By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
billsalias on 30 November 2010
Edit Thread
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:
billsalias said:
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:
billsalias said:
jneul said:
dreamcast210 said:
jneul said:
dreamcast210 said:

 

 

You are wrong about the depth thing, well kinda anyways, pseye can't see depth but it can guess it, meaning it can do the cross arms things and that stuff just not as well, so well yes kinect is an improvement it is nowhere near a major one 

Actually, I am not wrong, not even kind of. All pseye has is edge detection and scale,  which cannot provide even a little bit of depth information without some kind of constant reference (such as the ball on the move wand, which is why they put that there). In the case of overlapping objects with known shapes you might be able to guess which was in front of the other but that is far from knowing position in 3d space.

Why does it hurt so much to admit Kinect is good?

Again the eye doesn't need to provide information for the software to guess depth, so yes you are wrong, well kinect can send more information, in terms of the actual application of the device it can do very little that the pseye can't and it doesn't hurt that kinect is good it hurts because it's not and you people fall for MSes advertisement champaign 

I have a computer science degree and have taken classes specifically covering computer vision, I know how these things work. For that matter even basic trigonometry is enough to prove that a 2d image source with no additional data about the objects in the view does not provide enough data to compute any 3d positioning. There is no mathematical way to compute a Z value for any X,Y pair, it is impossible. What you seem to be hanging on is calling the ability to guess if an appendage crosses in front of the body depth information, and you are right under the right circumstances it can reasonably guess if an arm is crossing in front of the body. This is not what I described though, I was talking about a dance move where the distance your foot or arm was in front of your body and the angle it was at are known, and that cannot be done without that Z value. For an introduction to this concept check out triangulation.

As far as your assumptions, my opinions have nothing to do with any advertising campaign and to say so without knowing me is rude and arrogant.  In addition to objective scientific facts my opinions come from hours of first hand personal experience with many games as well as second hand observations of the 20 or so people that have been to my house to play Kinect. No matter how much you want to deny it, Kinect works as advertised and many people find it fun.

And as I have mentioned before, this takes nothing away from Move, which also works as advertised and provides a new and fun way for people to enjoy the PS3.

So again I ask, why do you find it so hard, even in the face of huge amounts of objective and subjective evidence, to admit that Kinect is good?