Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

Technology for Capturing 360 Degree Video 151

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the even-guesswork-can't-save-most-hollywood-pictures dept.
Inzite writes "EnterNetica R&D is working on a new spherical video technology for capturing and presenting full 360 degree scenes using a 180 degree lens, by adaptively predicting the camera's surroundings. Video extrapolation techniques have been proposed in the past, but this is the first time I've heard of an entire hemisphere of the video image being "guessed". The article also talks about feature film presentation using fully-immersive video in the future."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Technology for Capturing 360 Degree Video More

Technology for Capturing 360 Degree Video

Comments Filter:

  • Woa! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This way we can be INSIDE of a pr0n movie!

    • Re:Woa! (Score:5, Funny)

      by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:11PM (#13652233)
      This way we can be INSIDE of a pr0n movie!

      No frickin way!

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

      This would totally ruin the experience, IMO.

  • Why not two cameras? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:04PM (#13652175) Homepage Journal
    Maybe I'm missing something, but the article doesn't explain why they don't simply place two cameras back to back, then use their software to splice the result and apply the correct perspective. All they say about it is that "it's against the laws of physics to take a 360 degree photo. That just seems odd.

    • Re:Why not two cameras? (Score:4, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:09PM (#13652221) Homepage Journal
      I knew I'd seen this technology somewhere, so I went digging. Here's a story [semweb.com] that discusses IPIX using two fisheye lenses back to back.

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


      (Emphasis mine.)

    • Re:Why not two cameras? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Surt ( 22457 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:11PM (#13652232) Homepage Journal
      Well duh, they can't put two cameras back to back and take a 360 degree photo, that would be against the laws of physics. And man you do not want to be pulled over by god for a physics violation, that is a bad scene.

    • Re:Why not two cameras? (Score:4, Informative)

      by zev1983 ( 792397 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:13PM (#13652254)
      It is odd seeing as there is a lens system in existence that can take 360 degree pictures. It uses a funky lens that goes all the way around like a donut IIRC, and the camera is mounted below the lens assembly... OH, here's one http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol34/f eaturing2.html [sony.net] and here http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_main/036-0360 d.html [bugeyedigital.com] , hell just type in 360 lens into google and tons of stuff pops up. Looks like the people marketing this are full of shit, and don't know anything about physics, or optics. Article is /.ed so I can't check out anything past the /. summary and what you said.

      • Re:Why not two cameras? (Score:4, Informative)

        by 't is DjiM ( 801555 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:29PM (#13652360)
        This lens does not offer you the possibility to record a full 360 image... There is no data about what can be seen below and above the viewer. What they do is creating a spherical image, not just a doughnut (which is what your "funky lens" is capable of).

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

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

        • Re:Why not two cameras? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by eMartin ( 210973 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:29PM (#13652869)
          "This lens does not offer you the possibility to record a full 360 image... There is no data about what can be seen below and above the viewer. What they do is creating a spherical image, not just a doughnut (which is what your "funky lens" is capable of)."

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

          Or something.
          • Yes, full 3D view has a name: 4pi steradians, which is he unit used to measure solid angles.

            BTW, I'd like to see the opposite of this concept. Imagine sevral fixed cameras pointing at an interesting scene, say a boxing game. You build a real-time 3D model of the scene and then create a virtual image filmed from any vantage point. It would allow you to have views filmed from the inside of sporting events. Imagine seeing from the eyes of the guy being hammered by Tyson... Then again it might not be such a g

        • Re:Why not two cameras? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Traa ( 158207 )
          my guess

          Let's see, TFA mentions that they did not in fact record a full 360 image, instead they record a 180 degree fisheye image and then "fill in the rest" based on smart guessing (no details provided). They happily adimit that the algorithm isn't perfect and that some environments work better then others. Without providing samples for us to see they allready admit that they had to go out of their way to come up with some samples that looked decent. I like the skydiving example they talk about, the algori
          • Actually it probably works fine in most situations where it dosn't have to know exactly what happend. In the sky diving example they probably can infer the planes trajectory that you jump out of. Combined with occasionally updates it just smoothly connects the dots and guesses in the mean time how to render the objects it already knows is there.

