Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Releases Photosynth

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the look-at-me-i'm-flying dept.

Graphics 247

Spy Hunter writes "Photosynth has graduated from a 'tech preview' to a complete service. Now you can upload your own photos and have them automatically transformed into a 'synth': a 3D fly-through reconstruction of your home, your vacation, or anything else you can take pictures of. Learn more about Photosynth at the official blog, see what Walt Mossberg has to say about it, or just go try it out right now." According to Mossberg, Photosynth works on PCs using IE or Firefox, but not yet on Macs. We've been discussing Photosynth since its introduction.

cancel ×

247 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

BOOO MICROSOFT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24706617)

We hate microsoft. Please slashdot tell me more what to think.

Re:BOOO MICROSOFT (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24708251)

Please climb to the top of the nearest office building and think you're a bird.

By pc... (2, Insightful)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 6 years ago | (#24706621)

Does he mean it will also run on linux? I doubt it...

Sounds ... cheesy...

Re:By pc... (4, Informative)

the_humeister (922869) | about 6 years ago | (#24706673)

It probably won't without WINE since you're directed to download and run an .exe file for viewing and creating your own.

Re:By pc... (5, Funny)

dedazo (737510) | about 6 years ago | (#24706777)

Sounds ... cheesy...

Maybe you'll need some WINE with that.

Re:By pc... PhotoSynth and WINE... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 6 years ago | (#24708055)

What an OxyMor...

Re:By pc... (3, Informative)

logfish (1245392) | about 6 years ago | (#24707119)

I havn't seen anything, as soon as I click somewhere I get to read this:

Operating System: Only Windows XP (SP2 or SP3) and Windows Vista are supported at this time. Running Windows on a Mac? Photosynth runs under Boot Camp only. Parallels and other VM software cannot run the viewer.

So no Linux, probably not for a long time. Anyway, I can't see why things like this need to be a web service, so I'm waiting for the open-source variant.

Re:By pc... (1)

cp.tar (871488) | about 6 years ago | (#24708305)

Well, Wine is not a VM. So who knows, until someone tries.

Re:By pc... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707127)

Who cares if it runs on Linux. Here is the REAL question we want answered: Does it work on porn?

Re:By pc... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 6 years ago | (#24707263)

Yeah, medical schools need 3D trips inside the human body...

Ego (5, Interesting)

xaositects (786749) | about 6 years ago | (#24706637)

"Unfortunately, we're not cool enough to run on your OS yet."

Those zippy cool mac ads seemed to have hurt Microsoft's ego a little. maybe... maybe it's a ruse... a false modesty sort of thing...

Re:Ego (3, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | about 6 years ago | (#24706689)

Those zippy cool mac ads seemed to have hurt Microsoft's ego a little. maybe

A fact that has not gone unnoticed at Ubersoft [ubersoft.net] .

Re:Ego (3, Funny)

lozarythmic (472226) | about 6 years ago | (#24706805)

"Trust us, as soon as we have a Mac version ready, it will be up and available on our site."

They couldn't even be bothered to work out that i was running Linux....

**sigh**

Well, I s'pose Ubuntu will have a ways to go before it's as cool as Apple!

Re:Ego (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | about 6 years ago | (#24706913)

Please... I use Windows for games, Apple for media and Linux for hacking. Good luck playing your games and viewing your media. What can be cooler than that. ;)

Re:Ego (1)

Ragzouken (943900) | about 6 years ago | (#24708321)

If you can't work out how to view media on linux, well, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Ego (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707093)

Maybe if Ubuntu grows it's hair out and combs it over it's eyes, gets some tight clothes, stupid sleeve tattoos, starts worshiping Coheed and Cambria and embraces all things Emo they will be at least on the same playing field as Apple.

Re:Ego (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 6 years ago | (#24707193)

Wow, that's a bad comic.

Copy and paste three out of four, strange inexplicable layout (ok, a lot of comic characters are too close when they have a conversation, but people don't talk to each other from 20 feet away! In a background-less void, no less!), bad art.

