If you can't understand the implications of being able to capturing 3D data and making it available for a computer, why would you be able to understand anything else?

How does a computer identify an object in a picture?  Humans can contextualize vision easily because we understand through experience attributes like weight, color, size, shape, etc.  A computer cannot derive 3D spatial information from an RGB image because 1) the database to match the objects in it would be incomprehensively large and 2) the myriad of lighting, position, and other confounding factors makes it impossible.  If you can't contextualize a scene, you can't make logical decisions with it.

With the 3D camera, you can get 3D information so a computer can perform simple operations, like what the shape of a room is.  From there you can do pretty much anything, like looking for how humans interact with objects and reacting accordingly.

This demo illustrates this principle by using the depth camera to make any object it sees interactive - the table, shelves, the air, and people - and to have a computer react to it.  The projection is just a user interface convenience, the real technology is interpreting the data from the depth camera into something a computer can understand.

That's why this technology is exciting.  It's not quite like giving a computer human eyes, but it is starting to get there.  A computer will be able to tell things like whether or not the person in the room is friendly (someone that has been identified before - like how Kinect signs people in by body shape recognition), what the layout of a room is like, whether or not there are people around, etc.  A lot of things that a person can usually deduce from sight a computer will be able to as well.

A sentry gun is just an application - having a depth camera on or near it will be able to identify friend or foe, and the computer can make logical decisions like tracking and targeting based on that.  The key feature of depth cameras is adding 3D contextual data to an image which allows a computer to logically interpret and react.

you've just described a depth camera and its potential usefulness.

Not lightspace. Lightspace is the tech demo using 3d depth cameras ALONG WITH projectors, to "CREATE AN INTERACTIVE ENVIRONMENT". It's about creating, not about input, and it's not simply about 3d cameras which we've had for years now.

If all you wanted to do was say 3d cameras are exciting then fair enough.

If you wanted to prove to me how lightspace was a useful concept, you have not done so.

Common guys it is blackjack and hookers and alcohol.

Having a 3d camera is one thing, figuring out useful things to do with that data is something else.  Gesture interpretation and human interaction with the environment is the novel part of the demonstration.  The value in this is it shows any surface or volume can be interactive, and is much more cost effective than the other options.  It requires no gloves or extra accessories and is much more robust than anything that would only use a regular camera.

It is very much about input and natural human/machine interaction.  You can't even define the concept, so of course you don't think it's useful.  But everyone else can see that having a computer track your every move and react to anything that is controllable is useful.  The projector is just a way to define and show users the interface options and provide feedback, it's not really the real advanced part of it.

I'm never going to convince you it's useful because you simply don't understand it.  So far your responses have proven to me that you don't even have a cursory understanding of the field because you can't tell me what the researchers have done that hasn't been done before.  Let's just say that the consensus from the people that matter is this demonstration shows a lot of interesting research principles with lots of possible applications in information manipulation and dynamic man/machine interaction, and you can continue being ignorant all day.

Just give it up, the guy is clueless.  If he doesn't see how this technology bridges the gap between Natural Human Interface then you are wasting a lot of text.  theprof00 is way to concerned about the hardware to understand the concepts and problems solved with this tech.  Commercially the tech is probably useless for consumers but if only concentrate on the consumer market then you miss the boat.

I guss the question for theprof00 would be why you think the tech is useless, then everyone can see how narrowminded you are and totally dismiss any more statements.

All you keep saying is that I don't understand it even though I've spelled it out numerous times.

It is a combination hardware/software that allows users to manipulate objects in space using body recognition and visible light to determine input and provide output. The 3d depth camera reads where things are in space, and is able to translate positioning and movement into commands that are programmed into the software. Thereby the movement of a hand in any direction is interpreted as a directional command that can be combined with other commands like 'touching a video in a certain way'/'pick up video' to output the command 'move video from touched area to directed area'.

