Slashdot Mirror
3D Cameras Are About To Go Mainstream
An anonymous reader writes: Vox's Timothy B. Lee reports that everyday imaging is about to take a big step forward as 3D photography finally makes it to prime time. Technological advances in 3D processing algorithms have accelerated at the same time the equipment for taking these shots has become significantly cheaper. Those facts combined mean that we're going to be seeing 3D cameras become much more prevalent very quickly. "If things go according to Intel's plan, within a few years all of our tablets and laptops, and perhaps even our smartphones, will have fancy 3D cameras instead of boring old 2D ones." Throw in the fledgling industries of commercial camera drones and autonomous vehicles, and you have a lot of major companies throwing huge amounts of research money into making cheap 3D cameras work. "The result will be a proliferation of devices, from tablets to self-driving cars, that understand and interact with the world around them."
will have fancy 3D cameras instead of boring old 2D ones
This reminds me of when Monkey Island became 3D for Monkey Island 4 - the second worst improvement I've ever seen.
even more selfies of boobs
No one cares. Come back in 20 years for another 3D cycle.
Too bad the image quality in "tablets and laptops, and perhaps even our smartphones" is dreadful compared to even pretty basic point and shoot. Optical zoom, low light performance, time to focus, time from power off (or sleep) to on and recording.
Yes it could be done and made cheaply... if it's something that consumers actually want, beyond a gimmicky "My phone has it" selling point.
Maybe i'm just not consumer enough, but i don't really want my photos or video to be 3D, in the same way that film looks better at 24FPS and games look better at >60FPS.
I think high frame rates and depth perception are along the same lines as far as application goes, they bring ultra realism. For things like games, simulations etc that's great. But for many forms of media it seems that lack of realism and it's artistic capacity are somehow entwined, adding ultra realism seems to destroy that. Granted - selfies are tenuously artistic so perhaps this will make it into phones.
another slashvertisment for a dud
just about nobody cares about 3D, except the stupid TV makers
The camera isn't the problem, its the viewer.
You capture 3D content, you play it into the brain via a 3D TV and the brain interprets it as 3D scene. When you replay 2D TV images, the brain ALSO interprets it as a 3D scene. When a train drives towards you in a 2D scene, your brain is telling you this is a train coming at you in 3D. Adding some depth changes the path to the brain, but the thing in the brain is still a 3D train.
I noticed when I got my 3D TV, the effect would work for a while and once I got into the movie I would forget I was watching a 3D movie. Switching to 2D did not diminish the movies depth. It did not suddenly feel shallow.
So 3D doesn't add anything.
Camera's are only half of what's needed to make them successful. You also need 3D screens without the need for special glasses.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
do you have to wear silly glasses
Remember the old Viewmaster slides from 45 or mor years ago?
I can't wait until these become cheaply available for home automation. I want lights that "know" what direction I am walking and automatically turn on ahead of me as I move from one part of the house to another. I want a thermostat that knows I am in the room, even when I'm sitting still just watching tv.
Vox is just a blog (rebranded Daily Kos). Why not post an article with real information instead of this clickbait?
Hopefully this will drive hologram displays and projections.... which than would lead to hologram tv's, video calling, etc
I hope 3D photography is every bit as successful as 3D TV was/is.
But seriously, 3D photography will only be successful if it is a means to an end rather than something in and of itself. If 3D cameras make self-driving cars more feasible, then great. But if 3D photography gets hyped to consumers ("boring" 2D cameras and 3D in everyone's tablet, for examples of hype) like 3D TV did a few years ago, then that story has already been written.
I had a few cellphones and smartphones and even a tablet with 3D cameras, running Android. The fad has come and gone in Japan, I don't want to go through that again.
A large portion of the population still gets headaches from 3d because of their lazy eyes. This is really not going to matter. And with simple lenses, 3d has been viable for mainstream use. But no one is interested.
Remember the HTC EVO 3-D? It had a 3-D screen and took 3-D photos and movies. Remember how the revolutionary technology completely took over the market? No, it was pretty much ignored.
I had the HTC EVO 4G which preceded it, and it was a pretty good phone for the day (though Sprint's 4G coverage was horrible--I used it once in the years I had it; too bad they didn't start out with LTE).