Thanks for sharing.

Re:Ego (1)

wytcld (179112) | about 6 years ago | (#24706955)

Unfortunately, we're not cool enough to run on your OS yet. We really wish we had a version of Photosynth that worked cross platform, but for now it only runs on Windows.

Trust us, as soon as we have a Mac version ready, it will be up and available on our site.

Christ, they can't even do the standard browser ID string parsing ans see I'm running Linux? Fscking idiots.

Re:Ego (5, Informative)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 years ago | (#24707173)

Unfortunately, we're not cool enough to run on your OS yet. We really wish we had a version of Photosynth that worked cross platform, but for now it only runs on Windows.

Trust us, as soon as we have a Mac version ready, it will be up and available on our site.

Christ, they can't even do the standard browser ID string parsing ans see I'm running Linux? Fscking idiots.

You have been trolled by Microsoft. You have lost. Have a nice day.

Re:Ego (3, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#24707409)

For me, using Mac just since 2003 thought me something...

"Trust us, as soon as we have a Mac version ready, it will be up and available on our site."

That thing is a lie. They are the same company who abandoned working Silverlight for PPC just about a month ago. So, if you think they will ship Mac version soon and ignoring Linux, think again. They are at least openly telling you in a way that "don't even hope", they are plain lying to Mac users.

A true multiplatform thing like that product they offer can be coded in Trolltech Qt or Java (both with OpenGL) . Can you picture MS using Trolltech Qt or offering a "Java Webstart" tool? Use OpenGL?

Re:Ego (4, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | about 6 years ago | (#24707455)

They are the same company who abandoned working Silverlight for PPC just about a month ago.

So because they're not developing for obselete hardware that even _Apple_ probably won't release their next OS for, they'll never release a Mac version *at all* ?

Your logic is broken.

Re:Ego (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | about 6 years ago | (#24707715)

That's a fair point, but half the purpose of having something that can load up in a browser window is for cross-platform compatibility since the server (in this case, IIS) is doing the heavy lifting. Considering that the number photographers using Macs is incredibly disproportionate to normal Mac/PC ratios (probably 50%+ among serious photographers, vs under 10% for normal users), they almost certainly doomed the project to failure before it started by not having a standard, cross-platform implementation.

If you need platform-specific stuff, make it a standalone desktop app that talks to the site's webservices layer. At least with that, there's a reasonable enough explanation of why it's not (yet) cross-platform. I'd understand if it's not too useful in Curl, but any other browser should be able to handle it fine.

Re:Ego (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | about 6 years ago | (#24707917)

So just because apple probably won't support it in the near future, no one should support any apps for PPC?

Re:Ego (1)

falsified (638041) | about 6 years ago | (#24708357)

No, but those companies shouldn't be faulted for not doing so. If a manufacturer deems its own stuff obsolete, I'm inclined to believe it.

Re:Ego (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#24708265)

How many processors you have? I got 4 PPC G5s running on 4,5 GB of RAM. Thanks to Adobe, Flash 10 now uses all 4 of them in SMP fashion to cope with complex effects etc.

Adobe must be behind the times to spare such development time to "obsolete" hardware.

Apple WON'T release Snow Leopard for PowerPC because of a basic reason: There is no speed advantage of pure 64bit code/kernel on PPC64bit hardware because PPC was designed with 64bit in mind from the start. There are no "extra registers" and so on. Even funnier, same code may run SLOWER if it is pure 64bit on PPC64 because of design.

Another reason? The idea of GPU computing is way more advanced on x86 World, not PPC. They won't spare their development time to port those massive libraries to PPC.

There is no Silverlight 2 for for PPC also means they don't plan to release XBox 360, PS3 support in near future. They aren't PPC but they are not so distant cousins of my "obsolete" hardware.

