 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many of you have probably seen this at slashdot,
Here is a physical technique to interchange the roles of a camera and a
light-source which is reminds me of how POV-Ray calculates the rays.
See the (maybe slashdotted) page:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/dual_photography/
download the 60MB movie and marvel at the card-trick at the end.
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jellby <me### [at] privacy net> wrote:
> download the 60MB movie and marvel at the card-trick at the end.
The page says it's a 9.6 MB video, and the link gives a 404.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:18:50 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jellby <me### [at] privacynet> wrote:
>> download the 60MB movie and marvel at the card-trick at the end.
>
> The page says it's a 9.6 MB video, and the link gives a 404.
The page is wrong - it's 61 MB in size - and the demonstration is quite
amazing. There might be some techniques in there that could be of use
here...
I'm not entirely convinced yet that this isn't a hoax, though - basically
what they're suggesting is that through their techniques, you could
reconstruct a hidden surface using the reflections off of a non-reflective
surface, but I'm not totally convinced that that's possible given the
dispersal of light.
But the video is still pretty cool. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:32:22 -0600, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm not entirely convinced yet that this isn't a hoax, though - basically
> what they're suggesting is that through their techniques, you could
> reconstruct a hidden surface using the reflections off of a non-reflective
> surface, but I'm not totally convinced that that's possible given the
> dispersal of light.
I should've included a <g> or something in there - I'm quite familiar with
SIGGRAPH (was a member aeons ago) and know the standards they require - so
the odds are quite low in fact that it is a hoax....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<sigh> And I was going to post the link to the Stanford site that hosts
the paper. One of these days, I'll think in a straight line, instead of
scattergunning my thoughts all over the place...
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/dual_photography/
The document that describes this looks fairly interesting...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm not entirely convinced yet that this isn't a hoax, though -
> basically what they're suggesting is that through their techniques,
> you could reconstruct a hidden surface using the reflections off of
> a non-reflective surface, but I'm not totally convinced that that's
> possible given the dispersal of light.
That demo is *cool*.
I don't see why it isn't possible. The projector is lighting one tiny
segment of the card at a time, if it hits a red bit, the book is going to be
lit with a red hue, very easy to pick up by the camera. Once it's scanned
the whole card, it would be easy to build up the picture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The page is wrong - it's 61 MB in size - and the demonstration is quite
> amazing. There might be some techniques in there that could be of use
> here...
Reloading the page helped. It changed to a link to a torrent.
Now, I have to admit I'm at a loss about how to play that .mp4 file.
Winamp opens it ok, but plays the audio only, no video. Windows media
player (version 9 in Windows XP) refuses to play it altogether ("Windows
Media Player cannot play the file."). The Core Media Player does not
recognize the format at all. The Video Inspector utility (which can be
used to determine if codecs needed by multimedia files are installed in
the system or not) does not recognize the format either.
I have run out of ideas.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:42812631@news.povray.org
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The page is wrong - it's 61 MB in size - and the demonstration is
>> quite amazing. There might be some techniques in there that could
>> be of use here...
>
> Reloading the page helped. It changed to a link to a torrent.
>
> Now, I have to admit I'm at a loss about how to play that .mp4
> file. Winamp opens it ok, but plays the audio only, no video.
> Windows media player (version 9 in Windows XP) refuses to play it
> altogether ("Windows Media Player cannot play the file."). The Core
> Media Player does not recognize the format at all. The Video
> Inspector utility (which can be used to determine if codecs needed
> by multimedia files are installed in the system or not) does not
> recognize the format either. I have run out of ideas.
QuickTime played it for me. But Winamp did just audio, WMP seemed to freeze
the image after a few seconds, and DivX player did video only!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Now, I have to admit I'm at a loss about how to play that .mp4 file.
It is a regular MPEG-4 file,not even MPEG-4 Part 4 (aka H.264). Probably
anything that can play a modern Divx file can play it.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> It is a regular MPEG-4 file,not even MPEG-4 Part 4 (aka H.264).
