By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft R&D Burns $65 Million In Three Months On Something Unknown

daroamer on 01 November 2010
youarebadatgames said:
theprof00 said:

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.


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.


Yup, well put.  Exactly what I've been trying to explain.

Like talking to a wall indeed.



Around the Network
youarebadatgames on 01 November 2010
theprof00 said:

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

" 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.

Contradict yourself much?  You say it is useless, because it "uses projectors".  How does that make this technology useless, especially in the context of demonstration, presentation, and interactivity?  Would this not fulfill the purposes I have outlined?  Has anything been demonstrated like this before?  It's not even a product in the market yet you in your infinite wisdom proclaims it to be useless.

At first I thought you were just ignorant, but you finally were able to comprehend that each and every piece of Lightwave has utility. That's what is so absurd about your argument.

You have admitted that the 3D sensing technology is very useful.  Yet merely the addition of a projector makes this concept "useless", and you have no real explanation why except for a sophmoric example about moving files around when this demo is clearly not about that - it is about making an entire volume of space interactive.

Furthermore, you trivialize the work of a group of talented researchers by calling their work "copying" when it is clearly not.

And now you are lashing out hoping nobody will see that you have no argument left that doesn't border on absurdity.  Keep dancing, it is hilarious seeing you flounder and bluster because you made an ignorant, worthless post with zero  thought behind it and I just happened to call you out on it, admittedly largely for my amusement.  Bravo, you have been very entertaining, something I sorely needed after my pathology/microbiology midterms.



theprof00 on 01 November 2010
youarebadatgames said:
theprof00 said:

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

" 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.

Contradict yourself much?  You say it is useless, because it "uses projectors".  How does that make this technology useless, especially in the context of demonstration, presentation, and interactivity?  Would this not fulfill the purposes I have outlined?  Has anything been demonstrated like this before?  It's not even a product in the market yet you in your infinite wisdom proclaims it to be useless.

At first I thought you were just ignorant, but you finally were able to comprehend that each and every piece of Lightwave has utility. That's what is so absurd about your argument.

You have admitted that the 3D sensing technology is very useful.  Yet merely the addition of a projector makes this concept "useless", and you have no real explanation why except for a sophmoric example about moving files around when this demo is clearly not about that - it is about making an entire volume of space interactive.

Furthermore, you trivialize the work of a group of talented researchers by calling their work "copying" when it is clearly not.

And now you are lashing out hoping nobody will see that you have no argument left that doesn't border on absurdity.  Keep dancing, it is hilarious seeing you flounder and bluster because you made an ignorant, worthless post with zero  thought behind it and I just happened to call you out on it, admittedly largely for my amusement.  Bravo, you have been very entertaining, something I sorely needed after my pathology/microbiology midterms.

What happened to your turret concept?

And yes, using the tech in coordination with a projector is useless because it doesn't present any new capabilities that don't already exist. 

Please, for once, answer what I asked and explain how it would function in these theorized roles in excess of what current tech is capable of delivering. 

I have thought it out and explained why it doesn't work in a functional way beyond what we currently have (which is also very cheap).

EDIT: Oh, by the way, do you then agree that you saw my post, decided it was worthless and responded simply due to that impression without having known much about the system itself? Because you pretty much admit that you were playing defense force.



theprof00 on 01 November 2010
daroamer said:
youarebadatgames said:
theprof00 said:

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.


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.


Yup, well put.  Exactly what I've been trying to explain.

Like talking to a wall indeed.

The inclusion of projectors is a main tenet of the technology. It says so in their scientific article and in the video, and in the text underneath it. Without the projector, you are simply talking about 3d depth cameras, which is not lightspace.

If you agree with him, then you are not addressing lightspace in any form. Like I said earlier, lightspace is like a computer. It has a display (projector), input (depth sensing camera), and processing center. 

I said that lightspace was useless because it was limited by the projected area. The scientist in the video says "you can have applications like you're lost and you hold your hand out and it shows you directions, or arrows appear on the floor". This is impossible without projectors everywhere you go, and their display WILL be occluded whenever someone blocks the lightstream.

The post you quoted referred only to the possibilities of depth camera input, which, to its credit is a boon. It's a new interface. However, there is a distinction between "lightspace" and 3d depth camera input, much like the difference between a computer and a keyboard.



libellule on 01 November 2010

is it me or 65M cost developpement for 3 months is ... very low for MS or even Sony ?

I m not at all impressed.



Time to Work !

Around the Network
theprof00 on 01 November 2010

Let's continue the entertainment then.

You were about to call me an idiot and I was about to ask you to answer the question again!

Who's the cat and who's the mouse???