3-D has always been a gimmick to attract consumers that has mostly failed. Hollywood is still trying it as a way to get people to have a different experience in the theater from home, but few people seem to care. TV manufacturers jumped on it, but they didn't sell. It's just not something people care about.
3D has been "The next big thing" for more than 150 years. Starting with crude Stereoscope viewers in the mid 1800's, a resurgence in the 70's with the first mass market 3D movies, an attempt at another resurgence in the 2000's, and a push by the industry for 3D TV's more recently. Each of these technologies has shown the exact same pattern - a bit of novelty when they're first introduced, then tiredness, and quickly - a clear consumer rejection.
The amount of money tech companies have invested in 3D over the last century is staggering, and the consumer rejection has been consistent. I can't think of a better disconnect between producer and consumer.
So here we are again. We're supposed to get excited over yet another 3D Next Big Thing. No thanks. Just like every example that's come before, I'm perfectly happy and even prefer the current state of my photography. I am an avid first-adopter, but I have absolutely no intention of ever adopting 3D photography.
There are some projects underway to adapt Gopro and other cameras to record 360 degree video for Occulus Rift users. I'm keeping an eye on those as a way to fulfill my lifelong dream of making someone wearing a VR Headset vomit. Heh heh heh.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is definitely a case of picking the worst summary of the source article possible. When I looked at the /. summary, I immediately thought "3D is going out in movies and TV, and haven't we been there with the HTC Evo 3D?". Obviously a lot of other people did too.
So I clicked on TFA. Ahhhhhhhh... Now it makes more sense! From TFA:
We're used to our gadgets being passive objects. They respond to typed or tapped commands, but we don't expect them to be aware of their surroundings.
... As our devices have more and better sensors, they're going to be increasingly aware of the world around them, and will interact with the world and with us in more sophisticated ways.
So other than the really gimmicky "personal drones that can take breathtaking aerial shots", this is primarily talking about computer vision, such as gesture recognition, local environment evaluation, etc.
@Whee
Can't find a home where people aren't wearing those uncomfortable glasses! You certainly can't find anything but the glasses-free 3D 4K curved LED TVs at the store. Yeah, I won't be buying one.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
The Nintendo (New)3DS (LL/XL) has a 3D camera (and 3D viewscreen), so it's already been "out there" by the millions for years. It's just that the quality is bad. It would be great to have a camera that can take near-360 degree panoramas, 3D pictures and movies which you can view on your Oculus or other VR.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
No, they're not. But not only because 3D screens and purchasable 3D media need to become mainstream first, but because not even normal 2D video is "mainstream". Allow me to elaborate:
If you're an amateur photographer with a camera, you have a multitude of free or low cost tools at your disposal (cameras/phones and software) that will make your photography suck appreciably less. Even if you're pretty serious about it and your photos are quite good, the average person that you show them to will swipe through your entire portfolio in a few seconds and move on. People take photography and photos for granted. Photographs nowadays are EVERYWHERE and people are just not going to invest time in looking at them. For good or bad, they just won't.
The same is starting to happen with videos. Everybody carries a video-shooting camera with them nowadays, but the videos that are being shot with it are the equivalent to un-edited snapshots and they just suck. If you're lucky, your video snapshot will be of some journalistic value and a news outlet will buy it off you. But other than that, it's just crap. Making a good video without good equipment and without good software (pirated software doesn't count!) is a pain in the ass. There is also no low-cost video-editing software that is up to the task of making your video not suck, IMHO (I'm open to suggestions!).
Adding to all this is the fact that videos just take time to watch. So, the proud owner of a video-capable DSLR or smartphone will pretty much be asking his/her friends to go through several minutes of shaky, badly-lit, unedited footage of some event that made them feel in a certain way, but took absolutely no pains to transfer that feeling to video. And now we get to watch this in 3D?! This must be a nightmare coming true! Look, home-videos are OK for what they are. They have had their place since the VHS days, but that's about it. Shooting them in 3D is not going to add to the experience. People will see your video in their Facebook news feed or whatever, click on it, watch the first 10 seconds and move on. Like photos, videos nowadays are also everywhere.