In many ways it is like a home computer. You have data being manipulated through input such as a mouse or keyboard and the software computes the electrical signals creating strings of commands that combine to form an advanced output, like a paragraph made from hitting many individual keys.

That is one single part of the technology.

The other half is the display. Without the display, none of it is relevant in any way, much like the projector is without the depth camera. They are integral parts of the technology. Without the projector, you have no video, you have no interface, because the interface is made up of a visible spectrum that the user can understand and interact with. On a much smaller scale it can be done without the projector, but such applications are both outside the scope of "lightspace" but potentially useful. In the same way a computer cannot do what I am using it for right now if I do not have a display to show me what I can click on, and read your post.

Now, a computer can still do computations without a display. I can still input data and receive output, but the product would not be called a home computer anymore. When I am without the standard display, I cannot receive the full effects of the computer's capability. Some could potentially run simple programs without needing a display, so the computer is still there, but it is a shadow of what it should be. I can start my computer, navigate to "run" type in an executable filename like notepad and type something out, finishing up by hitting ctrl-s to save the document. 

Similarly, a 3d depth camera can receive input and given a proper setup with the home office I could do other things. Say I could turn on the computer and turn on the lights by walking into the room and have the camera recognize my shape and movements as to only perform the process upon my unique identity recognition. I could then have it input a password by performing a complex movement like opening a drawer, taking a stapler out, and putting it on the desk.

That technology is cool. That technology is useful.

However. That is not what lightspace is.

"Instrumented with multiple depth cameras and projectors, LightSpace is a small room installation designed to explore a variety of interactions and computational strategies related to interactive displays and the space that they inhabit"

"LightSpace cameras and projectors are calibrated to 3D real world coordinates, allowing for projection of graphics correctly onto any surface visible by both camera and projector"

"Selective projection of the depth camera data enables emulation of interactive displays on un-instrumented surfaces (such as a standard table or office desk), as well as facilitates mid-air interactions between and around these displays."

"For example, after performing multi-touch interactions on a virtual object on the tabletop, the user may transfer the object to another display by simultaneously touching the object and the destination display."

"Or the user may “pick up” the object by sweeping it into their hand, see it sitting in their hand as they walk over to an interactive wall display, and “drop” the object onto the wall by touching it with their other hand."

"What we're doing is using some of the new depth sensing camera technologies to extend the sensing so that it encompasses the entire room.  What that allows us to do in LightSpace is all the usual kind of surface interactions on tabletops but then we can also fill in the void, the space between these various surfaces so that we can connect surfaces.  So that we can move objects from one surface to another just by tracking the person and understanding the 3D shape of the person and where each surface is placed in the environment."

"LightSpace combines elements of surface computing and augmented reality research to create a highly interactive space where any surface, and even the space between surfaces, is fully interactive. Our concept transforms the ideas of surface computing into the new realm of spatial computing."

Using light (lightspace) from the projector, they can create an interface in space, as well as receive input interaction by using a depth camera. 

"Recent works have demonstrated using sensing and display technologies to enable interactions directly above the interactive surface [2,10], but these are confined to the physical extent of the display. Virtual and augmented reality techniques can be used to go beyond the confines of the display by putting the user in a fully virtual 3D environment (e.g.,[5]), or a mixture of the real and virtual worlds (e.g., [21]). Unfortunately, to be truly immersive, such approaches typically require cumbersome head mounted displays and worn tracking devices."

"In this paper we introduce LightSpace, an office-sized room instrumented with projectors and recently available depth cameras (Figure 2). LightSpace draws on aspects of interactive displays, augmented reality, and smart rooms. For example, the user may touch to manipulate a virtual object projected on an un-instrumented table, “pick up” the object from the table by moving it with one hand off the table and into the other hand, see the object sitting in their hand as they walk over to an interactive wall display, and place the object on the wall by touching it (Figure 1 a-b).

