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!

CurvACE Gives Robots a Bug's Eye View

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the bug-eyed dept.

Robotics 16

Zothecula writes "Robots are getting down to the size of insects, so it seems only natural that they should be getting insect eyes. A consortium of European researchers has developed the artificial Curved Artificial Compound Eye (CurvACE) which reproduces the architecture of the eyes of insects and other arthropods. The aim isn't just to provide machines with an unnerving bug-eyed stare, but to create a new class of sensors that exploit the wide field of vision and motion detecting properties of the compound eye."

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

Problem (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833663)

Robots are getting down to the size of insects, so it seems only natural that they should be getting insect eyes.

Robots aren't natural, so no, it doesn't.

Re:Problem (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833695)

Does it really matter? Robotic ovipositors aren't natural, either, but as near as I can tell from Internet research, will be very popular.

Re:Problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43833929)

Oviposters? This sounds like the organ that layed eggs in your mommas ass.

True story: her ass looks like Casu marzu. And when she sits down, it sounds like popcorn popping with the puss filled pustules popping and hissing, with maggots flying around the room (her left eye is blind because it was eaten out). But does she care? Hell no! Even as the puss drips down her purple vein-lined fat folds wettening the back of her socks, the only thing she cares about is how to use her skittles-looking cunt to funnel down some of the jizz from her stallions (literally). She is like an 800 lb quarter filled ice cream cone (with a non-"iced" cream filling).

But still, she does give a decent nickel blowjob, even if your dick is covered with cauliflower, which she eats with glee.

Captcha: snooped. Hell, even dogs wouldn't sniff that pussy!

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43833699)

Robots are a natural byproduct of humans, so yes

Re:Problem (3, Informative)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833805)

The single eye with lens has evolved at least twice on Earth (once in vertebrates and once in arthropods) so it seems like the natural option. Still insects have evolved a different solution for vision. The obvious answer to that is that compound eyes are more practical when your head is tiny.
I've read somewhere that a mammal style eye on a bee would have to fill its entire head to be useful. A smaller eye would have an aperture only a couple of wavelenghts wide which would render a traditional lens incapable of forming an image.

Re:Problem (4, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43834035)

The other way around. The maximum resolution of a lens is limited by diffraction. The only way around that limitation is to increase the number of lenses (compound eyes), or increase the size (simple eyes). Increasing the number is a simple solution and works pretty well when you're tiny and so can't have high resolution vision anyway. As you get bigger, the increase-the-size-of-the-lens solution becomes much more efficient, so most bigger organisms have simple eyes. If humans had compound eyes, they would have to be ridiculously large (the size of a house, by one estimation) to give equivalent resolution: http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/gronenberg/nrsc581/eyedesign/visualacuity.pdf [arizona.edu] .

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43834421)

Robots aren't natural

But equivocation on Slashdot is.

Help me! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43833715)

Help!

Staring sensors (2)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833741)

With very wide fields of view and good motion detection. These could put a major dent in UAV operations.

Re:Staring sensors (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833801)

I imagine the intelligence agencies will love them.

not the only one (2)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833879)

There are several similar projects I've read about recently; each in their own way is interesting for their approach and initial impetus, let alone the engineering.

(One, which I now can't find, was done by a guy at an American university; it was quite large, about the size of a small trashcan and used the guts from existing cameras, While it was a neat project in itself, it was the software he was working on that intrigued me. (My search fu is dead. 45 minutes of using Google to ten pages in didn't show it; searching through two browsers' worth of bookmarks, tags, didn't find it. Also couldn't find his vid on YouTube. Aaargh.))

Anyway, with respect to the article, if they can get the size down and get useful info for nav and seeing things, it'll open new possibilities. Searching for people in collapsed buildings comes to mind, and there are of course all the surveillance uses.

fish-eye lens (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43834141)

forgive me if this is a stupid question, but what was wrong with the fish-eye lens? it seems to me the it would be easier to correct for distortion with a fish eyes (constant radius) then having to deal with the Kaleidoscope effect of a bug-eye lens

Re:fish-eye lens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43838257)

Small fast robots flying inside a collapse building do not have time to correct distortions from faulty images. They need real visual data and they need them fast! Otherwise, the danger of collision increases exponentially...

Re:fish-eye lens (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43840687)

I can't find the article now, of course... but I recall that there was recent work being done on an imaging technique that uses a compound lens. The lens has no "focal length" in that the entire image is sharp, and the distance of every point is known from the single optic device (no need to use binocular vision (or more, or other sensors) to infer the range, as each input from each part of the lens contributes)

Computer vision could have a field day with that.

So it's just... (1)

unitron (5733) | about a year and a half ago | (#43835009)

" The aim isn't just to provide machines with an unnerving bug-eyed stare..."

...a serendipitous byproduct?

Security Cameras and Cars (1)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | about a year and a half ago | (#43835901)

I can see this being used more to enhance security cameras, rather than robots. Have a couple of bug-eye lenses to monitor 360 deg for movement, then PTZ a high def camera when movement is detected.

Might also be applicable for self-driving cars?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?