Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Doesn't appear to be very accurate though... (And that's only for 
>>> objects with trivial geometry.)
>>
>> Well, it *is* a doctoral thesis. Wait till it gets productized. You're 
>> seeing a proof of concept here.
> 
> LOL. Is "productized" even a word?

It is in my country, yes.

> Anyway, you're acting like once you can turn a pair of images into a 
> grainy, vaguely-correct 3D model, it will then be a "trivial" task to 
> turn this into something that actually works properly. I'm not sure it is.

I imagine one could not too difficultly add code that would help the 
software figure out what it needs to see to be correct. It'll certainly be 
easier to start with the almost-right model than to start from scratch.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message