Andrew, I do like your robust design for image processing.... perhaps, you'd be interested in just using a vision chip like the ARM9 CAP series to do that heavy lifting?
1)Such image database would take PETAbytes of data. Each virtual object should have a 3d model with textures. I doubt the robot will the object from the same angle every single time.
2)Search through this data base will require very fast processors. That means find files and doing all the comparations.
1)Such image database would take PETAbytes of data. Each virtual object should have a 3d model with textures. I doubt the robot will the object from the same angle every single time.
2)Search through this data base will require very fast processors. That means find files and doing all the comparations.Unless you use distributed processing. ;D
Can visual processing by a robot currently determine that the object is 3D? IMO 2D is a good working issue from visual imagery - please correct me if I am wrong.
QuoteCan visual processing by a robot currently determine that the object is 3D? IMO 2D is a good working issue from visual imagery - please correct me if I am wrong.
Affordable 3d cameras are just around the corner (check out the zcam by 3dv systems, supposed to release to the public sometime this year), it would probably pay off to do models, but simple ones. Say, a simple cylinder for a coke can, it takes 170k for an autodesk inventor file.
3DV Systems has developed a unique video imaging technology and camera for sensing distance in real-time between an imaging sensor and the objects in its field of view (i.e. the objects' depth), at high speed and high resolution. The technology, which is based on the Time-of-Flight principle, is described thoroughly in several publications by the company's founders and engineers, and is well protected by international patents
Camera systems can determine 3d with more than one camera. Its also possible to make assumption based on other factors (look at the vision tutorial on this site).
QuoteCan visual processing by a robot currently determine that the object is 3D? IMO 2D is a good working issue from visual imagery - please correct me if I am wrong.
Affordable 3d cameras are just around the corner (check out the zcam by 3dv systems, supposed to release to the public sometime this year), it would probably pay off to do models, but simple ones. Say, a simple cylinder for a coke can, it takes 170k for an autodesk inventor file.
I would think that XML can't be sifted through as fast as a Relational or Object databases because of internal representation...If the 'answer' is something concrete and unchanging - say a CAD diagram of the Coke can - then that data isn't going to change (its read only). Equally: the individual points that make up the diagram probably aren't that useful for searching puroposes. Its more likely that you want to find something thats a 'red cylinder' rather than it has a 'point at (5,1,6) in 3D coords'. In which case there's no point putting the CAD diagram into a database other than as a BLOB - in which case you might as well just store it as a file - and XML is great for that. XML is also a good format for you to run a process on to create the high level indexes.
I think you are missing the point that XML is text and needs to be parsed. Every time. It's a strength and weakness because it has ultimate portability, and readability, but sucks for very very large amounts of what could be binary data.
I'm imagining a 3d model, or 3d point cloud, stored in the data base for each object and then the model being looked at could be matched to objects in the data base with a baysean filter, but you would need access to your almost your whole data base to do that :-\
You can't really hope to just lookup a specific image you just filmed into a database of images taken with a "standardized camera". That is never going to work... Never has, never will. And no, you won't get everyone to use the same camera... Especially because, you know, technology progresses, and whatever is your "standard camera" now, will suck in 10 years.
I really don't get how people continually relate a standard in technology to a specific model. It is specific minimum functionality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_standard
LoL - just the approach I was getting at. ;D
Lookup tables haven't been the focus of AI researchers for um, say, 60 years?
I'm also expecting to have other forms of visual data as well. For example, say you don't have a CCD / CMOS camera. You can "scan" the object with your sharp IR as well and still get a visual representation of the object.
I mentioned that. I am not talking about the current image search methods using tags or related words with some keyword, like google does right now. I was talking about using a image for searching other images. And that is what I've been talking about through all the posts. For example the robot sees an object throgh the camera, and then search for this object in the database. Asking the robot to seach for something inputing a keyword in it is actually an already solved problem(for simple shaped objects).
Somebody above mentioned that if it was possible then google would have done it. THEY HAVE - its just not correctly linked. ie. search google for a can of coke and you get loads of data about it. search google images for coke and you get loads of images. search google sketchup and you get a 3d model of a can of coke what more could you need.
The difference is that google is made for people to search through and not robots.