            Same goes for anything else behind you. The stuff dosn't go away just because they don't have a shot of it. They just take what was there, then adjust the perspectiv

      • Re:Why not two cameras? (Score:3, Informative)

        by modecx ( 130548 )
        You're confused by the terminology, I think. The guys in the article want to capture a full spherical image (which is possible with 180 degree fisheye lenses, taking 6 pictures at various angles, and stitching them together), those lenses you presented capture 360 degrees in a cylindrical fashion, also cool, but not what they want.

        I've seen sperical quicktime files, a LONG time ago. They were neat.
      • In the article, they are talking about Video, not stills. that's probably the difference.
    • Yeah, it seems they're either making the problem out to be more than it is, or they're not explaining it properly. About two years ago I was working with some guys to make museum installations where we stuck a cheap Canon DV cam at the bottom of a mirrorball lens thing (like they use for seamless panorama), and streamed the video over the web, so you could look around a room in realtime, see people staring at the camera etc. It's neat, but not at all hard to do. So I'm guessing this thing's something muc
    • 20 years ago when I went to Disney World there was an exhibit where you go into a circular room and a video is played all around you, 360 degrees. I believe that was made with multiple cameras, though.
    • It seems to me that it would probably be pretty difficult to hold a camera that shoots 360 degrees without getting in the shot.
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but the article doesn't explain why they don't simply place two cameras back to back, then use their software to splice the result and apply the correct perspective.

      The "nifty" part of the software is that it works with typical video equipment and interpolates the surroundings from older video frames and some guesswork at the edges of the field of view.

      All they say about it is that "it's against the laws of physics to take a 360 degree photo. That just seems odd.

      It is not, they'

    • All they say about it is that "it's against the laws of physics to take a 360 degree photo. That just seems odd.

      You're right, they should have said 4 pi steradians instead of 360 degrees. They didn't explain their point very well. I assume they meant that the body of the camera, or the support, or the photographer/cameraman always block some part of the total sphere of vision.

      • I assume they meant that the body of the camera, or the support, or the photographer/cameraman always block some part of the total sphere of vision.

        I already thought about that. If you place the rig *on* the cameraman, you'll get 180 degrees with only a minor latitudal split. They can then apply their software two the results of the two cameras to seamlessly stitch the images together (correcting the perspective to allow for the 1-1.5 feet the cameraman takes up) making it seem as if the cameraman never exi
    • The issue that you encounter with taping two cameras together is that the depth of field is going to be different between them because the pupils of the cameras are at different points. When taking still panoramas from multiple shots, you can compensate by using a mount that swivels directly about the pupil of the camera (most mounts do not), but you can't so that with video.

      The other awesome thing about this software is that you can apply it to prexisting footage. It separates the background, and stitches
      • The issue that you encounter with taping two cameras together is that the depth of field is going to be different between them because the pupils of the cameras are at different points.

        Correct me if I'm wrong here, but to project this, you have to make room for the viewer. Seems like the difference in perspective would be desireable. I'd think that you'd really want the camera's to be physically placed around the camera in as close to a spherical configuration as possible. This should leave room for the
  • I think the closest we've seen to this so far is Disney's Circle Vision in Disneyland, except that rather than a simple 360 video, we're talking about spherical video.
  • ...a 360 Degree TV to watch it!

  • Hidden messages (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Whilst the camera is looking the other way, someone could easily show in a message saying:

    FIRST POST

    but nobody would notice.

  • Boo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tomchu ( 789799 )
    The site's already down, but based on the small blurb ... I don't see how this is possible. You're basically guessing at 50% of the scene, of which the only hints you have are land/sky textures. If that's all this is about, I've been doing it for years in Photoshop. It's called the Clone/Healing Brush tool.

