Can you tell me with in the volume of the capture stage, how high is the maximum capture from the floor, or max +y. Thanks in advance.
Will
How high?
Re: How high?
That would partly depend on the mounting placement of the cameras, but if they are mounted at 10ft+, I would think 8ft, would not be unreasonable, but I will check with the development team to verify........
Re: How high?
OK, I have a better answer...
In a 10' * 10' tracking volume; you would be able to track a 6' person, on the edge of the capture volume. As you got towards the middle the upper height would increase a bit. This is based on a camera setup of upper cameras at approx. 10' in height, pointing towards the center of the capture volume. The usable vertical height could be adjusted by angling the cameras a little more upwards, as well as by increasing the height that they are mounted at.
In a 10' * 10' tracking volume; you would be able to track a 6' person, on the edge of the capture volume. As you got towards the middle the upper height would increase a bit. This is based on a camera setup of upper cameras at approx. 10' in height, pointing towards the center of the capture volume. The usable vertical height could be adjusted by angling the cameras a little more upwards, as well as by increasing the height that they are mounted at.
Re: How high?
When you say upper cameras I assume you are dealing with more than 6 cameras?? I am thinking of hanging/jumping type motions to be captured. If the cameras numbers are increased do I gain more verticle space..if I angle some cameras up?
Will
Will
Re: How high?
Its best to think of this as a puzzle rather than a "what can it do" scenario. Increasing the number of cameras will increase the overall space you can cover. Changing the lenses on the cameras will change the way they cover space. Its up to you to then come up with good placements that cover the space with reasonable resolution, angular coverage and redundancy.
For example, its relatively easy to rearrange your cameras to cover a more vertical volume. However, you may find that you are giving up other aspects of your volume to accomplish it, such as the length/width, or the redundancy (and hence ability to track accurately). You may find that giving up those aspects is not a problem, or you may find that you are asking too much of 6 cameras depending on your usage scenario. Capturing someone hanging from a set of rings might be fine, as you usually don't swing on rings. But capturing someone on a trapeze would likely not be possible as even a little swinging would likely put them outside your volume. You would need more cameras to deal with the trapeze.
-brad
For example, its relatively easy to rearrange your cameras to cover a more vertical volume. However, you may find that you are giving up other aspects of your volume to accomplish it, such as the length/width, or the redundancy (and hence ability to track accurately). You may find that giving up those aspects is not a problem, or you may find that you are asking too much of 6 cameras depending on your usage scenario. Capturing someone hanging from a set of rings might be fine, as you usually don't swing on rings. But capturing someone on a trapeze would likely not be possible as even a little swinging would likely put them outside your volume. You would need more cameras to deal with the trapeze.
-brad
Re: How high?
Brad,
Thanks for the info. I am a hobbiest with little to no capture experience, trying to understand the fundamentals of this system. I have worked with motionbuilder and captured files. My questions are just to test the limitations so when i order i know what to expect. Also a bit more information on lenses thier affects more cameras would be helpful.
thanks
will
Thanks for the info. I am a hobbiest with little to no capture experience, trying to understand the fundamentals of this system. I have worked with motionbuilder and captured files. My questions are just to test the limitations so when i order i know what to expect. Also a bit more information on lenses thier affects more cameras would be helpful.
thanks
will
Re: How high?
lensing is something I've been experimenting with lately. I did something that I believe to be unsupported. Jim kinda shudders at it I think 
So I don't recommend it.
I replaced the lenses that came on the cameras with others from the NP store and then re-back focused them.
I believe those lenses are meant to be applied at the factory and fused rather than user replaceable.
So, one of my cameras has a 60 degree FOV and another has a 90 degree FOV.
I've been experimenting with these cameras.
So far, I've found the 90 degree camera to be pushing it a bit too far. you get more coverage from the camera, but the distance you can track a marker becomes a little too short. Also, while the calibration does seem to do a good job of determining its lense distortion characteristics, its sort of a known fact that no lense distortion model is truly accurate enough to hit it just right. The 90 introduces so much distortion, I'm pretty sure there is added inaccuracy involved.
