it is obvious that it is realisable.
I better do it. I had no idea that this concept
which I find so simple and obvious is so
incomprehensible and unfathomable to slightly
intelligent people.
Kim0+
The amazing thing is... My realtor must have been a genius because when we sold our house 4 years ago he had that very same camera take a picture of our living room...
Just keep your ifs and your ofs straight, and you should be fine.
After all, we're talking 3-D and not 2-D!
Bullshit. This is not genuine 3D. This is just stereovision using a lot of cameras demonstrated by a guy with a 'orrible french accent that talks a lot about what could be done but in fact they do not even come close to what this other guy built in a fraction of the time using a MS Kinect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-w7UXCAUJE
That video also makes it very clear why the fantasies of the french guy will never come true. At least not with that camera.
0x or or snor perron?!
This isn't what I want in a 3D camera. I want to be able to spin the scene after moving from original point. I want to see what's behind something. The cameras need to be encapsulating the scene.
this is bad advertisement. And timothy ought not have posted it.
As someone who has worked in stereoscopic research, there is nothing new to it in this 'development'. Except, of course, maybe the brute force real-time stitching of the images. The idea to arrange a multitude of cameras on a half-sphere has grown a beard over decades.
Worse, there is not much of a difference between a traditional '3D'-view (which isn't, actually, 3D), and this arrangement. A quarter century ago some chaps had a somewhat functional setup with 6 cameras and 5 perspectives. In these days, we can - thanks to advances in computers - calculate any intermediate 2D perspective with parallax. 'And what', is the only comment I could give.
And most relevant, probably, it doesn't address the most pressing question: How to project it; how to reconstruct a (calculated) 3-dimensional object in view-space (dunno if this word exists, but is the best construction I could think of)? And don't come and tell me, to use a similar setup of projectors! because that wouldn't work. Much ado about nothing. The good prof is eventually just hoping for tenure by advertising this thingy.
I do agree, the stitching algorithm could be new, more powerful, more precise. But then, the public wouldn't actually be impressed sufficiently.
No, EPFL, you didn't do much of a service to yourself with this clip, alas.
In engineering we use laser scanners that use a laser as a rangefinder to find out how far from the camera each pixel is. You then shoot from different perspectives to build a 3D scene that you can move around in. http://www.faro.com/3dimager/videos/
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
"... they actually record images in stereoscopic format, using two 2D images to create the illusion of depth" My eyes work the same way.... dammit... if I want to see around something I have to actually move my damn head!
This is inverse 3D... instead of what we want to see from all the possible points of view, we have what is around the camera.in a plain view
I prefer the approach of the cameras surrounding the action in the first Trinity scene in Matrix.
Someone is still thinking in 2D.
You misunderstood.
There are 4 dimensions to the data captured by the camera:
http://images.gizmag.com/hero/3d360camera.jpg [gizmag.com]
1. The X axis on the light sensors.
2. The Y axis on the light sensors.
3. The radius of the cameras from the top of the dome.
4. The angle of the cameras from the top of the dome.
You are misunderstanding. There are only 3 dimensions to information being collected. There may be 4 dimensions needed to describe a particular array of cameras, but that does not magically create a 4D amount of information. (actually, you left out the 3 dimensions describing the direction of the focal plane and the focal length of the lens, the dimensions describing the imaging surface, the pixel arrangement, and other dimensions required to describe the camera array completely.)
Where more than two cameras image the same voxel, there is "redundant" information captured by the multiple cameras. But though the "extra" information can be used to increase the accuracy and precision of the 3D information gathered, that does not amount to an extra dimension. n*D^3 != D^4 (where n = the number of camera pairs used to stereoscopically capture 3D information from the scene.)
It seems to me that 3 flying cameras surrounding the scene should be able to capture practically any scene in 3D (4D, really, including time - though time might be a fractional dimension since it seems to move only forward).
--
make install -not war
3D Porn! Need I say more? Anyway now that I got your attention I remember sketching a camera like this 15 years ago and learning *then* that it was nothing new... I heard that Disney's panoramic movie at Disneyland LA used something like this, just in analog and without the processing. True 3d processing is like what you see at http://2d3.com/ ...
Thinkingman.com New Media
This news is 2 weeks old. I saw this very same video on youtube while I was searching for 3d cameras some two weeks ago. Was just curious as to what format the 3d cameras, if there are any, were storing their images in...
I have been waiting for 3d cameras to arrive for a long time now. Was imagining something that will probably shoot some kind of lasers may be, into the scene and capture the depth of the objects that I point to and reconstruct the scene in 3d. I don't think the camera in this video is portable enough. Meaning, it won't go far. It will most likely be like fusion in the tea cup.
This was done years ago with two 360 degree panorama cams. The two spherical panoramic images gave reasonably convincing 3D imaging for a field of view of at least 160 degrees. This means you could dart your eyes anywhere in this field of view with acceptable results. To render subjects outside of this field of view, you had to reformat the subject at a particular area to match the two images well enough to allow viewing. This allowed viewing out to a FOV of nearly 180 degrees. Two pics. A bit of simple software to transform the spherical image to a panorama. Worked with video and stills.
Nice hobby project here, but the old way worked better in many ways. Lots of references on the web.
Because all the camera focal points are approximately at the same location, the images can be stitched together in software to create a full hemispherical view. This is essentially the same type of snapshot that is used in Google street view, and allows you to look in different directions.
In order to change position, however, requires depth information. Because the focal points are not EXACTLY at the same location, it is theoretically possible to estimate depth, although the practical reality is that the precision of these depth estimates are sensitive to image resolution and the ratio between baseline and depth.
Even if each individual camera was something like 14 megapixel, the accuracy of depth estimations would be so terrible as to be completely useless for anything more than a few feet away from the device. The author's neglect to mention this critical short-falling in their demonstration...
You are confusing dimensions with parameters.
Your argument is therefore invalid.
Kim0+
Finally someone who is not an arrogant ignorant, but instead knows something.
And I agree about the /. users.
They seem to have become more of the self righteous idiot kind. They are not useful.
Kim0+
Dimensions cannot be simply calculated by simple addition or multiplication of dimention values (2D+2D=4D or 2D*2D=4D). You obviously have a very loose concept of space reasoning as 4D is is 3D with TIME added, which if the cameras were taking such a thing into account, then they would be 3D (x, y, time) cameras to start with!
Are you implying that if I altered the depth of some of the cameras (thus having them in a 3D grid) we would have 5D or 6D (depending on if you are using addition or multiplication for your imaginary 4D concept)? Oh wait, the cameras are ALREADY in a 3D configuration since they exist on a SPHERE!!!
Would you care to LIST these 4 dimensions of which you speak? The only way I can see getting 4 dimensions is x (left/right), y (up/down), z (depth), time. If you are counting time then the cameras would be 3D to start with (not 2D cameras).
Yes, a stereoscopic image is not going to let you see around corners (much) but that makes NO difference unless you want to be able to have the perspective change as you move your head.
BTW, simply restating your previous comment with different grammar and adding a picture that I have already seen (in the article!) does not make your original comment any more valid.