    • Re:Boo (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) *
      They explained the "how" in the article. Basically, the panning of the lense attempts to capture as much of the scene as possible. The final video is then put through video analysis software that uses motion prediction to stitch the future and past of everything visible based on the few clips it acquired.

      To put this in perspective, if you're panning through an aquarium, you'll see the fish swimming on as if nothing was wrong. However, while the camera isn't looking, a fish may get scared and dart off. Since

  • first application... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ltwally ( 313043 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:05PM (#13652188) Homepage Journal
    something tells me that something like this could usher in a new era of pr0n. 3d goggles and a vibrating chair, oh my!

  • Link / Movies? (Score:5, Informative)

    by RUFFyamahaRYDER ( 887557 ) <slashdot@@@kelsdomain...com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:07PM (#13652204) Homepage
    Here is google cache: thanks google [66.102.7.104].

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

      Yeah, I thought they were cool over 20 years ago when I first saw them at EPCOT at Disney World. Some info about the technology can be found here [wikipedia.org].
    • Our local theme park had a small IMAX years back. It was cool... no cost either, it was included in admission.

      In the ever-increasing effort to screw the customer for more money, it was taken out and replaced by an arcade, which of course was NOT included in the price... you'd pay $30 admission for the privilege of pumping quarters into a crappy arcade.

  • Why guess? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sakusha ( 441986 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:08PM (#13652205)
    The patent on Disney's Circlevision camera system has expired.

  • Google search results (Score:3, Informative)

    by karvind ( 833059 ) <karvind.gmail@com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:10PM (#13652224) Journal
    Seems like we killed it again.

    Google links on EnterNetica

    (a) OPTICS ADVANCES BRING VOLUMETRIC VIDEO TO LIFE [prleap.com]

    (b) Pressbox link [pressbox.co.uk]

    (c) Cleaner, Crisper Volumetric Images [pressbox.co.uk]

    Company webpage [enternetica.com]

  • Cinemoments (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:12PM (#13652241) Homepage Journal
    OT pondering instilled by TFA...

    In Jack McDevitt's Hutch series of books, the passengers on intersolar flights passed thetime by "starring" in movies digitally redone with the passengers as the characters.

    I was thinking about how hilarious this would be in real life, and how it could reinvigorate certain movies in theaters with minimal seating if they had decent hardware to sample random audience members (one person per group). I realized a fisheye lens can capture deptch with the right software.

    Imagine how "cool" it would be to revisit Indy Jones or Star Wars or Usual Suspects where someone in your group was one of the actors? Even a bit part would lead to great inside jokes, and meeting up with new groups would be easy, too.

    I'd spend $20/ticket for the social experience. //OT
    • Ever been to a showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show with a "cast" ?

      • Right, but instead of live theater, its mocap'd 3D characters with mapped 3D photos of audience members and their voices.

        RHPS was fun, though.
    • If I'm not mistaken, that would be Chindi [amazon.com] you're thinking of. I don't think he focused quite as much on the travel part in Omega or Deep Six.

      Personally, I find McDevitt to be kind of boring after awhile. His books tend to roam around a lot, dryly describing tons of events. It's amusing in small doses, but can get trying. FWIW, I think his best work was Infinity Beach [amazon.com]. It's unrelated to the Hutch series (where alien contact is still something of a mystery), and still contains his drawn out writing style. How
      • Engines of God (Hutch vol 1) also talks about it.

        I agree about Mcdevitt, although I've re-read the series once or twice. Infinity Beach is by far my favorite mystery of his.

        His release timing of his Hutch books is perfect, though. Just long enough to reinvigorate interest and introduce more readers. Plus for an OLD author, he's very well connected to fans online.
    • Yeah, but us black guys would always end up dying somehow mid-ways through the picture.
    • Imagine how "cool" it would be to revisit Indy Jones or Star Wars or Usual Suspects where someone in your group was one of the actors?