Another reason could be, Silverlight is a FLOP on OS X, nobody cares about it. Check versiontracker.com numbers
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/31433 [versiontracker.com] ---> Silverlight
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/11622 [versiontracker.com] ---> Adobe Flash 10 beta which any sane or non technical user knows they should stay away until "final" ships. It beats Silverlight by factor 3, the BETA version (previously alpha)

Re:Ego (2)

e2d2 (115622) | about 6 years ago | (#24708269)

How is that a lie? They said when they have it ready. If that never comes it's still true. :P

Re:Ego (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707779)

I get the same error and I *AM* running Windows...

It just happens to be Windows 2000.

Re:Ego (1)

norminator (784674) | about 6 years ago | (#24708057)

they can't even do the standard browser ID string parsing ans see I'm running Linux? Fscking idiots.

And acknowledge to the general masses that Linux exists? They realize that nerds know about Linux. They realize that friends of nerds have heard of it (but probably don't want to try it themselves). The last thing they want to do is to show that it's a 3-way race between Win/Mac/Lin. They want it to be Win vs. Mac on the desktop, so they can focus on one opponent. At least to the general masses.

Re:Ego (2, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | about 6 years ago | (#24707505)

Or perhaps it's a salient point because of the disproportionate usage of Macs among photographers - i.e. the target audience for this tool.

meh (1)

Neuropol (665537) | about 6 years ago | (#24706647)

sounds like another awesome waste of perfectly good bandwidth.

Re:meh (3, Funny)

AnswerIs42 (622520) | about 6 years ago | (#24706889)

NOTHING can replace Slashdot for that!

Photosynth (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24706649)

Here is a cool demo [youtube.com] of its capabilities.

Not actually 3D? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 6 years ago | (#24706719)

I haven't tried it, only skimmed the review, but I'm guessing this is like those panoramic bubble photos -- that is, if you have a bunch of pictures that fit together, it'll let you turn your head around.

What I kind of doubt is that it'll turn it into actual 3D, as in, polygons and such.

If it could, well, it would greatly simplify modeling in some places. Find a cool, old building that looks like you want your game to look, snap a few photos, and hey, presto, instant level design!

Re:Not actually 3D? (3, Informative)

somersault (912633) | about 6 years ago | (#24706799)

It does make them 3D (I remember seeing the video of the first demo last year I think it was). But it's not quite precise enough to be used for level design, or at least it wasn't back then. Still very cool though :)

Re:Not actually 3D? (2, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | about 6 years ago | (#24708271)

I could only see the one Flash demo which runs on their homepage but no other views work without Windows. Having seen that, it looks like they took existing techniques for stitching together pictures and added a dynamic capability to that. Cool but not really a brand new concept. Photo stitching software has been around for 10 or more years.

So they get 5 points for taking existing tech, making it look like a new web technology, and create another Windows-only technology in todays mix of browsers and computing devices. yawn.

LoB

Re:Not actually 3D? (5, Informative)

slim (1652) | about 6 years ago | (#24707131)

Here's what it does:

Just like a typical panorama stitcher, it identifies similar points, then runs an optimisation algorithm in order to line those points up.

Whereas a panorama stitcher warps the images to match a particular projection, and optimises the points in 2D, PhotoSynth optimises the points in 3D.

The viewer application then lets you view the collection of photographs, as if they were hanging in 3D space -- in the right part of space -- and fade in and out of view as you stand in the right place to see them.

For quite a small number of photos, you get a BIG cloud of control points, and the application lets you view that cloud and hides the photos. Often the result is quite a good 3D model - it's clear that if you were to draw vertices between them you'd get a decent wireframe of the subject.

However, the application does not attempt to turn your photos into a convincing fully rendered 3D model. Rather it provides a spacial model for navigating between photos. It's always explicit that you are looking at one photo, with some other photos, dimmer, around it.

I think that's quite nice - that it doesn't pretend to be more than it is.

The slideshow option is rather neat. It simply steps through all the photos, but the transition between them shows you how they are spacially related.

Re:Not actually 3D? (2, Funny)

iplayfast (166447) | about 6 years ago | (#24707229)

From the sounds of it, this might be the next MS killer app.