I thought H.264 was part 10.
> Probably
> anything that can play a modern Divx file can play it.
How? I have tried everything.
There's one good thing about the AVI format: The player does not need
to even know what is inside it. It just asks the system. If that mp4
file was embedded inside an AVI (instead of being on its own) I'm pretty
certain any of the players here would play it just fine.
However, if that mp4 is a format all on its own (like eg. mpeg1 is),
then the player has to understand it, and every player which wants to
support it has to implement the support explicitly.
(Note that I said "one". There are very bad things about the AVI
format. No need to remind me of that. :P )
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:02:08 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>> It is a regular MPEG-4 file,not even MPEG-4 Part 4 (aka H.264).
>
> I thought H.264 was part 10.
>
>> Probably
>> anything that can play a modern Divx file can play it.
>
> How? I have tried everything.
VLC plays it just fine for me. No other player seems to manage it.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>
>>It is a regular MPEG-4 file,not even MPEG-4 Part 4 (aka H.264).
>
> I thought H.264 was part 10.
Of course, part 4 is the regular encoding. I should read again before I post...
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jellby wrote:
> Many of you have probably seen this at slashdot,
>
> Here is a physical technique to interchange the roles of a camera and a
> light-source which is reminds me of how POV-Ray calculates the rays.
>
> See the (maybe slashdotted) page:
> http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/dual_photography/
>
> download the 60MB movie and marvel at the card-trick at the end.
The movie is available at http://www.povray.org/temp/DualPhotography.mp4
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> what they're suggesting is that through their techniques, you could
> reconstruct a hidden surface using the reflections off of a non-reflective
> surface, but I'm not totally convinced that that's possible given the
> dispersal of light.
that's what they do in the card trick, though I understand that the general
technique relates to reconstructing the view of a subject lit from the place
that the camera used to be, and viewed from where the light was, with no
other light. In that case (in theory), the hidden parts of the object (the
ones not visible in the original image I mean), while technically visible
from the new camera location, would however be in shadow and thus not
revealing any detail not originally visible from the camera's point of view.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Now, I have to admit I'm at a loss about how to play that .mp4 file.
> Winamp opens it ok, but plays the audio only, no video. Windows media
> player (version 9 in Windows XP) refuses to play it altogether ("Windows
> Media Player cannot play the file."). The Core Media Player does not
> recognize the format at all. The Video Inspector utility (which can be
> used to determine if codecs needed by multimedia files are installed in
> the system or not) does not recognize the format either.
quicktime worked for me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, that was pretty much my read as well. I pulled the paper down to
read it over, just haven't had the time yet.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Personally, I played it using mplayer (which is a Linux tool) - the codec
it picked was was the FFmpeg library used there, if that's possibly of
help. I don't have any "real" Windows systems any more.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 22:18:13 +0100, scott wrote:
> I don't see why it isn't possible. The projector is lighting one tiny
> segment of the card at a time, if it hits a red bit, the book is going to
> be lit with a red hue, very easy to pick up by the camera. Once it's
> scanned the whole card, it would be easy to build up the picture.
That's the trick, though - the projector shown in the video, unless I'm
terribly mistaken, is just a standard video projector (the type you might
plug a PC into to project it on the screen) - so the projector is in fact
lighting the entire book/card scene all at the same time.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, Warp saw fit to write:
> Now, I have to admit I'm at a loss about how to play that .mp4 file.
> Winamp opens it ok, but plays the audio only, no video. Windows media
> player (version 9 in Windows XP) refuses to play it altogether ("Windows
> Media Player cannot play the file."). The Core Media Player does not
> recognize the format at all. The Video Inspector utility (which can be
> used to determine if codecs needed by multimedia files are installed in
> the system or not) does not recognize the format either.
mplayer in an up-to-date linux box gave no problem (other than asking to use
-nocache, and that did help). I guess it's a matter of codecs and you'd
have to find the appropriate one for your system, but I can't help in
that...)
