Re: 360 degree video real time... interested?

["z" <rmwbsee@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Dave
That got me worried again,
What is your def of patent squatting,
How am I limited/affected by this method.

My prototype [thread 3] is motion capture [timestamp is slow ftp issue]
using non optic surfaces @ x10 resolution , it does improve with cam corder
at higher res. giving 3-4 fps w 1.6ghz cpu, ok for me considering intended
applications and that it was VB6. I am bsee not bscs. I'll have it optimized
later.

Ryan


XCam, XCam2, ScanCam, XCam Anywhere, Anaconda
Imager CMOS Sensor
Format 1/3"
Array Size NTSC: 510 X 492
Resolution: 310 TV Lines
Scanning: 2:1 Interlace
Auto Shutter: 1/60 to 1/15,000 sec.
Minimum Illumination: 3 LUX (f1.9)
Operating Temp.: -10C to 40C
Humidity Limits 0 - 95%
Field of View: 60 degrees
Power Required: 12VDC
Water Resistant - do not submerge or place in standing water




"Dave" <dju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0hl371psde857icjdoh9fh3btnemjq1okr@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:46:31 -0400, "z"
> <rmwbsee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>I have developed product to fit on cams such as x10 [or any other] that
>>caputures and  displays realtime 360 video.
>>
>>
>
> I worked on software for a startup company that had their
> own 360 camera hardware at the point where they were ready
> to mass produce them. But the CEO wanted to do what I call
> "patent squatting" instead of making something out of the
> technology.
>
> What I saw on the screen after converting the polar images
> into panoramic images was that the lack of resolution in a
> normal video camera severely limits the clarity of the
> converted panos. The cameras I worked with could not allow
> the viewer to recognize the letters on a license plate if
> the camera were placed several feet away. We could just
> barely make them out. I'd like to see the best resolution
> that a 360 -> pano image can offer before getting up hopes
> on how useful the technology can be.
>
> Also I found out that it's not possible for a dual-CPU 2.8
> GHZ 1GB ram system to keep up with the data rate of the
> incoming video frames if each frame has to be converted. If
> the conversion only uses part of the polar image then it may
> be able to keep up. (But anything above 15 FPS is ok with me
> as a viewer, though. I don't need the full frame rate in
> order to perceive smooth movement.)
>
> IMO: Low res, non-clear, low frame rates are what can be
> expected when converting 360 polar into rectangular panos
> unless something is done to make use of higher resolution
> video as well as faster processors and more efficient
> conversion software.
>
> I feel that there are uses, though and I think one of them
> is to protect a wide area using motion detection and maybe
> even use a 360 camera to automatically aim a pan-tilt camera
> automatically. I would love to try a 360 camera mounted on a
> remote control car and drive it using viewing software to
> simulate the view from the driver point of view. But if you
> want to see the face of the person on your porch, I doubt
> 360 NTSC video converted into panos or zoomed parts of a
> pano view can provide that much clarity.
>
> Just my opinion on the nature of the technology that I was
> involved with.
>
> Dave
>
>