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!

OmniCam360 Camera Cluster Lets You Choose the Viewing Angle

timothy posted about a year ago | from the how-to-get-seasick-indoors dept.

Input Devices 66

Zothecula writes "Armchair sports lovers are at the mercy of TV directors who chose what camera angle is shown when. Most sports fans will have been frustrated with their shot selection at one time or another, but a new panoramic camera would put such decisions in the viewer's hands. Comprising ten individual cameras, the OmniCam 360 provides a full 360-degree of the action." Just don't roll it down a hill and try to watch the results.

cancel ×

66 comments

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

Not what you need for sports! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44539753)

You don't usually want a choice of directions to look from a fixed point - you usually want to be able to look towards one or two interesting bits of play from a different location.

Re:Not what you need for sports! (1, Informative)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#44539777)

If you had read TFA (ok, I'm asking too much) you would know it reconstructs the 3D scene, so you're able to do what you've just said.

Re:Not what you need for sports! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44539793)

The article says no such thing.

Re:Not what you need for sports! (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#44539821)

Holy fuck, indeed! I apologize for the misinformation. I thought I had read TFA, but it was actually another one, about a setup that did the 3D reconstruction. I'll try to find it and post the link here.
Again, my apologies.

Re:Not what you need for sports! (4, Interesting)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#44539837)

Re:Not what you need for sports! (4, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#44540201)

This would be great for porn

Re:Not what you need for sports! (2)

Niedi (1335165) | about a year ago | (#44540313)

Imagine something like that with the Occulus Rift... You could basically look around in the virtual space as if you were sitting there!

Re:Not what you need for sports! (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about a year ago | (#44552585)

I thought they used a similar technology in the 2012 Olympics. I tried to find something on Youtube, but unfortunately all I can find when I do a search for "gymnastics 3d view" or "360 degree view" just returns gymnastics videos in 3D for from gyms named 3d gymnastics or 360gymnastics or something like that. Grrr.

Maybe it was a commercial I saw.

Re:Not what you need for sports! (1)

ratbag (65209) | about a year ago | (#44539869)

Can you point this time-poor Slashdotter to where TFA says the device "reconstructs the 3D scene" as opposed to provides a 360 degree panorama?

Re:Not what you need for sports! (3, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44539919)

No what I really want is missing half the game because of commercials, endless repeats of missed goals, close-ups of players faces and/or third rate celebs in the stands. Think of the possibilities this system will bring to that!

Re: Not what you need for sports! (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#44540743)

The sad reality is that studies have shown that only 11 minutes of actual football is played per game. The rest of the time is setting up for plays and the like.

Without all that filler, the whole television game (it would have to take place after the real game) would be a one beer event, where your buddies spend more time getting to your house than watching it, and nobody would have time to finish their first hotdog.

Re: Not what you need for sports! (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#44540763)

I want to point out that this isn't limited to football, just football is the best example.

Re:Not what you need for sports! (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#44539975)

you usually want to be able to look towards one or two interesting bits of play from a different location

take the red pill

Re:Not what you need for sports! (1)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#44540195)

I don't give a shit about sports, but this thing takes the perfect footage for viewing with the oculus rift

Are you kidding? (1)

theoriginalturtle (248717) | about a year ago | (#44539769)

That's the FIRST thing to do!!!!

Is it 3D, too?

Re:Are you kidding? (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#44539803)

Is it 3D, too?

By 3D I assume you're referring to stereoscopic display. As it reconstructs the 3D geometry of the scene, stereoscopic rendering should be trivial. That would be an awesome application to use with the Oculus Rift.

Re:Are you kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44539811)

No, it does not reconstruct 3D geometry.

The Geonaute is far better and you can buy one! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44539771)

I met the CEO of a small French company whose product blew me away, so forget the bulky Omnicam!
http://www.gizmag.com/geonaute-action-camera-360-degree-ces/25747/

Re:The Geonaute is far better and you can buy one! (1)

Molt (116343) | about a year ago | (#44540155)

The Geonaute's for home/amateur use, the Omnicam is professional broadcast equipment- they're really not suitable replacements for one another. It's like comparing a GoPro Hero and a Red EPIC, both are digital video cameras, both are really nice pieces of kit, but there the similarities end.