And the worse thing is that you can't really make them suck less. The cheap video-recording devices are there. We now need cheap video-editing software to go with it that will target the mainstream crowd (I would kill for video-editing version of Lightroom, for example). We need to create a "middle-class" of video-shooters that will have a creative interest in looking at 3D capabilities. Once we have this and once this has become mainstream, we can discuss about adding the 3D functionality into the stew. Before that time, 3D is just fluff.
Most people seem to confuse stereo (3D movies , 3D TV) with what the article really is about. Real 3D i.e. RGB+Z camera's like the kinect.
Knee jerk reactions about 'gimmivky 3d movies don't really add anything to the discussion about a very interesting development.
The kinect is a very cool device, though badly in need of a higher resolution and less microsoft lock-in.
Photoshopping a single image can be done easily in ways that make the edits virtually undetectable, even for the casual home user. But an amateur attempting to edit two nearly-identical images (e.g., to modify body shapes, or skin tone, or to get rid of unwanted parts of the scene) would almost certainly leave behind inconsistencies that simple image analysis could detect.
There will probably be a niche for home-use 3D Photoshop extensions that perform activities like airbrushing, texture duplication, etc. on two images simultaneously in a manner that always results in a clean combination of the two by effectively performing the edits in 3-space. Heck, such technology may already be in use in movie studios that are cranking out 3D movies with live actors that must be composited with generated scenes.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
TFA accurately describes using multiple 2D scene acquisitions in order to build a 3D model by trading time and resolution for position.
TFA does not in any way describe "3D cameras."
3D cameras would acquire a 3D representation of subject matter directly. Such cameras do exist; but they are not about to "go mainstream" in any meaningful or accurate sense of the term.
Imagine a 12" cube with numbers on every face. Place a stereo (likely dual sensor / dual lens) camera in front of it, collinear with any one of the six axis. Acquire image. Now, tell me what number is on the face of the cube furthest from the camera.
You can't? Of course you can't. Because you didn't acquire anything even close to 3D data on the object.
Now place the same cube in front of a system that looks at it from, say, 32 directions on a plane parallel to the floor and acquire. Now you can tell me what is on the far side of the cube, because in this case, something somewhat closer to 3D data acquisition was actually performed (and can be used to immediately give you views at angles and distances of much finer granularity than 32.) It's still not actually 3D (what's on the bottom of the cube? The top? For that matter, what's inside it?) but even with the fairly reasonable limits of opacity, at least a system of this kind would be able to present you with the appropriate representation if it was informed that you had moved your viewpoint horizontally or circularly relative to the data's representation on the display device and on essentially the same viewing plane as the camera set.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As much as I'd love 3D imagery everywhere, vox isn't a reliable source. As far as I can tell, their whole model is wild hyperbole to get exposure & eyeballs.
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
This article is about how computers see things, not people. Taking the expensive parts out of depth sensing and replacing them with a second camera, and processing the results instead of using expensive hardware. That's kind of a guess, reading into Intel's product announcements.
Having a second camera for 3D dick pics will be a side effect, not the point.
I have a fun book called "3D Hollywood" with dual-photo pages by silent film great Harold Lloyd (contemporary of Chaplin). Lloyd was retired by the 50's, with a huge home, "Greenacres", in Hollywood. He was a buff for the then-popular 3D film cameras and the photos are of film sets, Hollywood parties, including those of a 3D photographers club that included other famed actors of the time, like Dick Powell, Ronald Colman, Edgar Bergen - father of Candace, whose teenage coming-out party was shot with 3D portraits. Lloyd also had several 3D photos of Marilyn Monroe who shot a scene by the pool at Greenacres.
Then the fad went away, probably along with the 50's 3D movie fad, though Lloyd continued his hobby through the 60s. Now that 3D cameras are being made again, the purveyors are acting like it's the first time. But it really is the second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for? Downmod it: we see it & browse below -1. Downmod "hiding" = ineffectual & effete.
... has been such a big hit?
