The second generation of the projection tech does color: http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/dynaflashv2/index-e.htm...
And they can now do the tracking without the infrared paint: http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/MIDAS/index-e.html
And they can now do the tracking without the infrared paint: http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/MIDAS/index-e.html
In 1998 I was hired on a contract to do a Fashion Show, where I developed graffix to project onto models who were on the catwalk in this theater....
Basically it was a music + visuals show where the models would walk down the catwalk and present themselves....
Guess what tool I had available to me to make this happen...
FUCKING POWERPOINT
I F5'd that bitch and projected a slide per model on a projector borrowed from work with me manually changing slides with --> for each model....
I guess Disney Imagenineering dept. would love to do some cools things with this. Or perhaps they already have this capability?
These are the kind of things were I'd like to have a commercial version already!
Edit: Also, the url in the original post is from 2016! wow!
(@dang maybe add (2016) to the title?)
I'm having a little trouble visualizing how this non-rigid projection mapping could get applied in a practical way in the parks today, mostly because it seems like it has a fairly small "active" area (determined by your projector and sensor resolution, essentially). I could imagine this being used in a parade or stage show, for example, but this system seems like it would be pretty restrictive as to where the performers could move and remain in the projection space.
Of course, I'm no expert but throw a few million dollars into this and you can probably come up with some neat stuff even if the projection space is small-ish for now.
Seems an unnecessarily nasty way to refer to what I guess is earlier less advanced work.
poor (adjective): of a low or inferior standard or quality.
>Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'.
Kinder towards what? Is a multinational like Disney sensitive or is the technology sensitive to the choice of words criticising it? Or will the researchers take offense to their technology, which is objectively inferior, being described as "poor"?
We're stretching this too thin, inventing issues where there are none...
I'm saying it's nothing special to call it poor.
We say 10x harsher things everyday in HN for frameworks, languages, etc. Heck, check any thread about Apple products. Don't real people work on those?
Plus, ever read art criticism, or restaurant criticism, or political critiques even in the most respected newspapers? "Poor" is the least harsh of the terms they use. And those are also real people they level those things at...
It really does not. You’re inventing things to be offended by. It simply means it is low quality version of the same thing, which it very much is.
In retrospect, Ford’s first cars were a poor version of their 2019 ones. Doesn’t in any way diminish the accomplishments of the past.
Even the definition used here (taken from Google) indicates so, if it weren’t truncated:
poor (adjective) worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality.
The list of synonyms is even more telling about it’s real meaning: shoddy, bad, deficient, defective, lamentable, deplorable, awful, etc.
These are not words I’d use to describe the technology, having seen it first-hand. The technology is not worse than usual and I really don’t see how it’s worse than expected or is otherwise undesirable. It’s out there and being enjoyed by people.
Hope it doesn't easily scale out to larger spaces and crowds, or the current tech industry would soon have public spaces filled with ads projected on peoples belongings.
Edit: discard this comment, I misread the parent comment.
They literally could have done this for 100+ years.
They do not.
Do you see how what you say makes no sense other than a fear of technology?
You've seen projectors, you've seen how they don't just project them anywhere, it's hard to see how one makes this leap.
What they do not seem to be able to do without IR markers is project a diffuse texture to an object so that it would stick properly. See the one example with a non-uniform texture, where the fingers of a hand are fanned out - the texture warps noticeably.
Could you imagine using something like this for reviewing finish options for a product with zero turnaround time?