>> Wouldn't it depend on the resolution of the images and the size of the 
>> objects in question?
> 
> No, it's a simple fact that with only two photos there is never enough 
> information to make a 3D model

I don't think that's true.

> and be sure it is correct.

Oh, right. That's slightly different.

> Your brain 
> always has to add in unseen or assumed details, which most of the time 
> are believably correct, but I guess this is extremely hard for a 
> computer to do (as it's based on your experiences etc).

I think the primary thing that stereoscopic vision gives you is depth 
perception. Using it, you can tell, with reasonable accuracy, how far 
away a given surface is. (Seems to be more accurate for near objects; 
very distant ones like clouds tend to look "flat".)

I would have thought it ought to be possible to take a stereo photograph 
and construct a kind of texture-mapped height field from that. I agree 
that if you take a picture of a cup, the computer doesn't really stand a 
chance of figuring out what the *back* of the cup looks like.

Now, if you take lots of pictures from lots of different angles... well, 
I'm guessing the hard part is going to be figuring out how the images 
"fix together".

Post a reply to this message