Next new thing on digital cameras: Curved Screens. Just you wait. They're gonna be huge. HUGE I tell ya.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Photoshopping a single image can be done easily in ways that make the edits virtually undetectable, even for the casual home user. But an amateur attempting to edit two nearly-identical images (e.g., to modify body shapes, or skin tone, or to get rid of unwanted parts of the scene) would almost certainly leave behind inconsistencies that simple image analysis could detect. ...Today, that is.
And probably tomorrow too since for the most part what they want is to look good on Facebook, not successfully forge forensic evidence.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No, this time it's not stereo, it's proper depth-sensing cameras.
The Kinect 2 and Realsense devices use time-of-flight cameras to produce a depth image (albeit low-res) along with the RGB image.
If you're at all familiar with graphics programming, think of it as a Z-buffer camera for your phone, drone or living room.
On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for it? Downmod? We see it & browse below -1. Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual.
I didn't say it did. TFA (and TFS) title is: " 3D cameras are about to go mainstream. "
3D (X, Y and Z; or width, height, and depth) data is not acquired by these cameras. Therefore, these are not 3D cameras. Therefore 3D cameras are not "about to go mainstream."
They work by acquiring stereo 2D data from a fixed viewing angle. That's two acquisitions from almost the same vantage point, which provides a static illusion of depth via capture of parallax. It does not actually contain depth information on a per-frame basis. They are not 3D cameras.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. :)
You can do this with one 2D camera. However, in order to do this, the reconstructed frame rate goes from acceptable to pitiful -- No one is going to be interested in a playback of the Bar Mitzvah that proceeds at one frame per walk-around. A "3D camera" would capture 3D information. Just as an infrared camera captures infrared, a 2D camera captures 2D information, and an ultraviolet camera captures ultraviolet information. It is absurd to characterize a stereo camera pair as a "3D camera", even without considering the bewilderment that will ensue when they actually arrive due to the dimwitted hijacking of the term "3D" by marketing buffoons.
"3D" is short for "three dimensions." That's what it means; that's what it's always meant; that's what it should mean. Suppose I sold you a "3D rendering system" that turned out to only let you specify X and Y co-ordinates for your objects. And when you complained, as you surely would, I tried to feed you a line about how "look, if you simply build, and then render, 2D models of the same object as it would appear from every possible viewing angle, and then display them one at a time, it's almost the same!" your next phone call would probably be to the better business bureau.
I have owned a Kinect since just about day one. And I am well aware of its nature -- which is not 3D.
The degree of disingenuous wool-pulling over the eyes here is on a level with someone selling you an RGB camera that only captures red and green channels. There's no possible justification for it. None. The resistance to the facts brought about by personal investment in the marketing claptrap is an amazing thing to see -- something that is essentially a particularly rabid form of confirmation bias, where victims of misinformation deny reality because they are unable to admit they've been hoodwinked -- it is one of the things to look for any time propaganda has been drilled into gullible consumers:
o "Hey, bought a new car audio amp, I see!"
x "Yes, it's a Pyle. It's 4000 watts!"
o "No. Dude. It isn't 4000 watts. Someone at Pyle is laughing their head off at you right now."
x "bitch, it says RIGHT HERE that it's 4000 watts!"
o "Sigh."
Essentially the same conversation:
o "Hey, bought a new game motion controller accessory, I see!"
x "Yes, it's a Kinect. It's a 3D motion controller!"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Still, selfies of boobs. I think you made a couple of good points. Roundly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The image is not 3D. Were it rendered back using all the data captured, and given that the data was of adequate resolution to be useful in image reproduction, you would not see a 3D result. You would see a result strictly silhouetted from the shooting POV. All information is acquired from a single perspective.
Even that is going too far. The information that is used to prepare a z-buffer is a full set of 3D data. The z-buffer is generated relative to the user's POV, and can change at any time along with the user's POV, thus being able to reconstruct a scene from every/any angle. That is not true of data from a TOF camera, which cannot be used to reconstruct the scene at all beyond a fixed POV.