"In this paper we explore the unique capabilities of depth cameras in combination with projectors to make progress towards a vision in which even the smallest corner of our environment is sensed and functions as a display [25]. With LightSpace we emphasize the following themes:

Surface everywhere: all physical surfaces should be interactive displays (Figure 3).

The room is the computer: not only are physical surfaces interactive, the space between them is active, enabling users to relate to the displays in interesting ways, such as connecting one to another by touching both simultaneously (Figure 1 a-b).

Body as display: graphics may be projected onto the user’s body to enable interactions in mid-air such as holding a virtual object as if it were real (Figure 1 c-d), or making a selection by a menu projected on the hand (Figure 6). Projecting on the body is useful."

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/awilson/publications/wilsonuist2010/Wilson UIST 2010 LightSpace.pdf

One of the prime tenets of Lightspace, specifically, is display. 3d depth camera technology is its own technology. Like the mouse to the keyboard. Keyboards were first, mice came later. A mouse is not a computer, but it reads input in a unique way to the keyboard.

A projector is its own technology, like a monitor to a computer. A monitor is not a computer, but it allows for unique interactions with the computer.

Everything about LIGHTSPACE is a COMBINATION of input and output (depth capture facilitated though display, and effect, respectively). running through a central computing unit. 

Saying lightspace is the abstract capability of 3d depth input, is like saying a computer is a keyboard. 3D depth cameras are their own tech, and groups, like Microsoft Research are exploring what they can do IN ASSOCIATION with the input afforded by a 3d depth camera. 

Like I've said a thousand times now, depth camera tech is its own concept. Lightspace is not a 3d depth camera, it is a seperate thing, similarly to how cheese is not milk but comes from alterations to it. 

3D depth technology, as I've also said a thousand times now, is a cool, interesting technology. But it has been done. It's already out there. There are numerous researchers using it and exploring things it does. As proof, the scientist who wrote the article alludes to, and thereby contrasts with, other researchers who are working on 3d input/output in different ways.

"Fails and Olsen [8] argue that many computing actions can be controlled by observing specific user interactions within everyday environments. For example, they propose designating edges of the bed as virtual sliders for controlling lights and providing user feedback through projections. Holman and Vertegaal [12] argue similarly for exploring the use of existing objects in the environment as interactive surfaces, in particular noting that many non-flat or flexible surfaces could become compelling user interfaces."

and here they admit that lightspace is simply someone elses work:

Underkoffler et al. [25] demonstrated that combining projected graphics with real physical objects can enable interactive tabletop experiences such as simulating the casting of shadows by a physical architectural model. This prototype is embedded within a presentation of the larger (unrealized) vision of the “Luminous Room”, where all room surfaces are transformed into interactive displays by multiple “I/O Bulbs”: devices that can simultaneously sense and project. In many ways, LightSpace is the most complete implementation of the Luminous Room concept to date."

25. Underkoffler, J., Ullmer, B., and Ishii, H. (1999). Emancipated pixels: Real-world graphics in the luminous room. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH ‘99. 385–392.

I remember reading last year that the Japanese have created 3d touchable hologram. Its pretty similar to this except it's 3d and there was the use of air pressure to create a feel of touch.

I'm not impressed by LighhtSpace.

But back on topic, the 65m would either be some sort of dumb mistake, such as production error, or it could be something new such as the 720/kinect.

Research demonstrates concepts.  Your argument is that Lightspace itself is not useful.  I and most other people happen to disagree, and you don't give any real argument as to why it you deem it useless, especially when utility is defined by the person who needs it.  I'd say presenting in a boardroom, or dynamically working with kids in an interactive classroom are all useful, legitimate demands for this technology.

Furthermore, insuinuating that these researchers did nothing but copy someone else's concept, when what you quoted tells you EXACTLY what they did and how they build upon it tells me you do not understand how science is done.  I suppose you'll tell me ALL papers out there are copies of other things, because they ALL cite relevant research.

