Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by _mulder_ 4491 days ago
I imagine the 3D would be fairly limited because the lenses are so close together. Would this be the case?
5 comments

This article doesn't mention much about 3D being a feature of this particular implementation. It sounds like it uses 3D for other benefits -- quicker autofocus, augmented reality, blurred backgrounds.

But as far as taking photos in 3D, that doesn't sound like the main (or even a) drive behind this.

The Evo 3D camera did pretty well when I tried it and the lenses aren't that far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Evo_3D

This new crop of phones doesn't save 3D images you can view on a 3D screen like the Evo 3D, though. It just uses the depth information for other things like blurring backgrounds and Kinect like computer vision.

The photo I saw the other day appeared to show lenses at the top and bottom of a smartphone. That allows them to be as far apart as your eyes are.
Yes, the Optimus 3D's 3D photos are pretty meh...
Cats' heads are smaller than ours, so I guess their eyes are closer together than ours. Their agility doesn't seem to be hindered by poor 3D vision.
We use way more information than just binocular disparity to construct our stereopsis. Since we extensive experience in our environment, we can use relative sizes of known objects, atmospheric blurring, occlusions, we can move our head and see the apparent shifts of objects, etc. The triangulation provided by our two eyes is not the most powerful of our methods to estimate depth.

These techniques are very hard to reproduce, however. Artificial 3D sensors lean pretty heavily on some sort of triangulation, because it can be formulated mathematically.

Perhaps they have a stronger Monocular Depth Cues part of the brain to make up for it