Boeing announces compact, energy-efficient 3D camera

Yes, even the military has gone 3D. Helping it in that endeavor is Boeing, which has just announced a tiny new 3D camera that's one-third the size and consumes one-tenth the power of comparable 3D imaging systems. While it will also be made available for commercial use, it seems like military will be first in line to use the cameras, with Boeing noting that it's potential applications including "mapping terrain, tracking targets and seeing through foliage," and adding that it's already testing the camera on unmanned aerial vehicles. The biggest drawback to the camera at the moment is that it's only able to take 3D still images, but Boeing says it will "soon" add 3D video capability as well. Details are otherwise pretty hard to come by, as you might expect, and pricing is no doubt best left unsaid.

[Thanks, Graham]

[Freakin Ijit Posted Mar 10th 2010 1:07PM]

So is that cube one-meter X one-meter or one-centimeter X one-centimeter?

[Palomino Posted Mar 10th 2010 1:21PM]

@Freakin Ijit I was thinking the same thing.

[laureynsr Posted Mar 10th 2010 2:21PM]

@Freakin Ijit
Off topic, love your Miggy Avitar! :)

[M C Posted Mar 10th 2010 8:07PM]

@Freakin Ijit

It is approximately 1/3 the size of its larger counterpart.

"Details are otherwise pretty hard to come by..."

[Philippe Posted Mar 10th 2010 1:22PM]

Couldn't post a 3D picture of it, eh?

[glamajamma Posted Mar 10th 2010 1:26PM]

@Philippe
But it is in 3D

[Peter Fox Posted Mar 10th 2010 1:54PM]

*Yawn* Weber State can already do stills and video for $250 (http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/17/weber-state-university-shows-us-how-to-shoot-3d-on-the-cheap-vi/)

How much do you think Boeing has spent on this as of this morning?

[Eugene Action Posted Mar 10th 2010 2:38PM]

@Peter Fox

nice, but can I get some 3D contact lenses to forgo the glasses??

[CityZen Posted Mar 10th 2010 2:33PM]

This is a 3D camera in the sense of MS Natal 3D (depth image), not in the sense of Avatar 3D (stereoscopic).

In case you were wondering why there's only one "eye".

[Kibbe17 Posted Mar 10th 2010 3:04PM]

Love the very last line. Hahaha

[Bosco Posted Mar 10th 2010 3:29PM]

Shouldn't Boeing be working on an ejector seat for the cockpit crew for their passenger jets so that in the event of an imminent disaster, they can preserve at least one live witness to explain what went wrong?

[paul34 Posted Mar 10th 2010 3:55PM]

@Bosco

Wait, so let me get this straight. You would have it so that when my passenger flight is about the crash, the flight crew decides to jump ship right when they're needed the most? I'm glad you're not in the FAA or on the executive board of any of the airline manufacturers.

[Bosco Posted Mar 10th 2010 4:02PM]

@paul34 Not to be insensitive, but someone from the flight crew is really going to be needed the most during the investigation. We just need one of them. The others can go down fighting with the ship. And the one that is saved could be killed after the investigation is complete if that makes you feel better.

[CityZen Posted Mar 10th 2010 4:53PM]

@Bosco Better yet would be airbags good for 200 mph. Of course, at speeds that can shred aluminum on impact, airbags probably won't cut it, but maybe some kind of gel bag could. Or what about a parachute for the entire airplane? That exists already for smaller airplanes; could it scale up? The commitment for safety should be to save the whole plane and everyone on board. Explaining what went wrong is relegated to the black box recorders.

[FORDY Posted Mar 10th 2010 3:49PM]

Bah, everyone adds "video support at a later date" these days..

[cr0ft Posted Mar 10th 2010 4:11PM]

I just need a 3D camera system that I can mount in a remote-controlled plane that sends 3D imagery directly into a set of 3D displays you can wear like glasses... and then "see" from the aircrafts point of view. Awesome wouldn't even begin to cover how cool that would be.

[travispulley Posted Mar 10th 2010 6:43PM]

"with Boeing noting that it's potential applications including..."

I've come to expect better writing from Engadget.

[Zhuzhu Posted Mar 10th 2010 8:58PM]

@travispulley: Yeah, really. This is slipping into Gizmodo territory.

[DerekUGA Posted Mar 10th 2010 11:50PM]

Anything with US and military is bound to A) have a huge price tag hidden somewhere and B) be damn near useless considering the only countries that could really go to war with us have nukes and wouldn't use them because we've already proven we will. More pointless tech in the name of defense, but who are we defending ourselves from? I would say the answer to that question should be our government at this point....*sigh* **Walks away while shaking his head in disbelief**

[BuzzMega Posted Mar 11th 2010 9:17AM]

3D camera. One lens. Suitable for the 3D image to be derived from the motion offset of a UAV from shot L to shot R. In other words: A camera.

Better story: What's so "3D" about it? Can you put two of them on the UAV wingtips and get exaggerated 3D from 10,000 feet? Can you use three of them and get "4D?"