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, Jim Henderson saw fit to write:
>> I don't see why it isn't possible. The projector is lighting one tiny
>> segment of the card at a time, if it hits a red bit, the book is going to
>> be lit with a red hue, very easy to pick up by the camera. Once it's
>> scanned the whole card, it would be easy to build up the picture.
>
> That's the trick, though - the projector shown in the video, unless I'm
> terribly mistaken, is just a standard video projector (the type you might
> plug a PC into to project it on the screen) - so the projector is in fact
> lighting the entire book/card scene all at the same time.
As I understand it, the scene is lit "pixel by pixel", and the resolution
use for lighting is the resolution you get in the "dual image". If all the
scene is illuminated at once, it makes no sense talking about the projector
resolution. Besides, in the paper there is a figure for the card trick that
shows the different images seen by the camera when the light is sent to
different "pixels" of the card.
Anyway, I believe those projectors, like TVs and monitors, actually perform
a sweep over the screen, and we see it as a whole image due to... guess
what, persistence of vision ;-) (and maybe to screen persistence on TVs and
monitors). What would probably be needed is to slow down the scanning in
the projector or to use a very high speed camera.
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Anyway, I believe those projectors, like TVs and monitors, actually
> perform a sweep over the screen, and we see it as a whole image due
> to... guess what, persistence of vision ;-) (and maybe to screen
> persistence on TVs and monitors). What would probably be needed is to
> slow down the scanning in the projector or to use a very high speed
> camera.
No, those projectors use LCD panels inside, every pixel is on continuously,
and a whole line is updated at a time. So if you like it "sweeps"
downwards, but you will never see any flicker because the pixels don't "turn
off" like they do in a CRT.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 22:18:13 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>> I don't see why it isn't possible. The projector is lighting one
>> tiny segment of the card at a time, if it hits a red bit, the book
>> is going to be lit with a red hue, very easy to pick up by the
>> camera. Once it's scanned the whole card, it would be easy to build
>> up the picture.
>
> That's the trick, though - the projector shown in the video, unless
> I'm terribly mistaken, is just a standard video projector (the type
> you might plug a PC into to project it on the screen) - so the
> projector is in fact lighting the entire book/card scene all at the
> same time.
You are not mistaken, it is a *projector* and not a light bulb exactly so
they can light up one point at a time. They just display a black image on
the projector with one white pixel, and move that pixel about. It's the
same as having a very narrow spotlight and moving it about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah, yes, that does make a difference - after reading the paper, this makes
perfect sense. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:pan### [at] nospamcom
> Ah, yes, that does make a difference - after reading the paper,
> this makes perfect sense. :-)
Projectors are often used to capture 3D data using a normal camera. If you
place the projector and camera at slightly different positions, you can then
project special patterns using the projector. For example, if you project a
series of images using the projector:
11110000 11001100 10101010
11110000 --> 11001100 --> 10101010 (1=white)
11110000 11001100 10101010 (0=black)
Then record the three images the camera sees in monochrome. For each pixel
in the camera, it will have three values (one from each frame), this is
effectively a 3-bit number that will tell you which line on the projector is
lighting that pixel. Using some simple geometry you can then work out the
distance of that point from the camera (because you know the position of the
camera and the projector, and the angle that the light came out / went into
each).
Do this for every pixel and you have a height-field of your scene built up
very quickly. If you projector has 1024 vertical lines, you only need
project and record 10 frames to get the height-field, that's less than 1
second.
Do the whole process at several different known locations and you start to
build up a very detailed 3D map very quickly...
Projectors are almost cheap enough now for me to not feel guilty buying one
for home use :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, Jellby saw fit to write:
> Here is a physical technique to interchange the roles of a camera and a
> light-source which is reminds me of how POV-Ray calculates the rays.
I've tried implementing this in POV-Ray, see p.b.images: "Dual photography
concept testing".
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