The 60 degree lense has similar issues, but I believe it to be a reasonable compromise. It does shorten the distance you can see a marker by about 3 or 4 feet in my early experimentation. However, in smaller volumes, it allows the camera to be much closer to the subject and still see him/her. It does have visible distortion, but far less than the 90.
I'm going to get a full set of 60s for all my cameras and test further. I'm also going to augment my light sources for further testing. However, I don't think anyone else should be going with my findings just yet, as I'm not done testing and I can't really give authoritative answers as to the practical limitations of these techniques just yet. I would default to NP's thoughts on proper lensing etc.
The theory, is rather simple. a wider FOV allows the camera to see more of its surroundings. However, the resolution stays the same, so an individual pixel represents more physical space with a wider lense than with a narrower lense. So, while you can cover space easier, you are covering it at a lower resolution.
When covering small spaces, this can be very useful, as it allows a subject to be closer to a camera and still be in full view. If you had a larger space to work with, you could always pull cameras back to allow the subject to be full frame. That is not always an option however depending on your space.
I know from talking to Jim, that he prefers the 45s that come on the cameras due to their extremely low distortion, and their ability to see a marker at a longer distance than other lenses. Their FOV however, is narrower than I'd ideally like. So I'm seeing how much wider I can get without losing something important that I can't get back another way. The worst case scenario is as you indicated at first however. If no setup or lense change can help, you can always get more cameras to get more coverage. It may turn out that way in the end.
So I don't recommend it.I replaced the lenses that came on the cameras with others from the NP store and then re-back focused them.
I believe those lenses are meant to be applied at the factory and fused rather than user replaceable.
So, one of my cameras has a 60 degree FOV and another has a 90 degree FOV.
I've been experimenting with these cameras.
So far, I've found the 90 degree camera to be pushing it a bit too far. you get more coverage from the camera, but the distance you can track a marker becomes a little too short. Also, while the calibration does seem to do a good job of determining its lense distortion characteristics, its sort of a known fact that no lense distortion model is truly accurate enough to hit it just right. The 90 introduces so much distortion, I'm pretty sure there is added inaccuracy involved.
The 60 degree lense has similar issues, but I believe it to be a reasonable compromise. It does shorten the distance you can see a marker by about 3 or 4 feet in my early experimentation. However, in smaller volumes, it allows the camera to be much closer to the subject and still see him/her. It does have visible distortion, but far less than the 90.
I'm going to get a full set of 60s for all my cameras and test further. I'm also going to augment my light sources for further testing. However, I don't think anyone else should be going with my findings just yet, as I'm not done testing and I can't really give authoritative answers as to the practical limitations of these techniques just yet. I would default to NP's thoughts on proper lensing etc.
The theory, is rather simple. a wider FOV allows the camera to see more of its surroundings. However, the resolution stays the same, so an individual pixel represents more physical space with a wider lense than with a narrower lense. So, while you can cover space easier, you are covering it at a lower resolution.
When covering small spaces, this can be very useful, as it allows a subject to be closer to a camera and still be in full view. If you had a larger space to work with, you could always pull cameras back to allow the subject to be full frame. That is not always an option however depending on your space.
I know from talking to Jim, that he prefers the 45s that come on the cameras due to their extremely low distortion, and their ability to see a marker at a longer distance than other lenses. Their FOV however, is narrower than I'd ideally like. So I'm seeing how much wider I can get without losing something important that I can't get back another way. The worst case scenario is as you indicated at first however. If no setup or lense change can help, you can always get more cameras to get more coverage. It may turn out that way in the end.
Re: How high?
Thanks Brad for all that info! Just what I was looking for in an explanation. BTW Today is Dec. 4th are you shipping The Foundation package yet..i remember seeing a release date of Dec 3rd
Thanks
Will
Thanks
Will
Re: How high?
Yes, we have started shipping units, as of yesterday.