Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Best RealSense replacements?

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#41

Post by paulkrush »

lockless wrote: post #38

I have been using Intel‘s D-435i for 6D object Pose estimation and i have to say i was not really happy with the quality of the retrieved depth-frames. The Depth images are very noisy, flat surfaces appear heavily wavy thus making it difficult to apply it for tasks that demand a relatively exact 3D representation of the surrounding Space, which is a problem that has been mentioned in a few issues by several other cli…

I second the L515 as it's much cleaner then the D435(if you need this). That being said the L515 is not like scanning LiDAR, but it's great tool at the price point.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#42

Post by krasin »

r2_pilot wrote: post #33

I've really enjoyed using Luxonis's OAK-D camera. First Kickstarter I've gotten, and does what they said it would. They have a very active Discord channel as well.

Sounds interesting, thanks for sharing.

How is the quality compared to RealSense? Do I understand correctly that OAK-D camera requires two cables (USB-C and barrel jack power), not just one?

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#43

Post by walterbell »

bsenftner wrote: post #16
helge9210 wrote: post #5

I haven't used these specific cameras, but enjoyed working with the company as client. https://en.ids-imaging.com/ensenso-stereo-3d-camera.html

Like you, I have used other cameras from this company, and I'd say they know what they are doing. Probably worth checking out.

Any idea on retail pricing, e.g. is there a comparable model to RealSense? There's no obvious "Buy" button on the site.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#44

Post by r2_pilot »

krasin wrote: post #42
r2_pilot wrote: post #33

I've really enjoyed using Luxonis's OAK-D camera. First Kickstarter I've gotten, and does what they said it would. They have a very active Discord channel as well.

Sounds interesting, thanks for sharing. How is the quality compared to RealSense? Do I understand correctly that OAK-D camera requires two cables (USB-C and barrel jack power), not just one?

I can't directly compare quality as I've not used Realsense devices, but the main difference is that the OAK-D uses stereoscopy without IR. I've been playing with it in various light conditions and it's surprisingly robust in low light as long as features are visible in both cameras. It only requires 1 USB-C cable if you're using it over USB3(i.e. a device that can source >1A iirc). I use it with a Jetson Nano(albeit not to its full capacity-yet) with just the USB.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#46

Post by dbcurtis »

paulkrush wrote: post #37
spieswl wrote: post #28

Incoming hearsay, but I've heard conflicting things from RealSense integrators on what Intel is actually doing with this product over the longer term. Someone mentioned that ongoing R&D is being shuttered, but the depth camera product would still be available for purchase for a while. It would be nice to get some more clarity on what's actually happening.

This kind of makes sense as bigger customers would have to have some sort of availability contract. I guess we just have to wait for statements. Realsense cameras that are not being developed, but promised to be available for purchase for 5-10 years might still be better than anything else out there, or at least to bridge us through the chipageddon gap. Does Realsense see the threat of 3D image sensors/solid state/fl…

Intel is notorious for not giving reasonable EOL notices nor last-buy opportunities. I don’t trust them as a supplier. I would not make the assumption that customers were treated well. Until I hear from my contacts, I assume nothing. (Source: worked at Intel for 11 years. Later worked at customers that got gored by this practice a couple of times.)

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#47

Post by gary_0 »

fxtentacle wrote: post #32
onedognight wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way this is a replacement for the RealSense depth cameras. These are USB, bus powered, factory calibrated, cameras doing the block matching in an ASIC. Often with an IR projector to help the matching. This like saying, oh well, I can’t find a GPU, so I’ll just compile Mesa for the CPU and my product will be fine.

Put an NVIDIA Jetson Nano in between and you also have hardware matching. IR projector is $19: https://www2.mouser.com/ProductDetail/ams/AQAA-20?qs=DRkmTr7...

That one only has 4700 dots, which severely limits the potential applications. The one in the iPhone face scanner has 30,000 dots. (Last time I looked, it was very hard to source IR projectors that you could use to make a reasonably accurate depth camera.)

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#48

Post by grawp »

Is there some GPU or FPGA opensource implementation of depth camera comparable to RealSense in quality of its output?

I've seen many projects that call themself opensource while utilizing RealSense and I always scream internally how can they call themself opensource when absolute most of the work is being done by nongeneric and essential/irreplacable piece of proprietary technology.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#49

Post by fxtentacle »

WJW wrote: post #40
fxtentacle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put an NVIDIA Jetson Nano in between and you also have hardware matching. IR projector is $19: https://www2.mouser.com/ProductDetail/ams/AQAA-20?qs=DRkmTr7...

This seems a little bit like claiming that while you can't deliver an aircraft carrier right now, you do have several canoes available and since they both float it's basically the same thing.

Yes and no. Of course, a homemade module like this will be way less polished than a RealSense camera. But on the other hand, it'll be more flexible and possibly tailored to your problem. So a homemade module might actually have better performance.
Post reply on HN