The difference comes about because with a classic z-buffer in the output path of a 3D rendering system, the data is 3D on input and the z-buffer serves to filter for any desired POV, taking any arbitrary and variable viewing angle into account. It is a mechanism that is used to produce either mono or stereo data in order to convert any portion of the scene to a human-eye compatible view, either mono or stereo, and when coded for stereo, produces image pairs complete with parallax information as well. When data is supplied from one POV that includes z-depth, that information cannot be used to reproduce the scene in 3D because it contains very little information about it -- it's not actually 3D. It might be more accurately described as stereovision+LIDAR. Basically what it boils down to is, if you have 3D data, a z-buffer can be (and is) used to get you a view from any angle. If you capture the data through a virtual z-buffer (only Z data from one POV), then the scene cannot be used to get you a view from any angle. They do not provide the same functionality, and it is misleading to imply they do.
Acquisition of real-world 3D scene data requires capture from all angles simultaneously. Just as generation of a z-buffer requires full 3D data on every object in the scene in order to produce a result. You could not, for instance, produce a 3D hologram from what you have acquired as a result of stereo+LIDAR. You could from the data that is going into a Z-buffer, though.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Amazing! Even though someone explained to you that Kinect is a ToF camera, you still argue it's stereoscopic. Please, check your facts. Otherwise you look like a bloviating blowhard.
With the new Note phone you can clip it into the oculus frame.
How about 2 cameras on the rear of the phone at the right position so that you can do augmented reality.
Also you wouldn't need to remove your headset!
Posting from linux.conf.au conference from phone so a bit curt.
I'm surprised people don't talk more about this. At least as worthy as 3D... and I love 3D.
It brings out far more detail, depth, dynamism and a lot of other Ds. Most importantly, it takes pictures that look more like how we see things.
Why don't pocket cameras have this?
Now it's occurred to me before that 3D ie two lenses can help with HDR and the software should be able to figure out both HDR and 3D from one lens doing short (dark) exposure and the other lens doing long (light) exposure.
The biggest flaws of phone cameras for me are lack of zoom and lack of image stabilisation. With the latter, there's no point having massive resolution because 80% of it will be camera shake.
And nothing beats the camera you have on you.
That's very true.
The 3d photo club at the local Art school is just as boring as ever. The focal point is annoying. 3d pictures and movies tend to be less immersive due to the fact that part of the screen is always out of focus. 2d shows let you forget you are looking at a screen. 3d shows always remind you of it. As long as we are still using 2d screens, 3d is a long ways from being mainstream.
Also more feature creep. How bout making a cheaper phone or one with better battery life?
Until we get better HDR and color gamut that exceeds the RGB limits we've been all too used to since color began, 3D is pretty boring, we've had that sort of thing for about a century. It's been done (better than RGB at least), there are 6-color monitors and projectors, and presumably cameras that have been prototyped (I've seen the results, and it can be jaw-dropping), but we need them to go mainstream.
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255)
Where? You RAN from trying recently -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & you're FAIRLY given the opportunity to make good on those words of yours - you downmodded (via your many sockpuppets) & ran, lol, after your wise-ass comment on hosts here JUST before that challenge -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... quoted next below:
---
"scans multiple forums repeatedly to troll his crappy HOSTS file " - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Sunday January 04, 2015 @11:58AM (#48730581) from http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
I only post on them where they apply (or confronting naysayers like you). Prove otherwise!
(Oh, that's right - you're NOT BIG ON PROOF, are you? See below next...)
---
"His only "legend in his own mind" was that he claimed that "his" hosts file could completely secure a windows computer. " - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday February 12, @11:19AM (#35186644)
Where did I even *once* claim hosts completely secure a computer?
Putting words in my mouth I never stated != truth, or a good argument on YOUR part. You RAN from that too!
---
"Who has independently vetted it?" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255)
You tried to say it's malware/spyware too - guess what:
Answer = The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... per that VERY recent test's results, who also host & RECOMMEND my program for hosts, is who -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... (Malwarebytes' hpHosts)
* You've done better? No... lol!