Re:The Geonaute is far better and you can buy one! (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about a year ago | (#44540715)

" It's like comparing a GoPro Hero and a Red EPIC..."

Not really, and nothing in the article suggests that the Omnicam is the "Red EPIC" of panoramic cameras, whatever that might mean.

Assuming each of the Omnicam's cameras is capable of broadcast HD quality,there's an order of magnitude increase in broadcast bandwidth spent on enabling the users of the least interesting platform (tablets). Combine that with the limited usefulness of 360 degree coverage (what sports event wants that?) and you'd expect limited appeal. Once you restrict the angle of view to more normal ranges other approaches make more sense.

Omnicam is more Rube Goldberg than Red EPIC. It's nothing more than a scaled up teleconferencing design with limited application.

example (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44539773)

Just don't roll it down a hill and try to watch the results.

Is there an example of this somewhere?

Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use it (1)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about a year ago | (#44539779)

They just sit back and are happy with what's given to them. Who has used the multi-camera option on a dvd ?And are there any dvd's that even used that feature ? Same idea here.

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (4, Interesting)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#44539787)

You're forgetting that the broadcasters can use it to find the best viewing angle. The sports fans can continue to be lazy.

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about a year ago | (#44540735)

Broadcasters won't want it for that because (a) they get to plan their perspectives in advance, and (b) they need to choose their lens perspectives which this can't do. Furthermore, this would require replacement of a great deal of expensive equipment that likely provides better quality and would result in the same or even more work in post. Broadcast teams have figured out how to do the job already, they won't want the "help".

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year ago | (#44539791)

The only time that I have seen multi-angle support on a DVD and Blurays for animated, alternate language titles, or in one case the art boards instead of the live scene.

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44540549)

In other words, anime. Even in that case, the difference between angles is pretty much limited to the title card and credits.

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44540287)

There are a few different categories of sports fans. The armchair sports fans who catch a few games while drinking a beer on the weekend are indeed not a likely target audience for this. But there are also more 'hardcore' sports fans who keep track of reams of statistics, want replays from as many angles as possible, are willing to pay for $200+ subscriptions [nfl.com] that let them frame-by-frame step through past games, etc. There's probably a market for premium services for that segment.

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44540475)

But there are also more 'hardcore' sports fans who keep track of reams of statistics, want replays from as many angles as possible, are willing to pay for $200+ subscriptions [nfl.com] that let them frame-by-frame step through past games, etc. There's probably a market for premium services for that segment.

Yeah, they're called morons. It's grown men playing with a ball, FFS. Who else could care that much about it?

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44540561)

Much better to be a grown man playing video games.

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#44540667)

It's highly trained athletes at the top of their game competing to excel.

You don't have to like it but if you criticise it because you don't understand why people like it, you end up looking stupid.

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (1)

XcepticZP (1331217) | about a year ago | (#44541761)

Oh you have it all wrong, we know exactly why people like it. That's precisely why we think it's pretty much pointless.

Re:Most armchair sports fans are too lazy to use i (1)

Politburo (640618) | about a year ago | (#44541083)

There's a Metallica DVD that uses the angle feature on a couple songs, you can choose which band member to watch instead of the director making the call.

I've seen this demonstrated 15 years ago. (3, Insightful)

XNormal (8617) | about a year ago | (#44539805)

The application was a video conferencing system. The omnidirectional camera had the exact same arrangement of mirrors and black baffles between them. It was placed in the middle of a conference table and the display was steered automatically by a microphone array that determined the direction of the speaker. This way you always got a nice framing of the speaker's head. It was essential for getting any kind of usable picture in a conference with multiple people back when bandwidth was limited and video compression was crappy. It would still be very useful today but I haven't seen this anywhere.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&CC=WO&NR=9847291A3 [espacenet.com]

Re:I've seen this demonstrated 15 years ago. (3, Informative)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#44539831)

Microsoft's Roundtable does this too. Those have been available for at least seven years.

Re:I've seen this demonstrated 15 years ago. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44540067)

I'd love to see what that would do at an Italian round table with everyone talking to everyone... more and more emotional... with more and more hand gestures... A screaming room of madness. ;)

Poor thing 'd probably go up in flames by the time the main dish gets served.

