And thus the critics begin....

[Michael]

The article has a tone of fear or bemusement rather than criticism. Imagine a dude in some lost Amazonian tribe seeing a mirror and his own reflection for the first time. Could be that kind of thing.

FOIP will be great for the rollplayers and scripted Youtube video mob but otherwise I suspect it will be relatively little used unless it takes off because it helps you look around the cockpit... I still say you'll need a lot of light for the average webcam to be able to make it work properly though.

And as @Zull Reicher points out, VR will negate it, because if you are wearing a VR headset that covers half your face, a webcam is going to pick up shit-all face movements, so it seems its a feature that is disabled by another feature that the kind of people who would use the feature will be wanting to use unless they can account for that... Can they account for that?

It'll be a battle between VR and FOIP as to which comes out on top, if either, but it's nice to actually have the options.

I don't think VR will have a big impact for the next 5-10 years.
too expensive
yet not enough (useful) applications
also last time i had a VR on i got the thing called motion sickness (might be me but i'm definitly not the only one)

also i agree that you will need enough light to use it. There is a reason why faceware sells this as a "desktop kit" (2500$)

But we will see how it really turns out (probably at citizencon)

 

[Mich Angel]

Searching the news this is one that was on the front page of MSN wooo....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/gaming/star-citizen’s-facial-recognition-tech-is-horrifyingly-realistic/ar-AAqHRMA?li=AAfq3b1&ocid=ientp

I started to read this article and after couple lines this line was written and I lost all interest what this person had to say..

"FOIP uses webcams to detect and animate players’ actual faces within the game"

What!!??
That is not how it is..!
And I didn't read any more for I doubt he had anything useful to say about it or even got it right.

It animate the in game characters face of what the users face is doing! was that so hard to get written down right?

So just another incompetent ignorant reporter who now shit about what he is writing and can't do proper research or get it right..
The ignorance to report correct information as thing are and not fabricate or twist things in word to be something it is not have been medias biggest flaw since early 19th century and it is not getting any better as it seem.
Sad it is just sad....
Then we can say oh! well he meant well... yeah ! right! how hard is it to get it right!?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I don't think VR will have a big impact for the next 5-10 years.
too expensive
yet not enough (useful) applications
also last time i had a VR on i got the thing called motion sickness (might be me but i'm definitly not the only one)

also i agree that you will need enough light to use it. There is a reason why faceware sells this as a "desktop kit" (2500$)

But we will see how it really turns out (probably at citizencon)

Yeah, nothing breaks immersion like barfing on your own legs.

Thanks for the image of the kit... wow, thats more light than even I thought... The lens of the RSI branded one shown on twitter probably has a very wide aperture to suck in as much lux as possible but still you won't be playing with the room lights off...

 

[Mich Angel]

Yeah, nothing breaks immersion like barfing on your own legs.

Thanks for the image of the kit... wow, thats more light than even I thought... The lens of the RSI branded one shown on twitter probably has a very wide aperture to suck in as much lux as possible but still you won't be playing with the room lights off...

Yeah he said the RSI 60fps cam had a F1.3 value that mean you can get clear picture almost in pitch black room, the monitor light would be more than sufficient light to get a very good tracking or used as a video call cam it would provide a very clear light up picture.

I'm getting that cam just for the spec. of 60fps and F1.3 that is a very light sensitive fast cam and really cool IMO.
(I'm a photographer IRL so this is hardware porn for me) ha ha
:beers: :beer: :beers:

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Yeah he said the RSI 60fps cam had a F1.3 value that mean you can get clear picture almost in pitch black room, the monitor light would be more than sufficient light to get a very good tracking or used as a video call cam it would provide a very clear light up picture.

I'm getting that cam just for the spec. of 60fps and F1.3 that is a very light sensitive fast cam and really cool IMO.
(I'm a photographer IRL so this is hardware porn for me) ha ha
:beers: :beer: :beers:

How large is the sensor? F1.3 is going to have a brutally shallow dept of field, unless the sensor is little to give the lens a low focal length to combat the DoF...?

My f1.8 lenses do okay in the dark but they are not exactly good enough to pick up someone lit from a scene of spaceflight in the dark... I always fancied an f1.2 but the DoF... and the f0.95 Noctilux... Stuff dreams are made of.

 

[Mich Angel]

How large is the sensor? F1.3 is going to have a brutally shallow dept of field, unless the sensor is little to give the lens a low focal length to combat the DoF...?

My f1.8 lenses do okay in the dark but they are not exactly good enough to pick up someone lit from a scene of spaceflight in the dark... I always fancied an f1.2 but the DoF... and the f0.95 Noctilux... Stuff dreams are made of.

