How does the camera only track 2d space?

In the tech demo he moved around and it tracked his movements. They kept repeating, "full body".

And how do you know about natal playing in the dark??? Does it have night-vision??

sorry but natal is on a completely different level from a technical stand point and we can all agree on that. It may never be utilized but is far more impressive than either of the other two options.

OMG trolls in every thread

Wouldn't it be great if people posted their own arguments instead of just calling others trolls?

I still haven't seen any decent argument as to how Sony or MS's controls will beat the Wii's in versatility... that and they are just prototypes for now.

I wanna know what is technologically different about them?

Does anyone have the old motion controller video? Where they guy can duck and move around based on the person playing?

Let me break it down for you since it is a little hard to understand.

Nintendo:

Wand that tracks movement

Sony:

Wand that tracks movements

A camera

Microsoft:

A camera

A 3D sensor

In the Sony presentation, the game knew how far away the person was because of the wand. If you turn off the lights and try to hop round with Sony's technology, the game would only see the wand moving up and down. It has NO idea what the rest of your body is doing. If you do the same with Microsoft's technology, you won't be able to see yourself but the game still knows that you are jumping up and down and can map your exact movements to the character. It's not sonar, but it's a similar technology that fires something at you and then analyzes it when it comes back. With this, it can actually "see" 3D space. 

Microsoft's technology is pretty impressive IMO. 

I didn't notice any mention of a 3d sensor, so maybe I just missed it.

But wouldn't the light from the tv illuminate you enough for the camera to see you?

What I don't get is why people are trying to argue that an expensive external-camera-centric controller for an already-expensive console is going to do anything compared to a $20 capability-expanding add-on to an already motion-centric controller. Let alone how an external-camera-centric controllerless system that will likely cost almost as much as the console itself does will stand a chance.

I mean really, if you were a newcomer to this industry, what would look more appealing to you? Paying $500 for a system and nonstandard peripheral for said system with no guaranteed support, or paying $300 for a system with integrated motion control, an expansion of its capabilities, and two games designed to make the most of said motion control? Argue all you like about how it's a move to draw in the "core gamers", but those arguments fall pretty flat when you consider that Sony and MS basically already HAVE the "core gamers" anyway.

1 gimmick 2 gimmick 3 gimmick.

3, there are 3 gimmicks.

until they plug my ass in Matrix style, trusty good old analog controller will be the best option.

Wikipedia:

The EyeToy is a color digital camera device, similar to a webcam, for the PlayStation 2.
Due to the camera's need to "see" the player as they play, the camera needs to be used in a well-lit room. To help let the player know when there is not enough light, there is a red LED on the front of the camera that flashes when it is too dark.

[Project Natal] The device features a "RGB camera, depth sensor, multi-array microphone, and custom processor running proprietary software
The depth sensor consists of an infrared projector combined with a monochrome CMOS sensor, and allows the Project Natal sensor to see in 3D under any lighting conditions."

So, the depth camera can operate in perfect darkness, the EyeToy requires that you have sufficient light. 

EyeToy is only an RGB, Project Natal is an RGB *and* a depth camera.