Re:I've seen this demonstrated 15 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44606729)

Any link to where you can see how that system looked? Thanks!

Finally!!! (3, Funny)

DarthSmeg (88450) | about a year ago | (#44539823)

Does this mean I can finally get to see what is just outside the frame when they show the naked actress from neck-up or with something conveniently positioned just in front of the "important bits"?

Re:Finally!!! (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about a year ago | (#44552631)

You might see that she isn't actually naked!

Yeah, right... (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year ago | (#44539845)

99 out of 100 sports fans will screw up. The guys who scan 10 feeds and pick the best one will do better almost every singly time. That's why they get picked out of a couple of thousand wannabe's to do the job.

Mostly, they're better than Joe Sixpack though that isn't a tune that plays well in a country that believes everybody's opinion is just as good as everybody else's.

Re:Yeah, right... (3, Informative)

ctid (449118) | about a year ago | (#44540069)

I don't think the word "better" really applies, because not everyone is interested in the same thing. Some people want to see the game and nothing but the game. Other people want to look at the crowd. Others want to replay over and over controversial or exciting moments. Some people want to watch one player specifically, while others would prefer a much wider angle so as to be able to see the pattern of play developing. Some people like to see the facial expressions of the players.

It's not a competition and there is not one "best" way. If there is a choice of ten views of the game, there will be some people who like each and every one.

Re:Yeah, right... (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year ago | (#44541167)

You're certainly right about some fans...maybe even most fans. I still think, though, that a lot of them will be disappointed after a few weeks of looking at exactly what they thought they wanted.

TV deliberately sabotages viewing angles (1)

jphamlore (1996436) | about a year ago | (#44539847)

I'm fairly sure TV coverage deliberately sabotages viewing angles to maximize the draw of live attendance. TV screens have increased, resolution continues to increase, yet views of action are no wider than when the picture on over-the-air coverage could barely be distinguishable from snow. Take hockey on US TV for example. The way the coverage is presented, the action is essentially random. Shots are never wide enough to see long passes or the maneuvering of either the recipients of the passes or the defense to impede them. The same goes for soccer. Soccer coverage is particularly disassociated from the target audience because that audience increasingly is interested in the game for the beauty of the passing not the infrequent scoring. I see all over the area common people who are kicking around soccer balls never to shoot the ball but merely for the sheer joy of passing.

Re:TV deliberately sabotages viewing angles (2)

N1AK (864906) | about a year ago | (#44540109)

I'm fairly sure TV coverage deliberately sabotages viewing angles to maximize the draw of live attendance.

Although I can see the logic behind this I think it is highly unlikely. TV channels pay teams huge amounts of money to show their matches and it is the TV channels that film the event. They have no motivation to make physically being there more attractive. If teams were filming and distributing matches themselves then maybe that could be happening.

Re:TV deliberately sabotages viewing angles (1)

jphamlore (1996436) | about a year ago | (#44541491)

Here's the proof it is known what are the angles best for knowledgeable fans to see the game. They just don't want to show them for live events. This example is for the NFL [nfl.com] . Ask oneself, for any sport, hockey, soccer, baseball, are the angles one sees on broadcast television the ones the coaches analyze when they look at film? Of course not.

Re:TV deliberately sabotages viewing angles (1)

N1AK (864906) | about a year ago | (#44550075)

If that's your proof then I'm even more confident it isn't some cunning conspiracy. Firstly the link you sent is to a site selling the ability to watch from 'coaches film' perspective which proves that they aren't restricting access to it to get people into the ground. Secondly you can't get 'coaches film' perspectives by sitting in the ground. Thirdly, just because coaches prefer a certain perspective doesn't mean that the typical TV viewer does; one has a job based on understanding the nuances of what is going on, the other is watching entertainment (though some viewers may want a more serious service, which you've just demonstrated they can get online without going to the ground).

Never attribute malice (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44541063)

... where incompetence will serve as well.

And in this case, that may even be a bit harsh. Filming these things perfectly is not exactly easy.

Where have I seen this before? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#44539857)

Oh yes, I know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_RoundTable [wikipedia.org]

I've got a couple of these things at the office. It works okay I guess. It detects where the sound is coming from and angles the view in that direction.