As i understood it that is what the glass lens they chosen is to correct but he also mention the difference to ward normal webcams wide angle lens they chosen one with less wide angle and that make sense for a higher fps to have less wide angel and some what bigger sensor which is what you need to cope with 60 fps or more and get a good picture.

Yeah! F0.95 give it to me :D

 

[CosmicTrader]

So just another incompetent ignorant reporter who now shit about what he is writing and can't do proper research or get it right..

It's called FAKE NEWS these days.
But if you say that, you are ridiculed.

 

[Mich Angel]

It's called FAKE NEWS these days.
But if you say that, you are ridiculed.

Yeah! like everything in the news is true specially if it is written on the web and if you think it isn't you're a misguided twat that need to go back to school ha ha...
And let's not forget that a picture never lie ha ha ha..
Right!... :thinking: Heading back to school then I guess... HA HA HA HA! :beers:

 

[Sirus7264]

It's called FAKE NEWS these days.
But if you say that, you are ridiculed.

You good sir need to run for president!

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

As i understood it that is what the glass lens they chosen is to correct but he also mention the difference to ward normal webcams wide angle lens they chosen one with less wide angle and that make sense for a higher fps to have less wide angel and some what bigger sensor which is what you need to cope with 60 fps or more and get a good picture.

Yeah! F0.95 give it to me :smile:

The problem with a wide angle lens is that you have to move the camera closer to the subject to get the same angle of view - if the lens is zoomed further out, you have to get closer with the camera to have the same head-and-shoulders shot.

Problem is, the closer the camera is to the subject the shallower the DoF. Combine that with a wide open aperture causing even shallower DoF...

However i'm sure all of this will have been thought about and catered for. But I still doubt a computer screen of a starscape is going to allow enough light for 60fps capture without the room lights having to be on too... Happy to be shown wrong though :slight_smile:

 

[Mich Angel]

The problem with a wide angle lens is that you have to move the camera closer to the subject to get the same angle of view - if the lens is zoomed further out, you have to get closer with the camera to have the same head-and-shoulders shot.

Problem is, the closer the camera is to the subject the shallower the DoF. Combine that with a wide open aperture causing even shallower DoF...

However i'm sure all of this will have been thought about and catered for. But I still doubt a computer screen of a starscape is going to allow enough light for 60fps capture without the room lights having to be on too... Happy to be shown wrong though :slight_smile:

Yes I agree, but the cam they are doing is not wide angle as I understood and just for that reason a wideangle lens carry to much DoF to do a great tracking of the face it would work but not as efficient as the cam they are developing. They need a cam that have focus only on the face hence the smaller angle and less DoF, which should be perfect for the tracking of the face. But I do agree I think a normal room light together with the screen will do just fine for a 1.3 and if only the screen in a dark room is enough that is amazing but doubt it will be enough.
Anyways I 'll take that webcam any day than any other, with that high resolution and a F value of 1.3 and 60fps is awesome.
:D

 

[EpilepticCricket]

as my pappy used to say, "Fuck'em if they can't take a joke."

Pappy was a smart man.

 

[Likewise]

It didn't really seem to dip into the uncanny valley for me as the article claims. I mean for the past few years we have been getting games with incredible facial capture that helps portray emotion.

The only issue I had is that it is obviously not quite play ready as during the gameplay mission demo I kept watching it bug out and slide the jaw all over the place, lol.

 

[Grimbli]

I think we're all ignoring the big issue here. Sure it can track your face and approximate your emotions...but what happens when you wave your penis in front of the camera?

 

[Mich Angel]

I think we're all ignoring the big issue here. Sure it can track your face and approximate your emotions...but what happens when you wave your penis in front of the camera?

Well if you looked at the video where he stick a pen between the face and the cam it stopped tracking so my guess would be it would do the same what ever genital you put in front of it..

:nose:

 

[Doggen]

Its a neat gimmick , O-faces all over the place. Cant wait.
Wonder if you still can wear a headset with a mic in front of your mouth.

 

[Likewise]

Well if you looked at the video where he stick a pen between the face and the cam it stopped tracking so my guess would be it would do the same what ever genital you put in front of it..

:nose:

Yea but I mean what if you draw a really nice face on your wang?

 

[Likewise]

Its a neat gimmick , O-faces all over the place. Cant wait.
Wonder if you still can wear a headset with a mic in front of your mouth.

Oh man that's a good point. I didn't even consider issues with the mic in front of your face.

 

[Mich Angel]

Yea but I mean what if you draw a really nice face on your wang?

:joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy: Only in TEST would someone come up with that idea ha ha ha ha

 

[Mich Angel]

Oh man that's a good point. I didn't even consider issues with the mic in front of your face.

I use a Steelseries headset and I do not have my mic in front of my face I would dip it in my coffee when I take a sip, I have it on the side of the face and works just perfect there too..

:D