Re: RGBD and just D cameras

Hi Anssi,

thanks for the reply 8)


>> I'll get feedback and input from people interested and then make a proposal based on that.
> It’d be great if you could share the feedback with the group.

I'd be interested to hear Ningxin's thoughts on this...but I believe the 
input can simplistically be broken into 3 groups.

- depth only (equiv to a single channel grayscale video track)
- rgbd (equiv to standard video track with an extra channel)
- metadata (e.g. OpenNI type data after post-processing/analysis)

This obviously excludes camera intrinsics which is a whole other 
discussion that still needs to be had at some point and is beyond the 
current constraints/capabilities discussions.

This also excludes the discussion about programmatically generated 
localstreams/tracks which is also a separate thread.

I think we only really need to focus on the first two as the third is 
probably most easily delivered via WebSockets and DataChannels e.g. 
http://js.leapmotion.com/tutorials/creatingConnection and 
https://github.com/buildar/awe_kinect


>> >If anyone is interested in this they can contact me off the list.
> Ningxin who just joined the DAP WG and this Task Force (welcome!) is an expert with depth cameras. He is also a Chromium committer and will be experimenting with this feature in code. I’ll let Ningxin introduce the work he’s doing.

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing working demos and hearing more 
about Ningxin's work 8)

Happy to take this off list to work on the extension proposal unless 
people want this thread to continue here?

I also think we should provide Use Case updates for the Scenarios 
document too.
http://www.w3.org/TR/capture-scenarios/


> I’m happy to see more interest in support of this feature. Let’s work together to flesh out a proposal.

+1

roBman

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 18:38:24 UTC