      Considering the horrendously poor quality of digitization done on the Indiana Jones series (as evidenced by the DVD boxed set), I doubt that's ever going to happen.
    • Yea, 'cause there's no precedent in scifi, like say Farenheiht 451

  • check out this ghetto 360 camera "hack" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by enrico_suave ( 179651 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:13PM (#13652246) Homepage
    360 degree camera hack [teamdroid.com]

    pretty cool, simplistic yet inventive hack.

    e.
  • I just spin in circles really fast while holding the camera out.

    I suppose there is the drawback of dizziness and eventually falling down.

    • I have had an xray/picture taken that was exactly the opposite (I forget what it was, it was my orthodontist who had the equipment... This was probably sometime in the late 80s, so at the time it was probably super high-tech)... I sat in one place, and the camera spun around my head.

      So what you are saying, while modded funny, is not too outlandish. You could have a camera spinning around on a motor, and if the frame rate of the video was faster than the motion blur, and it could spin around fast enough to c

  • VirtuSphere (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mysqlrocks ( 783488 )
    This would be pretty cool combined with the VirtuSphere [slashdot.org].

  • Not sure how you'd do it.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nathan s ( 719490 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:16PM (#13652274) Homepage
    ...as a director.

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

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

    I'm being silly, but it just seems pretty difficult. That said, it's a cool technology, and if someone could tell me how they plan to deal with that whole focus issue in the context of a feature film, I'd be interested to hear it.
    • Well... you wouldn't necessarily have to have action going in every angle at once. That would be a little bit ADD. More likely, you'd have more first person experiences. What we have now is the camera depicting what the main character sees; what we'll have later is the camera dpicting where the main character is, and you can see all around. It's still up to the director to focus the audience's attention on where the action is, taking into account that wildly changing focus like handheld cameras do now would
    • Wow. I wonder how artists are going to adapt to technological advances? It's not like there's ever been a new medium to explore before. This is totally unprecedented! What WILL we DO!?

      Deep breaths, Sparky. Somebody will figure out how to do it.
    • On the TV Show 24, they have multiple images. They control motion and sound to indicate "action". In a circular video, you could easily "direct" attention by increasing activity, sound or some "uniqueness"... it would definitely be more work to pull off. We have been used to a generation of TV and there is a lot of "understanding" between the producer and the audience ... but it isn't necessarily the only way to produce video. When I took classes on the basics, it was interesting to learn the rules of conti

  • This isn't new... (Score:4, Informative)

    by fragmentate ( 908035 ) <`jdspilled' `at' `gmail.com'> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:18PM (#13652294) Journal
    There were teams using Amigas doing this years ago. I recall 2 such products: ProVu, and Cosmo. ProVu was used for "interior design." And Cosmo was used by cosmetic surgeons.
  • There is comparable software that might be of interest along these lines ... check out:
    http://www.pixtra.com/ [pixtra.com]
    http://www.ptgui.com/ [ptgui.com]
    http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
    http://www.360dof.com/ [360dof.com]
    http://www.arcsoft.com/products/panoramastitching/ [arcsoft.com]

  • You can buy two existing similar systems (Score:4, Informative)

    by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:35PM (#13652398) Journal
    At Siggraph this year, there were two similar systems on display. They are unbelievably cool.

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

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

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

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

    Thad Beier
    Hammerhead Productions
    • Meh. I think that The Fast and the Furious was compromised by being a shitty movie, rather than insufficiently advanced cameras.
    • I checked out those systems at Siggraph as well, and asked the reps there what the dynamic range of these systems were. One wasn't sure, so phoned in, and got a figure of 10bit (ladybug). The other was 8bit.

      That's a fair bit in lack of range / fidelity (depending on what exposure you're looking at).

      On the up side, both are entirely computer controllable, so it would be feasible to quickly switch exposure levels. This does mean a reduction of temporal frequency depending on the number of exposures you'd be l

  • Crop it in post-production (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slim ( 1652 ) <john.hartnup@net> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:36PM (#13652401) Homepage
    My local non-league football team (association football, that is... OK, soccer if you like) has a bloke who films every match using a camcorder, and produces DVDs for harcore fans (of which there can't be that many: 800 is a good home crowd).

