360 degree recorded telepresence

[PalmerTech]

Check this site out: http://www.0-360.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That lens and software lets you make mouse trackable 360 degree by 115 degree photos AND videos! Imagine how cool this tech would be with a head tracked, high FOV HMD! You could truly record what it is like to be places.

Here are some great example of video shot with it, pictures are meh for me:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2010/01/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dump.com/2010/11/22/360-degr ... ons-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And here is a DIY version, there are other ones, too.

http://dasl.mem.drexel.edu/Hing/tutoria ... mnicam.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you google "360 Video", you can find a lot more info. Any thoughts/good links you guys can find?

[Fredz]

Very nice find, I made a panoramic tripod head some time ago to take 360° still panoramic pictures but this technique is a lot better, didn't know you could film in 360° for such a low price.

It would be nice to see this adapted to two cameras for stereo capture, it could add a lot of immersion to several types of movies if you could choose where to look at in real-time.

Imagine that scene in Jurassic Park where they see a Brachiosaurus for the first time, it would really give the impression to be part of it filmed in this way.

[crim3]

Imagine that scene in Jurassic Park where they see a Brachiosaurus for the first time, it would really give the impression to be part of it filmed in this way.

It gives me willies just imagining that.

[cybereality]

I have seen 360 degree lenses before, but not at that price or size. Seems like a nice deal. The only issue is that stereo recording would be problematic as the cameras would block each other. I guess for photography you could use a slide-bar and take both images with one camera/lens. But for video you would need a dual-camera rig which would be a problem. Not sure there is a good solution to this problem.

I agree, though, that it would be really cool to use with an HMD with headtracking.

[Dom]

This is what I think the future home movies are gonna be like. Where you set waypoints and can adjust where you want to view in a recorded or filmed 3d movie. More over with holographic sets that come out for spectical.

To bad theres no 3d interactive 360 pan movies out now in direct x. Theres a huge idea for this to the extreme.

[skrubol]

I don't see how 3d would be possible with this type of lens. It's not just a matter of one lens blocking part of the others view, using 2 would only produce a decent stereo image at a small fraction of their FOV. The rest would be too little separation.

[cybereality]

I don't see how 3d would be possible with this type of lens. It's not just a matter of one lens blocking part of the others view, using 2 would only produce a decent stereo image at a small fraction of their FOV. The rest would be too little separation.

Yeah, I was thinking about this as well. The 3d would only work for 2 views, straight forward or straight back (if you reverse the eyes). Otherwise the separation would be low or non existent.

[PalmerTech]

You could have both of them mounted on an arm rotating on it's center point at 3600 RPM. You would be able to take a full 360 degree 3D shot from every possible angle at 60fps, with proper separation.

You heard it here first, folks!

[skrubol]

Then you could just use standard (light weight preferably) lenses..

[PalmerTech]

Good point! You know, that could be pretty awesome.

EDIT: No, it would blur.

[shonofear]

pretty cool vids,
definitive potential, even Sony has there own version pocket cam with an add on 360 deg lens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6IK4nI ... re=related

[cybereality]

pretty cool vids,
definitive potential, even Sony has there own version pocket cam with an add on 360 deg lens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6IK4nI ... re=related

Hmm. That looks a whole lot more practical, and probably pretty cheap too (actually so cheap it comes free with the camera; $129 total). I would get two of them if we could somehow figure out how to film the full 360 degrees in 3D without occlusion...

[PalmerTech]

Yeah, I saw the Bloggie. The vertical FOV is so much lower, though.

I really wish there was a way to do this in 3D, it would be fantastic.

[skrubol]

To do this in 3d I think the easiest way would still require several cameras (like 10+.) Basically set up stereo pairs of cameras/lenses at an angle that there is about 50% overlap between pairs, and use traditional stitching techniques to create 2 panoramas. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would get you a full 360 deg. 3d pano. Using 50mm equivalent 'normal' lenses it would take around 36 cameras.

[PalmerTech]

Kind of like this?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-deg ... video.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[skrubol]

Yes, kind of. Although after looking at that I realized my math was off and the simplicity I stated as far as the image processing was wrong. I failed to take into account the distance between the different angled camera lenses.

[cybereality]

Yeah, I saw that crazy camera earlier today. Might be just what we need.

[mAchiNE]

Correct me if I am wrong but because its a panoramic view couldn't you just adapt the viewing software to show you two parts of the same image separated horizontally to achieve 3D view on this type of photo? That lens simply uses a Mirror to do the same thing as multiple lens setups do with only one lens.
I know the lens angles outwards not parallel but I think if you kept the separation low you might still get a 3D effect from it.

[skrubol]

That wouldn't work, showing a different section of a panorama to each eye would be just like cutting a standard photo in half and only looking at one half with each eye. You're seeing different parts of the picture rather than the same picture from different angles.

[mAchiNE]

Skrubol you may be right.
Now that I think about it more all shots are from the same view point but at different angles so the convergence would be wrong you would end up with some sort of reverse looking stereo. But I think a mirror lens like that can be made for stereo capture it would have to be much bigger with small flat sections parallel at average IPD and would look more like a disco ball, although the vertical FOV would be a lot lower, the bigger the lens the more continious the image would be (because the more stereopair mirriors there would be capturing more angles) although this kind of single lens capture does distort the image a lot so you would probably need to un distort the images in software. A "multiple camera dome" type set up is still goning to be better.

[skrubol]

Hmm, Disco ball type mirror pairs could work. I'm thinking what a traditional 5-point Christmas star looks like, but with more sides.. Might have to tweak the geometry a bit to get convergence, but it could work. You're correct that a lot of processing would be required to make a seamless pano, but a faceted mirror could work to get enough image data for a decent approximation of a stereopano.