APK
P.S.=> You fail: "Eat your words, Forrest" & you told others to stalk/harass me by ac posts as YOU YOURSELF do, unceasingly, for years http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
BarbaraHudson stalks me by ac posts & quoted in her words http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & her "points" vs. hosts = b.s. (in a 'journal' - not publicly since he/she KNOWS they're bullshit) are:
"We don't need to use a hosts file to block ads (adblock does it better)" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Sunday September 21, 2014 @02:09PM
FROM-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
To THAT b.s. I point out how NOT BETTER it is, tearing up 4++gb of RAM & flooring CPU too -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
By default (since advertisers KNOW most folks using "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" won't change that) adblock's PAID OFF NOT TO DO ITS JOB FULLY -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock but it's NOT ABLE TO DO THAT to custom hosts files.
Barb's *trying* to tell us that Adblock's vastly inferior in abilities + chews up resources LIKE MAD is "superior" to hosts that do all of what adblock does, and FAR more - with less? Please... lol!
* I'm confronting Barb directly (despite his/her constant trollings of myself often behind my back like now from his/her, that I do *NOT* start 1st, until Barb pulls crap on me like usual: That's all!) for closure of this publicly so "it" can "eat his/her words" in front of us all!
APK
P.S.=> Facts above vs. BarbaraHudson's fictions & the FACT BarbaraHudson CANNOT DISPROVE that hosts do more w/ LESS, & far, Far, FAR MORE for added speed, security, reliability, + even anonymity (to an extent) vs. adblock & that hosts fix DNS security issues in DNS amplification attacks, DNS being downed, DNS being redirect poisoned etc. - et al as well: NO SINGLE SOLUTION does more & w/ less, period/fact, for all those points of mine here Barb downmodded & RAN from -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... like the troll & multiple account using sockpuppeteer Barb is... apk
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255)
Where? You RAN from trying recently -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & you're FAIRLY given the opportunity to make good on those words of yours - you downmodded (via your many sockpuppets) & ran, lol, after your wise-ass comment on hosts here JUST before that challenge -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... quoted next below:
---
"scans multiple forums repeatedly to troll his crappy HOSTS file " - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Sunday January 04, 2015 @11:58AM (#48730581) from http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
I only post on them where they apply (or confronting naysayers like you). Prove otherwise!
(Oh, that's right - you're NOT BIG ON PROOF, are you? See below next...)
---
"His only "legend in his own mind" was that he claimed that "his" hosts file could completely secure a windows computer. " - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday February 12, @11:19AM (#35186644)
Where did I even *once* claim hosts completely secure a computer?
Putting words in my mouth I never stated != truth, or a good argument on YOUR part. You RAN from that too!
---
"Who has independently vetted it?" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255)
You tried to say it's malware/spyware too - guess what:
Answer = The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... per that VERY recent test's results, who also host & RECOMMEND my program for hosts, is who -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... (Malwarebytes' hpHosts)
* You've done better? No... lol!
APK
P.S.=> You fail: "Eat your words, Forrest" & you told others to stalk/harass me by ac posts as YOU YOURSELF do, unceasingly, for years http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
You stalk me by ac posts & that's quoted in your words http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & your "points" vs. hosts = b.s. (in a 'journal' - not publicly since you KNOW they're bullshit):
"We don't need to use a hosts file to block ads (adblock does it better)" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Sunday September 21, 2014 @02:09PM
FROM-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
To THAT b.s. I point out how NOT BETTER it is, tearing up 4++gb of RAM & flooring CPU too -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
By default (since advertisers KNOW most folks using "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" won't change that) adblock's PAID OFF NOT TO DO ITS JOB FULLY -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock but it's NOT ABLE TO DO THAT to custom hosts files.
You're *trying* to tell us that Adblock's vastly inferior in abilities + chews up resources LIKE MAD is "superior" to hosts that do all of what adblock does, and FAR more - with less? Please... lol!
* I'm confronting YOU directly (despite your constant trollings of myself often behind my back like now from you, that I do *NOT* start 1st, until YOU pull your crap on me like usual: That's all!) for closure of this publicly so You can "eat her words" in front of us all!