Re:Not actually 3D? (0, Redundant)

nschubach (922175) | about 6 years ago | (#24708063)

Why? I have yet to figure out who sits around on their PC/Surface/Etc and looks at pictures... Most people are happy with a simple slide show on their TV, digital picture frame or screen saver.

I just became an uncle again and my parents go stupid over pictures of the kid, yet they take the photo, put it in the PC and rarely ever look at it again until the screen saver kicks in. They don't sit around organizing and laying out the photos in any special way. At least not as much as these multi-touch and software packages make it out. You'd have to have no life or be a scrapbook-er to care about the photos like that, and [sarcasm]I'm sure we all know a billion people that scrapbook. [/sarcasm] I know one and I haven't talked to her in years.

Re:Not actually 3D? (0, Redundant)

Sir_Kurt (92864) | about 6 years ago | (#24707533)

You are so right about this. I was doing essentially the same thing in the 1980's while I was at MIT using a darkroom enlarger with a curved paper holder. I reasoned that if the distance from the focal plane of the enlarger lens matched the radius of curvature of my paper holder, the resulting print would be transformed from flat plane perspective to cylindrical perspective. I could snap a series of pictures by rotating a camera about the neutral axis of the lens, and then go into the darkroom and print using the curved paper holder. The resulting prints could then be taped together in a cylinder, and viewed as a seamless panorama.

I then built special cameras with curved film planes that did the same thing directly. Never bothered to update the technology for the digital age because "I been there done that"

But the concept is not new at all. No innovation here. Move along.

Kurt

Re:Not actually 3D? (1)

Sawbones (176430) | about 6 years ago | (#24707895)

It sounds like what you worked on was more what the parent post was referring to as conventional panorama stitching - where the camera is assumed to be in a fixed space - rather than generating a rough 3D concept based on many photos taken from many different positions. No disrespect to your work but it's not exactly the same thing.

Re:Not actually 3D? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707825)

> and the application lets you view that cloud and hides the photos

How do I hide the photos and only see the cloud ?

Re:Not actually 3D? (4, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | about 6 years ago | (#24707157)

Actually it doesn't do this at all. Time to at least give Microsoft some credit here, it does a pretty decent job of figuring out the 3D layout of everything and allows you to move around as much as you like.
It's obviously not EXACTLY right (Although I'd bet that with more pictures, it's more accurate) but it's close enough that you could make a pretty good "virtual tour" of just about anywhere with nothing more than a bog-standard digital camera.
It's definitely impressive.

Re:Not actually 3D? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707407)

I want to take pictures of one of those weird places that are made to fool with perception, like that park in Japan, to see if Photosynth has the same issues with perspective interpolation as we do. Could make for some funny pathing and 3D spacial arrangements. Not only that, but figuring out why it fails could lead to insights on how our spacial perception works. I've seen this type of thing done in 2D pictures, and usually the algorithms fail in much the same way as we do, but this is a 3D mapping of 2D objects, so who know what would happen.

Re:Not actually 3D? (1)

grumbel (592662) | about 6 years ago | (#24707909)

Perspective tricks only work from a single perspective, the moment you see the object from more then one view point you no longer have an illusion, but only a weird formed object. So it shouldn't cause much trouble here, since the software works with multiple photos.

Re:Not actually 3D? (2, Funny)

halcyon1234 (834388) | about 6 years ago | (#24708359)

I just uploaded a picture of Escher's Relativity [ucsd.edu] , and broke Microsoft.

TED Talk Demo of Photosynth (2, Informative)

MisterSquid (231834) | about 6 years ago | (#24707953)

The short version: it's pretty fucking cool [ted.com] .

The long version: The first time I saw the demo of Photosynth I was blown away. The second viewing wasn't as exciting which tells me that it's the concept of connecting 2D photos to a 3D model that's really amazing, a spatial way to navigate disconnected 2D data.

Hmm.. (1)

N!k0N (883435) | about 6 years ago | (#24706721)

Looks pretty interesting.. Would be nice to see something like this replace the quicktime/slideshow "tours" of hotels (or houses/apartments for sale/rent) that are currently available. Though it would probably need some help insofar as distances (i.e., the hallway is "narrower" the farther you get from the focal point of the camera). Though I'd assume that the devs thought this aspect through...