360 deg: Pah, not good enough/ (2)

MancunianMaskMan (701642) | about a year ago | (#44539909)

I need a camera with \[ 4\pi\mbox{steradian} \] solid angle viewing

about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44539983)

i had this idea years ago

Seems like a pretty stupid idea (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#44540037)

10 camera shots requires 10x the bandwidth to broadcast. But in reality they'd probably just take a hatchet to the bitrate or the horizontal resolution so the quality would be awful regardless of the camera you chose. So allowing viewers to choose the shot would be a stupid and futile gimmick.

It's more likely that this device would help broadcasters than viewers. They'd throw one of these cameras up on a cable above a stadium, running it back and forth and it would be the director who chose the most interesting angle from the 10 offered.

Re:Seems like a pretty stupid idea (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about a year ago | (#44540759)

"It's more likely that this device would help broadcasters than viewers. They'd throw one of these cameras up on a cable above a stadium, running it back and forth and it would be the director who chose the most interesting angle from the 10 offered."

And that would be quite unlikely. Broadcasters would have to meet broadcast standards with their feed sources and that would limit the angle of view this device could provide. Maybe a facility may invest in some of these but they would be a gimmick-cam for broadcasters. It would end up being like the Goodyear blimp shoots, they do it because they can.

Re:Seems like a pretty stupid idea (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#44540911)

It's not unlikely. This sort of setup is quite common for major sporting events already, e.g the London olympics had cameras strung on cables and running over the stadiums as do many major sporting events. Commercial systems like Skycam are used already. The major difference in this particular camera is that a director has a 360 degree field of vision from the 10 views which are combined in software. I assume several of cameras could also be stuck on poles at advantageous points around the stadium. I don't see it being any use to client side of the broadcast unless the channel streams the content in some other way and provides software to process the image into something meaningful.

Solution in search of a problem (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44540139)

> Most sports fans will have been frustrated with...shot
> selection at one time or another, but a new panoramic
> camera would put such decisions in the viewer’s hands

ensuring frustration with shot selection most of the time.

A fight for the remote (1)

gsslay (807818) | about a year ago | (#44540357)

Yeah, and for those not watching alone this is going to drive everyone else totally crazy. You're watching the action, when the doofus with the remote decides he wants to see what's happening on the sideline.

I predict a new wave of TV related domestic violence.

Imagine the possibilities! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44540209)

Looking forward to OmniCam360 pr0n...

Right, "Sports". (1)

aggemam (641831) | about a year ago | (#44540303)

It's for sports.

360 degrees only? (1)

aglider (2435074) | about a year ago | (#44540385)

Do those persons know we live in a 3D world?

This has been available for years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44540921)

This exact type of setup has been used for years in Microsoft's RoundTable video conferencing device, including automatic selection of the speaker. I'm not sure how this really qualifies as news.

Riot pls! (1)

Jmac217 (3006299) | about a year ago | (#44541057)

So Baseball has this technology in real life, but Riot can't rotate the purple side 180 degrees in LoL?

The teams don't want you to have this (1)

Zinho (17895) | about a year ago | (#44541117)

The big reason this will never hit my TV screen is that the teams don't want us to understand what really went on during the plays [slashdot.org] . This technology may get used, and may become available to the teams who played in the game, but the teams will actively block access to the general public. There are already many cameras on the field that give easier-to-understand views than we see on TV, and we never see footage from those, either.

On a side note, I've been around long enough to realize that the editors can't keep track of what was posted yesterday (let alone two years ago), but somehow I was still surprised to notice that today's article and the one I linked were both posted by Timothy. Oh, well, stay classy, Tim.

Mamigo GameView is implementing this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44545455)

Mutli-camera interactive viewing is facilitated by Mamigo GameView product branded "Strive"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WkEA0SUykk
http://www.youtube.com/user/MamigoGameView?feature=watch

It is deployed in colleges on the East Coast providing a low cost broadcasting solution as well. The cool change in perspective isn't commecialized yet. The users are the broadcasters right now. There are capabilities that allow end user to achieve interactivity at different levels but these aren't yet available commercially.

I think interactive viewing that is social may be the way games are watched in future.

autoparts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44549711)

i like you content.
http://mnrparts.co.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=37

Check for New 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>