By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Adinnieken on 18 June 2012
Edit Thread
trasharmdsister12 said:

Adinnieken said:

This was why Microsoft removing the additional processor was BS, because even if the pre-processor was still there, the bandwidth to send the data down the pipeline was still limited.  So it wouldn't have improved anything short-term or long-term.

If the built in processor was there and was designed to analyze the images and send back analysis data (or some form of broken down skeletal data) rather than images then it would have improved the tracking capabilities (accuracy, speed). Kinect would then be able to use full resolution images from its camera in the internal analysis while also overcoming the data throughput limit posed by the USB 2.0 interface in real-time (full images are likely larger than simple text/integer data streams of critical points of the human body). The developer would then simply use this data in correspondance to Microsoft's Kinect development APIs to perform the required action.

Of course, this would also drive up the cost of designing and manufacturing the sensor and it probably would've screwed up Kinect's market penetration strategy; not to mention the heat and power draw that the processor would create causing a greater chance of fault in the design as well as all Kinect's requiring a separate power adapter. It was a design trade off and Microsoft opted to go with a more marketable and convenient device than a more accurate one. Whether that's a good or bad decision depends on the person.

@OP I just got my Kinect a month and a bit ago and I haven't had much time to play any games (on any platform) in recent weeks but I do try to jump into some Kinect action when I get the spare half hour just to loosen up. I'm also starting to read up on open drivers and APIs on it and am hoping to make something of some of my quirky ideas for Kinect use. So... I answered Yes to the poll.


Except that Microsoft already has stated that it would have been impossible to fit that amount of data down.

The issue isn't the skeletal tracking, the issue is the amount of data that streamed video represents that would be sent down to the console.  While that isn't true of every situation, you have to understand that in some circumstances, full RGB, as well as IR, and tracking data are all coming down.  If you don't need anything but the tracking data you can improve the fidelity and resolution, and despite what people say, Microsoft is doing that.

They have demonstrated finger tracking in Kinect Fun Labs, and an upcoming game will also be featuring it as well.  They have announced, and Fable: Journey is demonstrating, a higher fidelity motion tracking which should be available this Autumn.

One of the complaints originally with Video Kinect, for example, was the fact that the resolution compared to the Xbox Vision camera was much worse.  The reason being is because of the limited bandwidth, the fact that Video Kinect employed tracking (both limb and head), and needed to stream the RGB video feed.

So no, the second pre-processor would have not achieved any added value.  As it is right now, Kinect uses less than 1% of the processing power of 1 core on the Xbox 360.  Had there been a bigger pipe to work with, (i.e. USB3), we might have a different argument in which I might agree with you.