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

Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

intelrealsense.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#51

Post by gtirloni »

nindalf wrote: post #35
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it made us look elsewhere, as it does not seem like Intel is serious about developing/maintaining this product line Everyone has to find out eventually, that unless „product line“ is high-margin CPUs, Intel will cancel it sooner or later. I hope they aren’t stupid enough to do that with their GPUs (again).

Yep, Intel isn't serious about any product. People criticise Google for killing products, but Intel has reached a point where their continued existence is threatened by a lack of faith in their ability to continue products without killing them. What lunatic would build on their fab when TSMC exists? And if no one is going to use Intel fabs, then what hope does Intel have to be competitive long term?

At least most of Google abandoned projects are software. With Intel, you may be left with a piece of unsupported junk.

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#52

Post by momoschili »

whilenot-dev wrote: post #8
krasin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RealSense is a golden standard in Robotics research. ALOHA, which was one of the first swallows of the new AI+Robotics wave, was enabled by RealSense: https://aloha-2.github.io/

I'm confused, didn't Intel wind down the RealSense business 2021?[0] [0]: https://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/intel-says-i...

only the non-stereo realsense was killed. The stereo device was kept along for the ride

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#53

Post by phkahler »

zamadatix wrote: post #45
phkahler wrote: post #40

Range? On the front page is says 60cm to 6m and on the other page is says 0.2m to 2m. That's a 3x difference in the same spec, which is it?

Can you clarify which other page?

Near the top of the "Learn More" page:

https://www.intelrealsense.com/depth-module-d421/

Right under the top picture of the module it says "Recommended range 0.2 to 2m" meanwhile on the main page linked from HN is says "Ideal Range 60cm to 6m"

So 60cm on the front, but one click away on "Learn More" link, it drops by a factor of 3.

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#54

Post by omershapira »

I really have to hand it to these companies for making these sensors. They're thin margin, not a sectorial revenue driver, but still fundamental to the industry in a "who else is going to do it?" sort of way.

Every once in a while an exec will see the first part of the sentence above as a cost optimization opportunity and will set this industry back by years. This is what happened to most Kinects and previous Realsense cameras. And yet they keep coming back, precisely because they are terrible standalone businesses.

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#55

Post by gertlex »

grumbelbart2 wrote: post #32
gertlex wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There certainly hasn't been a consumer use case for these. But the RealSense line are quite commonly seen on a wide variety of robots (maybe specifically those from US-based start-ups) over the past 8 years or so, at least from what I've seen.

There are some use-cases that Apple pioneered. After they bought Primesense, who made the first Kinect using quite interesting structured IR laser light points and a single camera to get depth, Apple shrank that technology. It is now the core of FaceID where it does a 3D scan of your face. On the backside of iPhones, Apple is using LIDAR to estimate depth, allowing improved computational photography. Unfortunately it…

Ahh yeah! That's true. I was solely thinking the realsense cameras and their general form factor not having consumer use.

Relatedly: A decade ago, where I worked, and around the time Primesense was getting bought (I think, without double checking), we bought about 250 Primesense cameras so we could build a bunch of robots with them before having to change what camera was used.

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#56

Post by osnium123 »

nindalf wrote: post #35
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it made us look elsewhere, as it does not seem like Intel is serious about developing/maintaining this product line Everyone has to find out eventually, that unless „product line“ is high-margin CPUs, Intel will cancel it sooner or later. I hope they aren’t stupid enough to do that with their GPUs (again).

Yep, Intel isn't serious about any product. People criticise Google for killing products, but Intel has reached a point where their continued existence is threatened by a lack of faith in their ability to continue products without killing them. What lunatic would build on their fab when TSMC exists? And if no one is going to use Intel fabs, then what hope does Intel have to be competitive long term?

Maybe if the fabs get spun off, they won’t have the luxury of cancelling foundry deals.

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#57

Post by gertlex »

IshKebab wrote: post #16

I thought Intel shut down Realsense years ago. It turns out they didn't exactly, and the D421 module is actually a new product. Apparently they're going to spin it out. https://www.therobotreport.com/intel-spins-out-realsense-as-... $80 is a bargain for that module. I hope they sell them in fewer than 10s though...

You're not really misremembering. There was a bunch of drama around a press release or something, with various robotics companies having to reach out to their Intel contacts to get a better picture of what was going on. The press release or whatever derived headline was indeed not quite accurate...

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#58

Post by gertlex »

aomix wrote: post #48

We had serious reliability issues with USB versions that were only solved by switching to the D457 model with GSML connectors. Those needed other hardware vendors to build in support for it to work but once that was all done we never had an issue again. Happy times going from alerts daily of the camera dropping out to alerts never.

We managed to get pretty solid reliability with the USB C versions, to the point where I can't remember the last time we had a flaky robot due to this. I can't remember specifics of what we fixed (I think it was a combination of screw-in connectors at he camera, good cables, and kernel stuff). But yes... pain until then.

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#59

Post by whycome »

londons_explore wrote: post #34

Anytime you see something cool with a global shutter (like this does), the next gen of the same thing will use a rolling shutter and be half or less the price. Global shutter makes the math of everything easier, and is therefore good for getting a product out the door quicker, but rolling shutter cameras are cheaper and perform better.

Unless you’re moving fast, then a rolling shutter introduces that “slant” effect for captured imagery.

Re: Intel RealSense Stereo Depth Cameras

#60

Post by knowitnone »

nirav72 wrote: post #41
Symmetry wrote: post #39

Long, long ago the the Kinect came out and it was able to provide 3D imaging for robotics companies at an incredibly good pricepoint compared to everything that came before it. Then the company that made it created a version with just the 3D sensor and that was even better. But then Apple bought them for what would later become face unlock. Apple wasn't interested in being a component supplier so they discontinued se…

I had both the original Kinect (xbox 360) and then Xbox One Kinect. I found that I was able to find a lot more libraries and projects around the original Kinect. Sadly, I misplaced the original 360 Kinect when I moved to a new house and have never been able to find it. I still have the xbox one Kinect. But it seems that there isn't lot of of development done around it. Even though it had more sensors and had better i…

I've bought some from Goodwill and yardsales for a couple of dollars
Post reply on HN