- From: Rob Manson <roBman@buildAR.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:20:50 +1000
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Hi Cullen, I agree that "range" is probably a more accurate term and Range Imaging is sometimes used to describe all of these technologies. I also see what you mean about "bit depth" already being a commonly used term too. However, there are a couple of arguments for using "depth" instead. 1. The published research and the marketers of these devices have generally adopted the term "depth cameras". 2. In the volume based description of a coordinate system we commonly have the axes x,y,z. In images (<img>, ImageData, etc.) and videos (<video>) we currently use the properties of "width" and "height" for x and y axes. The natural language extension for this is "width, height and depth". 3. If we use the term "range" then when we talk about calibrated video and range streams we would shorten that to RGBR. This would make it difficult to just refer to the Red or the Range channel in shorthand. Just some thoughts to provide an alternative view. roBman On 20/06/14 10:46 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > Given how depth of image usually refers to the number of bits per pixel, I think "range" is a much better term than "depth" for these images (and aligns better with terminology of at least some of th existing users of these types of images. > > > On Jun 5, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> On 02 Jun 2014, at 20:24, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: >> >>> a group of people have been working on depth track extensions to >>> MediaStreams after a short discussion at last year's TPAC. >>> >>> Use cases and requirements are listed at [1], and there is an initial >>> Editor's draft available [2]. >>> >>> Our plan is to make this draft a deliverable of this TF (the formal >>> decision will be when making it a FPWD). Initial editors: Anssi >>> Kostiainen and Ningxin Hu. >> Thanks everyone who've contributed to the draft spec so far. And thanks to the Chairs for the heads-up. >> >> We’re currently looking at closing the open issues [3] and/or noting them in the spec [2], after which we'd be ready for an FPWD publication. We’d like to make the FPWD complete in terms of scope, but as usual, we do not expect FPWD to be perfect (otherwise, it would not be called a FPWD). >> >> All - please feel free to review the spec, discuss on this list, help us close the open issues, or open new issues at [3]. >> >> People who are wondering what this is all about, please see the YouTube recording [4] of the Ningxin’s demo. The demo runs in Chromium web browser which is patched with depth camera support. More details (demo source code, patch etc.) at [4]. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Anssi >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Media_Capture_Depth_Stream_Extension >> [2] https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-depth/ >> [3] https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-depth/issues >> [4] http://youtu.be/7GMkKGPgpx0 >> >>
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2014 21:19:59 UTC