Comments on: Stanford camera chip can see in 3D

Chip designers develop image sensor that can judge the distance of different elements in a scene, but it takes a good deal of computing brawn to process the image.

[ralfthedog]

Robotic applications.

I think this has far more applications in robotics than photography.

[samhuff]

Why not binocular vision

Two regular lens give 3 D vision that can record the distance to
the white wall. advantage here is one lens so it doesn't have to
spaced apart.

[Manhattan2]

Stanford should look at Seeingaid.com they use something like this

I don't think people grasp the power that this type of technology has. We are working on solutions that can calculate depth with regular cameras and even recorded digital and analog footage. The folks at Stanford should get in touch with the people making the seeing aid.

[thomashawk]

Great Post

Great post on this exciting new technology Stephen.

Scoble and I interviewed Marc Levoy down at Stanford last Fall and he showed us some of this and lots of other new technology being worked on at Stanford first hand. Interesting stuff for sure.

[Hernys]

Another practical advantage

With depth information you can adjust lighting for flash pictures on a per pixel basis.
This might seem like a not so exiting application, but it would have orders of magnitude more impact than actual 3D pictures.
Think about this: how many of your pictures don't look great because of poor lighing, movement due to underexposure or overexposure of close elements and underexposure of far elements of the picture? I would say, for most users, the majority of noght pictures fall in one of those areas!!! Using strong flash and then adjusting the exposure based on depth would solve those issues. Currently you have to decide between risking underexposure or having horrible pictures of overexposed subjects in front of dark backgrounds.
On the other hand, how many uses do you have for 3D pictures? Can you easily print 3d albums? View them in the computer? Use a digital picture frame? Yes, at some point you probably will be able to do those things, but not in less than a decade, and even then it will be impractical for most uses (as 3D pictures are unrealistic unless seen from a specific distance and angle). Flat photography will remain mainstream for many decades.
Use this tech to solve today's flash issues, and you have a great, practical product.

[ArtInvent]

O, for a good true stereo digital camera

It's nice to see people thinking about 3D technology. Yet here's what's baffling: my 40 year old Stereo Realist slide film camera produces startling 3D images that will blow away pretty much any digital image you've likely ever seen. Digital cameras are so cheap and ubiquitous, most cell phones even have them whether anyone uses them or not. AND YET - still no simple stereoscopic digital cameras. Not a single one.

A stereo digital camera/viewer would just consist of two lens-sensor pairs combined into one chassis, with one synchronized shutter release. (Just a modern equivalent of a Stereo Realist or any 100 year old stereo camera). Wouldn't even need a zoom lens: most stereo cameras just use a fixed 35mm-ish lens with phenomenal results.

Instead of a separate stereo viewer, a proper digital stereo cam could easily incorporate two high-resolution micro-lcds or OLED's (also fairly cheap these days) for high-fidelity stereo playback of the recorded images.

There's little reason this couldn't double as a 3D video camera with absolutely stunning realism.

How about it Canon, Sony, Pentax, Nikon . . . ? It's all existing technology. Come on.

[Arbalest05]

Sounds interesting, but I'll wait and see

This article states that the image being processed arrives at all the multiple sensors through a single lens. Since it is not really possible to detect depth when the lens you're looking through is set to a single focus point, the best you can do is estimate 3 dimensions based on visual cues (the article states that object must have texture). Real 3D would requires comparison of at least 2 images taken from different vantage points (just like the 2 eyes that most people have).

[harveyj]

Your confused.

This sensor has many lenses. Each lens on the sensor IS a different
vantage point. Texture is necessary to distinguish the distance not
to capture 3D. If you took a photo of a subject on a white
background, the subject would be 3D but the background would
not because a white background from any vantage point is still
white.

[bdennis410]

Imaging Opportunity

That same capability, in reverse, as an image projector, will do wonders in the virtual reality arena, like in Second Life, and in gaming, almost any image presentation. Biology, CAD, genetics, and a host of other research and practical applications could benefit immensely. VR gaming already exists, but it is easy to imagine a headset or headsup display environment that will blow your mind.
The closer we get to "perfect" imaging and presentation, the better off we are.
It just takes computing "horsepower" and we get better at that all the time.

[Jack Gratteau]

Shading Issues

The light that forms the image strikes the sensor at oblique angles as you move away from the center. This creates differing gain called shading. Placing a lens on this surface makes this effect even greater. There are already sensors with micro-lenses on a per-pixel basis and this is a big problem. For depth perception, stereo and time-of-flight imaging require much less processing. The idea that this might make a macro or micro imaging sensor where I think this makes the best sense.

[Jack Gratteau]

Time of Flight Range Finding Camera

http://www.canesta.com/html/sample_images_videos.htm

This technology is now in testing at the South Pole for the next NASA missions to the Moon and Mars. It also can be expected to appear in a Wii modeled game player.

[Brad S. S.]

Impossible?

It wouldn't be "impossible" to estimate the distance to a perfectly smooth white wall, just the opposite, really: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~twd25/webcam_laser_ranger.html

You'd think someone from Stanford could figure that one out.

[dplaz]

Possible with laser

Good thought. The link you posted uses a laser though. This means that you are taking a picture of a white wall with a bright dot on it. This would not be a picture of a perfectly white wall.

"If a picture is captured of a perfectly smooth white wall, it is impossible to estimate the distance to that wall," Fife said.

[Shankland]

Sure, there are *other* ways to find distances

You could also get a measuring tape out and walk around a lot. Fife was just talking about what you can get from this particular process. If you want to use a laser or whatever else, bear in mind that it's a matter of finding the distance for every pixel.

[harveyj]

Not entirely true.

There are many ways to display/print a 3D image that is viewable
from many viewing angles and distances. There may be some
limitations right now but solutions will be here in far less than 10
years. Expect to see consumer level solutions popping up in the
next 2-5 years tops.

[Man_vs_City]

Printing Process for this

RabbitHoles already has an awesome holographic printing process that could work with this type of lens & chip combination. http://www.rabbitholes.com/index.html

The real deal will be to expand the process into a 360x360 panoramic VR process so the viewer can navigate through the display device from node to node and around objects.

I could also see an application for corrective eyewear. And certainly this kind of system might have uses for more accurate position and targeting for the military and computer gaming.

[danger_dan]

>my 40 year old Stereo Realist slide film camera produces startling 3D images that will blow away pretty much any digital image you've likely ever seen

Startling? Blow away? Horse hockey. Nonsense. I've owned three Realists, including one "specially tuned" by the supposed king of Realists, Dr. T. The quality was at best very *average* for a 50's manual camera. The Realist is a heavy, clumsy, ideosynchratic, obsolete camera. I haven't had mine out of the box in fifteen years.

Anyone who thinks a half a frame of 35mm is going to beat a ten megapixel image is delusional.