APK
P.S.=> Facts above vs. BarbaraHudson's fictions & the FACT BarbaraHudson CANNOT DISPROVE that hosts do more w/ LESS, & far, Far, FAR MORE for added speed, security, reliability, + even anonymity (to an extent) vs. adblock & that hosts fix DNS security issues in DNS amplification attacks, DNS being downed, DNS being redirect poisoned etc. - et al as well: NO SINGLE SOLUTION does more & w/ less, period/fact, for all those points of mine here YOU downmodded & RAN from -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... like the troll & multiple account using sockpuppeteer YOU are... apk
BarbaraHudson stalks me by ac posts & that's quoted in her words http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & her "points" vs. hosts = b.s. (in a 'journal' - not publicly since she KNOWS they're bullshit):
"We don't need to use a hosts file to block ads (adblock does it better)" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Sunday September 21, 2014 @02:09PM
FROM-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
To THAT b.s. I point out how NOT BETTER it is, tearing up 4++gb of RAM & flooring CPU too -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
By default (since advertisers KNOW most folks using "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" won't change that) adblock's PAID OFF NOT TO DO ITS JOB FULLY -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock but it's NOT ABLE TO DO THAT to custom hosts files.
Barb's *trying* to tell us that Adblock's vastly inferior in abilities + chews up resources LIKE MAD is "superior" to hosts that do all of what adblock does, and FAR more - with less? Please... lol!
* I'm confronting BarbaraHudson directly (despite her constant trollings of myself often behind my back that I do *NOT* start 1st, until she pulls her crap on me like usual: That's all!) for closure of this publicly so BarbaraHudson can "eat her words" in front of us all!
APK
P.S.=> Facts above vs. BarbaraHudson's fictions & the FACT BarbaraHudson CANNOT DISPROVE that hosts do more w/ LESS, & far, Far, FAR MORE for added speed, security, reliability, + even anonymity (to an extent) vs. adblock & that hosts fix DNS security issues in DNS amplification attacks, DNS being downed, DNS being redirect poisoned etc. - et al as well: NO SINGLE SOLUTION does more & w/ less, period/fact, for all those points of mine here Barb sockpuppet downmodded & RAN from -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... like the troll & multiple account using sockpuppeteer she is... apk
Photoshopping a single image can be done easily in ways that make the edits virtually undetectable, even for the casual home user. But an amateur attempting to edit two nearly-identical images (e.g., to modify body shapes, or skin tone, or to get rid of unwanted parts of the scene) would almost certainly leave behind inconsistencies that simple image analysis could detect.
There will probably be a niche for home-use 3D Photoshop extensions that perform activities like airbrushing, texture duplication, etc. on two images simultaneously in a manner that always results in a clean combination of the two by effectively performing the edits in 3-space. Heck, such technology may already be in use in movie studios that are cranking out 3D movies with live actors that must be composited with generated scenes.
don't see why this can't be done, working on adding control points in some panoramic software auto adds the points in overlapping images in the right place with little need to tweak despite differences due to parallax error when I've shot with no panohead or attempt to rotate around the nodal point. Having similar functionality in photoshop would work well with many common retouching workflows like freqency sep, dodge and burn, local sharpening and so on. May get awkward with layer masking stuff due to image differences but for most things your average home user needs it'd be fine.
You seem to think you're saying smart things, but your points are only half right, and still completely irrelevant to the article and to this discussion. This is not about acquiring 3D movies for humans to watch with goggles, this is about machine vision.
"Acquisition of real-world 3D scene data requires capture from all angles simultaneously"
No, it requires that you capture from the angles you need, when you need them. "All angles" is not a requirement for any of the applications mentioned by the article.
Realtime depth data from a single point of view is generally sufficient for machine vision purposes if that point of view is at or near the centre of the machine's field of influence. Depth data from a moving point of view is even better, because it lets you add data to your 3D model on the fly, completing the parts you need as you approach them. Oh, hey, aren't drones and smartphones machines that can move? That must be why the article opens with a fucking picture of a drone carrying depth cameras!
And for subjects that move (such as actors or motion capture performers), simultaneous depth data captured from multiple angles is desirable, but it'd still only require a few of these devices to outfit a Hollywood-style 'performance capture' suite without all the complexity involved in doing that with only RGB and/or IR cameras.
But hey, soon it'll be trivially easy to set up at home, because, in case you haven't been paying sufficient attention, these new, interesting 3D cameras are about to go mainstream.