Alternatives to kinect

[1757]

Can this work as an alternative to the kinect's infrared system?

http://www.google.com/shopping/produ...d=0CLIBEPMCMAU

[F22Rapture]

I think you misunderstand how the Kinect works. The Kinect only uses IR to generate a depth map of the objects in front of it. It does so by projecting tiny dots from an IR laser onto the surface. It does not flood the FoV with IR light as the camera you linked does.

You can still use the camera, but you may have to write your own class to handle it, and it may not work very well compared to the Axis camera depending on what your purpose is (latency, etc.)

[Blackphantom91]

the axis camera has the ability to to do what I think you are looking for. Plus there are many different examples from previous seasons that you can use.

[1757]

No, think 'night vision'. I need a IR sensitive camera that can show a picture using IR rather than visible light. The kinect can do that.

[Domtech]

Originally Posted by 1757

No, think 'night vision'. I need a IR sensitive camera that can show a picture using IR rather than visible light. The kinect can do that.

The camera you linked is just a camera with no IR filter, and an IR light.

The Kinect is 2 cameras, one only sees a specific range of IR, and the other only sees visible light. It has an IR laser that projects a grid of light, and using the IR cam to find the size of the dots, generates a gray-scale colored by depth view.


For vision tracking proposes the one you linked might work well, assuming the vision targets reflect IR. It will still pick up visible light however, not just IR.


TLDR: Kinect is a depth cam, and the other is night vision.

[F22Rapture]

Just curious... why exactly do you need night vision?

[Phyrxes]

If you use IR instead of visible light you can ignore most ambient light and only see what is being bathed by the IR light source which is generally mounted co axially to the camera. The downside is it is not an Axis so the libraries don't exist if you want to do any automation with it.

IR IP webcams are fairly cheap on Amazon, think we picked one up for $50 or so, and it runs on 12 Volts. Doubt it will make it on the robot due to automation but it was neat to play with and see how different the feed looks when you are ignoring ambient light and just looking for the retro-reflective tape.

[1757]

Originally Posted by Phyrxes

If you use IR instead of visible light you can ignore most ambient light and only see what is being bathed by the IR light source which is generally mounted co axially to the camera. The downside is it is not an Axis so the libraries don't exist if you want to do any automation with it.

IR IP webcams are fairly cheap on Amazon, think we picked one up for $50 or so, and it runs on 12 Volts. Doubt it will make it on the robot due to automation but it was neat to play with and see how different the feed looks when you are ignoring ambient light and just looking for the retro-reflective tape.

That HTTP_GET module for roborealm works fine for all IP Cams I've tested.

[Sparks333]

A little off-topic, considering that you look like you are more interested in infrared illumination than depth mapping, but a plausible alternative (that is both lighter and less power-hungry) to the Kinect is the Asus Xtion (http://www.asus.com/Multimedia/Xtion_PRO/) - I think it even runs on much the same drivers as the Kinect.

Sparks

[kmusa]

Originally Posted by Phyrxes

If you use IR instead of visible light you can ignore most ambient light and only see what is being bathed by the IR light source which is generally mounted co axially to the camera.

"Most" is the right way to put it. Last year, we were surprised by the brightness of the nets, when viewed with an IR camera.

One does need to be aware of the amount of IR illumination being provided. Depending on power, frequency, and duration, there is the potential for damage to the human eye.

-Karlis