Re:Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24706757)

Would be nice to see something like this replace the quicktime/slideshow "tours" of hotels (or houses/apartments for sale/rent) that are currently available.

Ahh, so MS has finally caught up with Apple technology literally from 15 years ago.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

neokushan (932374) | about 6 years ago | (#24707179)

What? How is this in any way remotely similar to Quicktime? Quicktime is a video format and Microsoft has enough of those, this beast is entirely different.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

slim (1652) | about 6 years ago | (#24707279)

Quicktime VR [wikipedia.org]

As seen on many an estate agent's web site.

The GP is correct - aside from platform dependence problems, Photosynth would be a great way to present "virtual tours".

Re:Hmm.. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#24707333)

If 80% of iPhone owners and 60% of Symbian owners use their devices to browse the web, it is not just "OS X/Linux" platform dependence problem anymore. People should be really careful for technologies they pick and the vendors doing them.

It is not that (in advertisers eye) you lose that 2% nerd using Linux, you lose $1000 Symbian or $2000 iPhone user.

I know a TV station which their high user profile owns Macs as big as 40% percent and they can't sell on demand movies to them because they started with Windows Media DRM which is not supported on OS X.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#24707285)

Yes, hotels should replace their perfectly working VR stuff which is supported on both OS X and Windows (iPhone in future I bet) and they should lock themselves to a thing which only works in Windows.

I am glad Hotel guys are kinda old fashioned and sticks to stuff which is working for them.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

N!k0N (883435) | about 6 years ago | (#24707785)

Problem with their "perfectly working VR" is that it's at worst an image gallery composed of shots taken at various points of the room(s) involved (e.g., here's the bedroom, the bathroom, whatever) or at best a somewhat interactive panorama of the suite. I have not yet seen a tour that allows you to "walk through" the entire suite/apartment/house that is being presented. I will admit that a house might still be out of line for Photosynth tours, in that it might just require too many photos to make a decent tour...

haha (2, Funny)

extirpater (132500) | about 6 years ago | (#24706787)

i'm going to try it on my own shadow. result is a black ninja?

Nothing to see here, move along (4, Funny)

windsurfer619 (958212) | about 6 years ago | (#24706819)

From the site: Only Windows XP (SP2 or SP3) and Windows Vista are supported at this time.

No Linux support? In this day and age? Bah.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 6 years ago | (#24706961)

Unfortunately, we're not cool enough to run on your OS yet. We really wish we had a version of Photosynth that worked cross platform, but for now it only runs on Windows.

Trust us, as soon as we have a Mac version ready, it will be up and available on our site.

Almost feels like they care.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (2, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 6 years ago | (#24707021)

Wow I skimmed past the Mac part. I'm browsing to it with Ubuntu. They're not even cool enough to stroke me off right.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (1)

warrior_s (881715) | about 6 years ago | (#24707079)

companies usually release products for the platform that is in use by majority of users.. Even google released picasa, google-earth, etc for windows only in the beginning..
Given MS a break guys.. wait for some time before you start bashing them

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (1)

windsurfer619 (958212) | about 6 years ago | (#24707215)

Given MS a break guys.. wait for some time before you start bashing them

It's only been in beta for 2 years. Yeah, give it more time.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#24707235)

Google Earth, Picasa could be ported to OS X and Linux easily thanks to Trolltech Qt Framework and wisely using OpenGL.

If a lib/framework they use doesn't exist on OS X or Linux? It won't ship. Who bashes them? We just laugh at them and naive people who believes in their claims.
 

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#24707201)

No worries, thanks to Mono and Moonlight and the excellent vendor named Novell, you will be enjoying this great technology in 2020! Make sure to check archive.org that time ;)

Re:Nothing to see here, move along (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707639)

In this day and age? Of what, 1% Linux usage? Oh yeah... 2008 is year of the Linux desktop, right?

