LetsGoOutside 0 #101 April 20, 2010 QuoteHow about 2 (or more) separate cameramen with recording GPS's to create a synthetic aperture. The cameras need to be looking the *exact* same direction with the *exact* same orientation. Think of looking straight forward with your eyes. Compare that with crossing your eyes. When you look straight forward, you get two slightly different variations on the same image that you can make sense of to create depth, because pieces of each image overlap. When you cross your eyes, it's just two very different images that you can't make sense out of. The logic to writing a program that can create depth from two images is very close to what our brains do. You need to find objects in each image and then see how much they overlap horizontally. That amount of overlap gives your brain (or the program) the info it needs to calculate distance (relative to other objects in view). The images have to be very, very similar to perform depth calculations. Unfortunately, cameras aren't as high resolution as our eyeballs and it's tough to write software as smart as our brains, so trying to accurately judge depths across wide spans or great distances is basically not an option with current technology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #102 April 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteHow about 2 (or more) separate cameramen with recording GPS's to create a synthetic aperture. The cameras need to be looking the *exact* same direction with the *exact* same orientation. . No. Think tomography. The cameras need to be looking from different directions. The math is very well established (I have even written some iterative reconstruction software myself for analyzing X-ray data). All you need to know is where the cameras are at any instant (hence the need for the recording GPS)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LetsGoOutside 0 #103 April 21, 2010 This is getting way off track. If tomography was even applicable for this application, and if you did film from two angles with GPS on the flyers -- it'd be nearly impossible to calibrate time, GPS, and images in the video to result in useful data. For exceptionally shaped formations, make an exception and do it by hand. For anything that has a pattern, we can feed it to a computer. Baby steps. Start with formations on one level with basic patterns (where triangles can be formed between jumpers), and then let's move on from there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #104 April 22, 2010 Quote This is getting way off track. If tomography was even applicable for this application, and if you did film from two angles with GPS on the flyers -- it'd be nearly impossible to calibrate time, GPS, and images in the video to result in useful data. For exceptionally shaped formations, make an exception and do it by hand. For anything that has a pattern, we can feed it to a computer. Baby steps. Start with formations on one level with basic patterns (where triangles can be formed between jumpers), and then let's move on from there. I was responding to your comment that you would not trust your method for 3-d formations. Quote You can do some cool illusions with it, but it's not something I would trust to judge 3D formations. A tomographic method would be just fine for 3-d formations. So it's more difficult ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birdman_Mike 0 #105 April 22, 2010 John, Do you have some technical papers that describe the tomographic method that you described? Thanks, Purple Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #106 April 22, 2010 QuoteJohn, Do you have some technical papers that describe the tomographic method that you described? Thanks, Purple Mike I expect I could dig some out. It's been a while.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LetsGoOutside 0 #107 April 22, 2010 Quote A tomographic method would be just fine for 3-d formations. So it's more difficult Go for it. It's all you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperGirl 0 #108 January 22, 2011 hey TomTom, check it out! 9way base diamond, practice jumps from day 1 of the vertical challenge (25 edition) edited cause I forgot acknowledgements: thanks to Kallend for doing all the work on his computer and thanks to Scotty for the picture Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #109 January 22, 2011 Quote hey TomTom, check it out! 9way base diamond, practice jumps from day 1 of the vertical challenge (25 edition) Ahem - aren't you missing an acknowledgement?Congratulations on a nice achievement. Now, if only the weather could cooperate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tvandijck 0 #110 January 26, 2011 Quotehey TomTom, check it out! 9way base diamond, practice jumps from day 1 of the vertical challenge (25 edition) edited cause I forgot acknowledgements: thanks to Kallend for doing all the work on his computer and thanks to Scotty for the picture looks awesome... Jarno was asking me to add 'support' for these rear-view flocks as well, if anyone has ideas for that... I might bring a newer version to FnD7 if people have any additional requests... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #111 January 26, 2011 how difficult would an auto contrast/pickpoint be to generate, or even a best-guess on head point to speed the process? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
helxen 0 #112 August 29, 2011 Site seems to be down. Could anyone email me the program to [email protected] if you have downloaded it. It will be greatly appreciated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites