New 3D camera chip design might put Adobe on guard

You'd better watch your back Adobe, because it looks like you've got company in the 3D picture game. Stanford University researchers have recently hit upon a method of image sensing which can judge the distance of subjects within a shot. By using a 3-megapixel sensor which is broken into multiple, overlapping 16 x 16-pixel squares (referred to as subarrays), a camera is capable of capturing a variety of angles in one frame. When the images taken by the multi-aperture device are processed by proprietary software, location differences are measured from each mini-lens, and then combined into a photograph containing a depth map. This procedure allows the same image to appear at different angles, provided the subject has depth to begin with (i.e., isn't a flat surface). Here's hoping this technology makes it into consumer products pronto, ASAP, and forthwith.

[Via Wired]

[Superprime @ Feb 21st 2008 11:16AM]

I'm guessing the assembled image is also 16x16 pixels. The adobe version had 3MP for each sector...

[Carbonize @ Feb 21st 2008 11:17AM]

I'm not fully up to speed on this but what would you do with the image afterwards? Unless you are making holograms.

[EQB @ Feb 21st 2008 11:27AM]

I suppose you could pan and rotate the picture AFTER you have taken it to different angles, thus achieving a better shot. Not to mention the possibilities for digitizing an object into 3D without a complicated array of lasers. The possibilities are endless (cue people suggesting 3D porno. *sigh*).

[DT @ Feb 21st 2008 11:29AM]

@EQB
I suggest 3D porno.

[Yubastard @ Feb 21st 2008 11:30AM]

3d porno or, equally addictive, videogame models

[Derbeste @ Feb 21st 2008 11:34AM]

"cue people suggesting 3D porno. *sigh*"

Do you have a better way to achieve a 3D orgasm?

[Carbonize @ Feb 21st 2008 11:36AM]

Yes but given that the lenses would only be eye width apart at best you would only get a limited 3D perspective so panning and rotating would be extremely limited at best.

As to 3D porn I was actually saying that to a friend of mine ;)

[Zal @ Feb 21st 2008 11:37AM]

Selective depth of field in post processing. Oh, and 3D porno.

[Gorillamonk @ Feb 21st 2008 3:20PM]

you've got my vote for a 3d porn. But, I wonder if that would make a difference? Some producers are good enough, you don't need to dizzy yourself during the action.

[trevor @ Feb 22nd 2008 12:34AM]

"Do you have a better way to achieve a 3D orgasm?"

There's this innovation out there called "sex" that's been doing it for years...

[mike @ Feb 21st 2008 11:17AM]

Keep the cam, I want that macaw!

[fanman @ Feb 21st 2008 11:33AM]

3D video at the cinema? Without those daft glasses?

[oZone @ Feb 21st 2008 11:36AM]

How would this work without having something display each possibly angle the film could be viewed in?

[7on @ Feb 21st 2008 12:37PM]

How about punk glasses?

[CRNewsom @ Feb 21st 2008 11:34AM]

The Blade Runner picture/video editor is finally here...

[Brian @ Feb 21st 2008 12:55PM]

Yes! Someone mentioned BladeRunner, great movie. This answers my question as to how the hell anyone would "Zoom" into a picture of a door and then look around the door within the picture lol.

[Benjamin Creekmore @ Feb 21st 2008 11:35AM]

I suggest this camera be used to take on-set pictures at the filming of
the 3D Feature Film "Jem & The Holograms". Lindsay Jerrica Benten in 3D.

[kevin @ Feb 21st 2008 11:43AM]

I don't see how this is any better or different than Adobe's product. Besides, Adobe is already much further along considering they have shown a demo of not only the acquired image data, but the image manipulation possibilities through Photoshop as well.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xu31XWUxSkA

[tehiv @ Feb 21st 2008 12:24PM]

Is it just a coincidence that the photo Adobe used to demo this in that vid was shot at Stanford University?

[atomische @ Feb 21st 2008 12:37PM]

Reminds me of David Bowie's camera in The Man Who Fell To Earth.

[JuggleNuts @ Feb 21st 2008 12:37PM]

Now, if we put these babies into security cameras with known positions, could we pull an "Enemy of the State" - like fly around on an image?

[whatsdamattau @ Feb 21st 2008 1:06PM]

You mean I'll need to buy a new monitor, then a new television/front projector to display this stuff? Argh.

[David Goldwasser @ Feb 21st 2008 1:07PM]

Here is link to my old experiment on how to build depth map using traditional camera and multiple shots with different focus settings. Low tech approach, but I was impressed with the results. Need large aperture opening for narrow depth of field. I expect their approach is similar to mine, using change in photos as focus or aperture changes to judge distance. Will fall apart as you approach far off distances, but so would parallax approach. Specular reflections which throw off other systems, actually work well with this approach. My ultimate use for these would be dynamic photos on LCD screens that change FOV and framing and even focus as the user looks moves around and looks at different areas.

http://www.inertiavisualmedia.com/sandbox/dynamic-focus/index.html

[Will @ Feb 21st 2008 1:10PM]

I'm not a photoshop junkie but it might come in helpful in layering things, blurring background, doing light gradients based on depth, etc.

[HP @ Feb 21st 2008 1:14PM]

Work with 3-D printers?
Can't see the back side of the subject, so I guess it's missionary only w/ that porn.

[sancho @ Feb 21st 2008 2:57PM]

i can with my mind already have thought for to make picture for lady friends with this product please.

[Monty @ Feb 29th 2008 9:54AM]

3D video at the cinema? Without those daft glasses?
No, think logically.

Now, if we put these babies into security cameras with known positions, could we pull an "Enemy of the State" - like fly around on an image?
Dude, No.

Ill let you guys work it out.