Works on PCs. Or not. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24706845)

Doesn't work on my PC. Not even in FireFox.

Oh, wait, you misspelt 'Windows' as 'PC', an easy mistake to make.

Re:Works on PCs. Or not. (1)

smitty97 (995791) | about 6 years ago | (#24707581)

I cant get it to do anything either, FF3 & IE7. I just get a black box with nav arrow controls

Re:Works on PCs. Or not. (1)

cerberusss (660701) | about 6 years ago | (#24707875)

I cant get it to do anything either, FF3 & IE7. I just get a black box with nav arrow controls

Yes, that's it. This is Microsoft with a first release. What did you expect??

Re:Works on PCs. Or not. (1)

fsmunoz (267297) | about 6 years ago | (#24707949)

That is needed in order to continue to use the "Mac" vs. "PC" thing that they've got going, now that Macs *are* PCs. Since this sort of removes part of the glamour even slashdot editorials adopt a "PC == Wintel" vocabulary, even though a "PC" with Linux or BSD has exactly the same difference than a "PC" with OSX.

I still remember when /. actually had people who used free unices.

Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (4, Insightful)

Tiger Smile (78220) | about 6 years ago | (#24706847)

Just in case you hadn't guess it was Windows only. It's from Microsoft and they care about making money, which they do a great job at. Linux and bug fixes do not make allot of cash for them, so don't expect to much support for either and don't whine about it. Thanks, so much. :)

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (3, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | about 6 years ago | (#24706995)

Truly. But this applies to practically any company. You could say the same about most of Apple's iprograms.

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (0)

Tiger Smile (78220) | about 6 years ago | (#24707473)

You make a point that Apple and other companies are self serving and trying to make a profit. It's sad that people need to be told this. But, if it makes you all the happier I will try and point out the obviousness of it next time there is an Apple product on the radar.

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707115)

There are linux applications I can't run on windows, so what's the problem?

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (1)

hansamurai (907719) | about 6 years ago | (#24707141)

How do they make money from this anyway, well, I'm sure they will try somehow but I see nothing on the site that makes it sound like they're selling the service or plan to sell it. I do see this though:

What you see on this site is the first of many versions of Photosynth. Call it beta, call it 1.0, call it whatever you want⦠just know we are hard at work adding support for more browsers, more platforms, and more hardware, and just making the experience that much more amazing.

So maybe they'll actually try to make it more readily available.

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#24707153)

"Photosynth works on PCs using IE or Firefox, but not yet on Macs. "

The "yet" part bugs me. They should stop lying and people should stop trying to pro actively shut up people about their amazing insist on being old Microsoft.

So it doesn't run on Mac? I don't give a shit and look elsewhere for my apps. They probably can't code for OS X anyway. Yes, I think that way.

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about 6 years ago | (#24707267)

The "yet" part bugs me. They should stop lying and people should stop trying to pro actively shut up people about their amazing insist on being old Microsoft.

The "yet" part implies that their actually working on a Mac version, but that they got the Windows version out first. Doesn't it make sense to support your own platform first before supporting others?

So it doesn't run on Mac? I don't give a shit and look elsewhere for my apps. They probably can't code for OS X anyway. Yes, I think that way.

Then I suppose that Microsoft Office for Mac retail box at the Apple store is just an illusion, right?

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about 6 years ago | (#24707303)

Damn, meant to put "they're" instead of "their"...

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 6 years ago | (#24707439)

Trust my word, they must be monkeying with Cider technology to pack it to a OS X .app and it will be Intel OS X only.

Want to bet?

MS Office for OS X of course exists, it sells damn well and they make great money out of it.

So what else is new? (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | about 6 years ago | (#24707207)

Yeah thanks for that protip there buddy.

bug fixes do not make allot of cash for them, so don't expect to much support

Exactly, which is similar to why they don't focus on IE unless there is competition. Lesson: don't support or use MS software and they will work hard to make it better. Do use it and depend on it and they will let it stagnate. Either way it doesn't help you to focus on MS. So exactly why would I be whining about what MS does in the first place?