    I've not seen the DVDs in question, but it seems to me that producing adequate footage of a football game from a single vantage point, zooming and panning on the live action, must be quite a challenge.

    It occurred to me that with a very high enough resolution CCD, and a very wide angle lens, one could capture the whole game using static cameras, and pan and zoom in post-production. With a few of these (which could run unattended) you could get very good coverage of a live event, deferring all decisions about zoom levels, pans etc. until afterwards.

    What's that you say? Off topic? Er, OK. While a 360 degree capture might not be appropriate for a sporting event (unless you were also interested in capturing the crowd -- since the camera couldn't be in the middle of the pitch), you could use the same technique in other circumstances to capture an event then edit it down afterwards.
    • I do a lot of editing, mostly for commercials, and one of the most common statements made is "Oh well, he can just fix it in post"... The real problem is that you would have to edit it in pretty much real time, which gets tedious real fast. I also run cameras for some locally produced shows, one of which is a bowling (don't laugh) show. It really depends on what your time is worth. The investment in multiple cameras, a decent switcher, and lots of hard drive space will pay off if you do a lot of that kind o

  • What about a spherical lens with camera below? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:38PM (#13652413)
    Back in the 90s dot com boom I saw a prototype camera for doing 360 degree panning quicktime static images that was essentially a camera pointed vertically, with an extreme almost spheroid "fisheye" lens. The image would be processed to change the distorted fisheye image into a panoramic 360 degree view (The only direction you could not pan in was down, because the camera was there. Obvously down is the least interesting direction for panning, although I suppose you could have mounted the camera upside down if the ground was important.). The prototype seemed to work fine.

    Why can you do the same thing with video? Is it because processing a "fisheye" image is just too processing intensive for 30 frame a second HD video? Is the technique patented and so off limits for other companies? Is it that a video image is too low-res to do translations from a distorted fisheye without blurring? Why do it the elaborate way described in the article when the fisheye technique seems a whole lot simpler?

    I saw the prototype in person, so unless the company was commiting outright fraud, I am pretty sure the fisheye thing works.

  • hurrah Its 1998 again (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    this has been done a long time ago by BeHere [behere.com], who have done 360 video for years, works with quicktime and realvideo
    they even had a couple of short Films on iFilm where you where part of the action (a plane crash video and you as a patient in an old peoples home) and could move the camera around to see people talking to you (sound was stereo too) pretty mind blowing in 98

    but whats old is the new new right ?

  • How would Red Green solve this? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:45PM (#13652467)
    Or you could, like, duct tape a bunch of cheaper camers into, like, a ball.
  • And yet, the technical obstacles to capturing and presenting fully immersive video are massive, accounting for the fact that there is no straightforward way to capture a 360 sphere.
    Build a sphere made of small digital cameras/lenses, integrate the picture and then create a 360 perspective.
    I am not sure what they meant by technical obstacles unless they were trying to build a spherical lens?
    Now we will NEVER be able to walk behind the camera and flip it off unnoticed!

  • Look up instead... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MadCow42 ( 243108 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:57PM (#13652541) Homepage
    360 degree views using a 180 degree lens are perfectly possible: you're just not looking at it right.

    If you point the lens directly UP (or down even), then it will cover 360 degrees around you. You could extract a 360 panorama from that fish-eye image and remove the distortion fairly easily (although it would be processing intensive).

    MadCow
  • www.micoy.com - these guys have already perfected the real deal. No extrapolation needed. Having actually experienced this technology, I must say it is quite impressive. They just recently won a worlds best technologies award by beating out the US Navy.

  • Columbia University has a patent on this (Score:3, Informative)

    by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:08PM (#13652652)
    They've alread produced 360 degree lenses, and mounts for analog and digital cameras. The math's already been done to change this convex lens structure back to a linear view; it's been around for almost ten years. They have numerous licensees, and so 180 degree lenses seem like a cripple.