"Underkoffler et al. [25] demonstrated that combining projected graphics with real physical objects can enable interactive tabletop experiences such as simulating the casting of shadows by a physical architectural model. This prototype is embedded within a presentation of the larger (unrealized) vision of the “Luminous Room”, where all room surfaces are transformed into interactive displays by multiple “I/O Bulbs”: devices that can simultaneously sense and project. In many ways, LightSpace is the most complete implementation of the Luminous Room concept to date."

You even underlined it, but you say they just copied someone else's work, when it is the "most complete implementation of the Luminous Room concept to date."

It demonstrates and embeds their previous work, adds the volumetric space between objects as interactive space, and uses multiple projectors to illuminate multiple surfaces.  It is hardly just "copying" someone else's work.

I knew from the beginning that you had an agenda, and it's clear that you are just arguing for the sake of hearing your own voice.  You should really get rid of the "prof" part of your name, because it's clearly obvious you've never been around higher education let alone real world research.

I ALREADY said why it is useless: Because it requires projectors!

And then you argued with me for 10 posts that it wasn't about projectors, and now when I prove conclusively that it depends on projectors, you instead focus on my statement that they simply built off of another concept and said I'm wrong, because they built off of it the most completely. And you also say that I never explain why it is useless!!!

And my one request (that you explain exactly how you think this tech would be used in any of those applications) has been ignored. I ask you to do this because you come up with groundless applications. In a gun or a turret, or in a boardroom, or in school (despite the scientist saying that a maximum of 6 people can make use of the system) and use abstract ideas as evidence refuting my posts! Incredible! 

Like: "You can't see with your limited understanding of scientifically basic concepts, and inability to read how this would be useful in automated defense". WOW

I have submitted to your requests time and time again, and you have ignored every single attempt I've made to gain some understanding of how you understand the technology.  What this shows is that you lack confidence if all you can do is criticize what is being said without presenting any suitable evidence of your own behalf.

Even so.....

....you insult me, saying I'm not able to read and not understanding the concept yet it is you who didn't understand that it needs projectors as a fundamental necessity. A FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT! You said over and over, that lightspace isn't about projectors, and at one point even said that it didn't NEED projectors!!!!!

At one juncture, you even said you'd be able to move a file from a monitor to your phone and then take it away with you! If that doesn't demonstrate the most complete lack of understanding, then I understand how you can continue to insult.

Your inability to admit any fault, along with your condescending attitude and insults, inability to understand the core idea of lightspace, and citing wiki, along with some made up story***, can only mean that you posted simply to defend it(kinect/microsoft) against criticism as part of a defense force type behavior.

Without understanding the core facets of Lightspace, you said it would apply to things that it would have no bearing on (automated turrets and guns), and rely on abstract concepts without explanation.

I even provided an example of a board room using lightspace compared to one using standard virtual whiteboards (interactive projection displays using IR), and pointed out how there is virtually no advantage to using lightspace as opposed to them. And your reply was something like "teleconferencing"! 

Is this real or are you trolling me?

You must be trolling me. I refuse to believe that you are serious about this.

***(when you thought it would be good for auto-turrets and then you thought about the maker and remembered it was an Israeli company and imagined that he might have been military and then looked up the guy that developed the primesense camera to find he was ex-military, thereby somehow confirming that turrets using lightspace made sense. That's already a really huge leap of logic there: "the guy that makes the camera is ex-military, therefore lightspace, a microsoft concept, is made for military use like guns and turrets"!

What's more likely is that you had no idea what you were talking about,  looked up the maker (hence superficial wiki presence shown by your link), and seeing he was ex-military went on to make a ridiculous claim about auto-turrets, without even explaining how you'd think it would work, only to run into an obstacle where it was explained to you that lightspace uses projectors, which accounts for why you completely abandoned turrets and military applications in your most recent insulting post

" I'd say presenting in a boardroom, or dynamically working with kids in an interactive classroom are all useful, legitimate demands for this technology." --

This makes the most sense to me, given this "argument". You are playing MS defense force.

New IPS? :D