Re:Windows Only, and some mutterings about Mac. (1)

barzok (26681) | about 6 years ago | (#24708285)

Just in case you hadn't guess it was Windows only. It's from Microsoft and they care about making money, which they do a great job at.

MS has an entire business unit named "MacBU" (and it's probably profitable). I'll give you 3 guesses what OS they write software for, and the first 2 don't count.

Req's (4, Informative)

stretchpuppy (1304751) | about 6 years ago | (#24706855)

While navigating a couple galleries... It feels like I'm drunk and forgot how to use a mouse.

Remember kids, set Graphic Acceleration to Full!

Minimum System Requirements

Important: Photosynth makes heavy use of your graphics hardware. If you have an older graphics system, Photosynth may not run. Also, Photosynth requires that your graphics acceleration be set to full.

Operating System: Only Windows XP (SP2 or SP3) and Windows Vista are supported at this time. Running Windows on a Mac? Photosynth runs under Boot Camp only. Parallels and other VM software cannot run the viewer.

Web Browser: Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 2, and Firefox 3

Memory: 256 MB of memory is a bare minimum; 1GB is recommended.

Graphics: Minimum 32MB of graphics memory required, 64MB or more is recommended. Photosynth runs on some DirectX6 capable cards and all DirectX7 cards.

Re:Req's (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 6 years ago | (#24706947)

Wait a second. I have 1G of memory in my 2K system with a 128MB Nvidia card and Fx2, but I can't run this because I don't have XP or Vista? This is a definite WTF?

Re:Req's (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | about 6 years ago | (#24707731)

I know its hard to beleive, but Microsoft -does- add APIs from versions to versions, and XP (and even more so Vista) have a lot of these. They're not going to spend months recoding a feature from scratch for 2k thats built in XP.

Re:Req's (2, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | about 6 years ago | (#24707227)

Operating System: Only Windows XP (SP2 or SP3) and Windows Vista are supported at this time. Running Windows on a Mac? Photosynth runs under Boot Camp only. Parallels and other VM software cannot run the viewer.

A posting, with video, on the VMware Fusion blog [vmware.com] begs to differ. You do need to be running VMware Fusion 2 latest beta though.

Cheers,
Ian

No it's actually pretty decent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24706861)

I was fairly impressed just wading through it.

It could probably be faster, but my internet is wireless, not cable or fios.

I'm not sure what real world uses it actually has, then again nor do I find any use for Google Earth other than playing with it.

I felt fairly immerse and the interface was easy to use. So .. IT WORKS !!

Get a grip people MS has more money than all the Linux distro's combined times 10. It's childish to think that every product they put out will just suck. When it really comes down to it MS is working on 10 times the amount of software as it's competitors.

Perhaps they do need a little more focus, but I kind of like their chaotic investment strategy. They have the money to burn and some technologies are cool, but just not all that cost effective so it takes someone with money to burn to actually get the ball rolling.

Plus... who cares about OS... they all run Firefox now and that's by far my main program. Only people who put themselves out there really need all that high end Linux security. The best defense is just not fucking with the wrong people and sites.

Re:No it's actually pretty decent (1)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 6 years ago | (#24706927)

Yeah, because the reason the average 'time-to-own' is four minutes is because the researchers were fucking with the wrong people and sites.

make3d.stanford.edu (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24706897)

http://make3d.stanford.edu/ [stanford.edu]

I haven't tried it yet, but this has been around for some time.

Great for nerdporn (1)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | about 6 years ago | (#24706943)

Just think of all the pictures of real women you can make even better by making them virtual.

Porn (4, Funny)

Red4man (1347635) | about 6 years ago | (#24706953)

A bunch of nerds submitting their pictures of Tera Patrick in 5.. 4.. 3..

Actually. I'm going to go and try that.

Re:Porn (1)

Eponymous Crowbar (974055) | about 6 years ago | (#24707729)

Red4man, I believe you may be the only poster in this thread that understands the true potential of this technology. Bravo, sir!