  • 4 \pi Steradians (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benhocking ( 724439 ) <benjaminhocking@nOsPAm.yahoo.com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:08PM (#13652655) Homepage Journal

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

    Also, why doesn't &#960; or &pi; give me \pi? It seems to work in general HTML... Interestingly enough, &amp; still works (and a handful of others).

    • Yeah, that always bugs me when people talk of immersive panoramas and light probes. Even worse is calling them a 360x360 degree view. Now, if we're talking long/lat, then wouldn't 360x180 be more accurate?

      Oh, and Slashdot filters out HTML entities for some reason. Probably to stop trolls from using them to hide goatse.cx links and the like from the other anti-troll filters in slashcode. It kinda sucks sometimes. I have seen people do accents and umlauts and things on letters, so it seems that something

    • "For it to be truly immersive, shouldn't they be bragging about 4 \pi steradians instead of 360 degrees?"

      The same thing struck me when I read that. Our language is being coruppted by people who don't understand what they are talking about. 360 degrees is a 2 dimensional measurement and yet the topic of discussion is in regards to a 3D environment. Perhaps I am too old or have worked to long in government strict technical areas, but there is a dire need for people to use better language when describing
  • My approach to this problem would be to take a camera that can capture say 60fps and mount it on a tripod like device that spins it 360 degrees at 30rpms. Then you have software pull every 30th frame for each angle. To avoid blur, it may have to spin faster than 60fps but I'm sure it will have to be a multiple of 30 (or whatever the fps capture rate is).
  • ... do this already?

    I seem to recall going to a big theater at Disneyworld (pre-epcot) that had screens all around the room, except at the very back.

    There were no seats in there, so that you could turn around and look at any screen you wanted.

    The movie wasn't very long, but it was pretty neat.

    I'm pretty sure I didn't hallucinate this, so if anyone can help complete my recollection, that'd be great.

  • Now, let's see someone use 2 of these devices to film a 360 degree film in 3D. Or would you need 3rd camera, to fill in those spaces where one camera blocks the other? And how would you begin to display the result?

  • What's the big deal??` (Score:3, Informative)

    by lcsjk ( 143581 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:49PM (#13653035)
    You take a 180 degree fisheye lens, attach it to a camera, choose a virtual 180 degree line and rotate the assembly around that line. Then stitch the pictures together. You don't have to extrapolate nor do you lose any of the picture and have to "guess" as the article mentions. I am not sure what they are doing that seems "revolutionary", except maybe they have packaged the full unit and are showing it off. Either way, why are they having problems extrapolating to the hidden part behind the camera.
    • I think the idea is something like this:

      1) Take something trivial as panorama stiching and call it somethign cool like "volumetric video".
      2) ???
      3) Profit.

      Oh my god. I just made a "???, Profit" joke. I feel dirty!

  • Let me predict... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:22PM (#13653296) Homepage
    feature film presentation using fully-immersive video in the future

    That will suck. First off, I can't really take in more than what's in front of me anyways. Am I going to have to twist around to see the characters and/or action? I remember a 360 movie in Disney world and it was more annoying than neat. Then there's the fact that part of the art of cinema is putting things in a frame -- if there is no longer a choice of what goes in and what doesn't, it's less and less of an art. Then there is the fact that by increasing the cost of filming, set design, distribution and projection, that these films will be even worse than what we are accustomed to.

    I think there's a great untapped use for immersive technology, but feature films are not it.

    Cheers.
  • I can see the defense now:

    "Yes, well, that is my client on the security camera breaking in, but that camera system uses volumetric estimation, so that image could be an extrapolation and thus is inadmissable"
  • EnterNetica R&D is working on a new spherical video technology for capturing and presenting full 360 degree scenes using a 180 degree lens, by adaptively predicting the camera's surroundings. Video extrapolation techniques have been proposed in the past, but this is the first time I've heard of an entire hemisphere of the video image being "guessed".

    That's nothing new.. women have had this technology for centuries. My girlfriend is so good at it, she doesn't even feel the need to look in the rear view

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close