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

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#51

Post by p_l »

PaulHoule wrote: post #19
dheera wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly you can train a neural network to separate the speaker on a video call from the background, so you just don't need a depth camera. These still look so fake, and they tend to blur out objects that you're trying to hold up in the video, that I actually created my own virtual camera that blurs progressively more over depths based on RealSense measured depth and looks far more realistic. https://github.com/dh…

They're not that good but people will tolerate poor quality.

For video conference calls, where it's mostly an extra bonus? Yes.

RealSense was used for industrial operations, I personally was looking into them for packing items in transport containers (specific to the factory involved). Poor quality of depth information would mean jams involving robot capable of goring through industrial enclosures, printers, and maintenance engineers.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#52

Post by naikrovek »

grawp wrote: post #48

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.

if it were possible to make a camera with a GPU or FPGA, there would probably be something, but it isn't. FPGAs and GPUs aren't (and can't be coerced to become) light sensors or structured light emitters.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#53

Post by CyberDildonics »

fxtentacle wrote: post #11

Your best bet is probably to order cheap IR or color industrial cameras and use stereo block matching. It's implemented in OpenCV and works okay-ish. For example, Basler dart USB3 cameras can be synchronized through the IO expension port. That said, maybe it's time for someone to produce a good replacement. In my opinion, the RealSense was always quite pricey when compared with what it could do, especially now that w…

That's like saying instead of riding in a car, you are going to get a wheelbarrow and be pulled by an even bigger car. It's absurd to say that is a replacement.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#55

Post by fxtentacle »

gary_0 wrote: post #47
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...

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.)

It has about 5500 dots so it should be similar to the projector inside a RealSense D435.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#56

Post by mncharity »

For a T265 tracking camera replacement, visual pose and odometry, perhaps the Zed mini? This paper[1] suggests comparable accuracy. I've not used it. However, the Zed computation is software-sdk side, not integrated.

Hmm, it looks like Structure is now supporting linux?

[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2218-6581/9/3/56/htm

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#57

Post by fxtentacle »

naikrovek wrote: post #52
grawp wrote: post #48

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.

if it were possible to make a camera with a GPU or FPGA, there would probably be something, but it isn't. FPGAs and GPUs aren't (and can't be coerced to become) light sensors or structured light emitters.

Well you probably could get pretty far with 2 hardware synchronized IR cameras, a IR projector, and a FPGA. But the thing is, most hobbyists will just use two color cameras and AI instead.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#58

Post by fxtentacle »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #53
fxtentacle wrote: post #11

Your best bet is probably to order cheap IR or color industrial cameras and use stereo block matching. It's implemented in OpenCV and works okay-ish. For example, Basler dart USB3 cameras can be synchronized through the IO expension port. That said, maybe it's time for someone to produce a good replacement. In my opinion, the RealSense was always quite pricey when compared with what it could do, especially now that w…

That's like saying instead of riding in a car, you are going to get a wheelbarrow and be pulled by an even bigger car. It's absurd to say that is a replacement.

Not quite. It's like instead of buying a car, you buy wheels and a frame and do a car mechanic training. With a bit of effort and skill, you'll end up with a car, but it won't look like a factory-produced car.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#59

Post by CyberDildonics »

fxtentacle wrote: post #58
CyberDildonics wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying instead of riding in a car, you are going to get a wheelbarrow and be pulled by an even bigger car. It's absurd to say that is a replacement.

Not quite. It's like instead of buying a car, you buy wheels and a frame and do a car mechanic training. With a bit of effort and skill, you'll end up with a car, but it won't look like a factory-produced car.

There is no universe where what you described ends up being similar to an integrated product with a dedicated ASIC. What you are saying is a stab in the dark that isn't backed up by real results.

Re: Best RealSense replacements?

#60

Post by c_o_n_v_e_x »

dbcurtis wrote: post #46
paulkrush wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

+1. I got left high and dry when Intel got rid of the Edison.
Post reply on HN