Goat.cx (1)

Joebert (946227) | about 6 years ago | (#24707095)

Where am I ?
Is this some kind of looney bin, what's with the padded walls with tears all over them ?

Re:Goat.cx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707233)

Wherever you end up, I think you're likely to be eaten by a grue.

Release 2 candidate? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707097)

I hear they are already working on Release 2, which specializes in processing p0rn. Rumors are they'll call it PhotoSINth!

I'm going to wear out the shutter on my camera (5, Interesting)

TibbonZero (571809) | about 6 years ago | (#24707277)

I dunno about you guys, but I'm pretty stoked that this technology has come to see the light of day for people to input their own photos. It's like Google Street View, but with anywhere and any camera.

My main concern is that MSFT has stated that they'd love to basically stitch every photo together into a virtual world nearly (not quite, but close). I don't normally have privacy concerns and issues, but this 'could' potentially get a little funny. Do I really want to photosynth my apartment or desk at work and then have that linked locationally to the rest of the world? I'm not so sure.

Re:I'm going to wear out the shutter on my camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707965)

So don't share it?

Re:I'm going to wear out the shutter on my camera (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 years ago | (#24708077)

I do remember Microsoft discussing the possibility of linking Photosynth up to the databases of community photo sites like Flickr. I imagine this would be necessary to really make the most of it. You probably can't take enough pictures of the Eiffel Tower yourself to provide a meaningful Photosynth construct, after all nobody's really taking detail shots of the entire structure. However I dare say there's enough casually- or accidentally-taken images of crossbeams and information signs and panoramas on Flickr to achieve something striking. Now, what happens if you let it grab from YouTube videos too? If each frame is a picture of the whole, albeit low quality...

Just use VMWare Fusion if you're on a Mac (1)

TibbonZero (571809) | about 6 years ago | (#24707327)

I'm a hardcore mac user, but yet I realize that sometimes not all technologies that are barely out of beta (and have no monetization method) to run cross platform out of the gate. Just us VMWare Fusion and call it a day. Or bootcamp at worst..

Crashes Firefox 3 for me (2, Informative)

Is0m0rph (819726) | about 6 years ago | (#24707361)

Just messed around with it. Crashes Firefox regularly for me. Works for a bit and then crashes. I know I'm going to make some synths though pretty cool technology.

Re:Crashes Firefox 3 for me (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24707923)

It crashed Firefox 3 to the point where "Resume last session" would also fail. For me, this is the mark of a company that doesn't care about writing good, interoperable software.

Sure, Microsoft has a new department that for Open Source technologies and they keep buying Suse support vouchers... but they aren't really trying to play fair.

As much as they like sending cake when Mozilla makes major releases, sending a patch to support their new and exciting stuff would be more noticeable for the community. It *would* impress me if something Microsoft branded works in Firefox, but shit like this emphasizes that Microsoft (as a company) doesn't care about releasing good, interoperable software.

I made my first slideshow. (1, Funny)

stretchpuppy (1304751) | about 6 years ago | (#24707411)

I thought I would share.

http://photosynth.net/view.aspx?cid=db981975-7b23-4c45-b27b-73d294ca76e7 [photosynth.net]

Uncle Pete is still my favorite uncle.

Re:I made my first slideshow. (1)

stretchpuppy (1304751) | about 6 years ago | (#24707591)

Unless I'm missing something, all you do is upload pictures and the site/software does the rest for you. Meaning it "synths" the pictures the way it wants and leaves you with minimal input/control.

Neat! Now what? (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | about 6 years ago | (#24707709)

So, this seems to have a really high "neato!" factor, but not a lot of practical use. Except for maybe 3D modelers in Hollywood?

Maybe this can be rolled into Photoshop or Hugin [sourceforge.net] .

a service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24708339)

Why is this a service, and not an offline solution? My computer is plenty fast to 3D-stitch my OWN photographs, thank you.

Are they afraid somebody is going to extract and steal their algorithms or something?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>