Augmented Reality modeling

>=20
> That's your second attempt at a definition ... your first one was wrong,
>=20
> then? :)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> So, according to your above, and despite their technology being precisely
>=20
> identical in either case, if AR-Media's example would have been a Care Be=
ar
>=20
> instead of a house, it would have been "AR", but, since they chose the
>=20
> house in that instance to sell their Sketchup plugin, it is no longer the
>=20
> same technology?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Wow ... are technologist really that nitpicking these days?
>=20
> =20
>=20
> > I was just wasting time here and won't be going on any crusade to corre=
ct
>=20
> > anyone beyond these comments. I just don't like seeing new technologies
>=20
> > terms being co-opted and misrepresented. It's like those HD sunglasses
>=20
> > you can buy. Just co-opting the HD concept to sell some crappy yellow s=
unglasses.<
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Happy horse shit, is happy horse shit ... and nitpicking and conflicting
>=20
> definitions, instead of "correcting" anyone, looks more like someone
>=20
> doesn't really understand it themselves?
>=20

Whoa is me. Why doesn't the world instantly recognize my brilliance?

The underlying technology is 3D display. One implementation is AR. This imp=
lementation is a classic case of a technology Vertical Integration. In this=
integration a Horizontal technology (3D display in this case) is integrate=
d into various vertical markets or needs. In this case 3D display can be us=
ed to Augment Reality. It can also be used to spin a sketchup model in a ra=
ndom location. Spinning a reduced sized 3D image of a thing in random space=
is not AR. Placing a properly scaled and located 3D displayed item into a =
real world scene is AR.

My next lecture will be on 3D transformations and their 3x3 and 4x4 martix =
representations.=20

"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Sony example is correct. It augments a real sized stuffed bear into
> the reality of the room. The video you shared earlier showed a 3D model
> of a house sitting on a desktop. Houses don't fit on desktops. If they
> had a phone, then maybe. "Augmented reality (AR) is a live, direct or
> indirect, view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are
> augmented by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video,
> graphics or GPS data." Wikipedia. No not an unchallenged source but they
> do have a correct description.

That's your second attempt at a definition ... your first one was wrong,
then? :)

So, according to your above, and despite their technology being precisely
identical in either case, if AR-Media's example would have been a Care Bear
instead of a house, it would have been "AR", but, since they chose the
house in that instance to sell their Sketchup plugin, it is no longer the
same technology?

Wow ... are technologist really that nitpicking these days?

> I was just wasting time here and won't be going on any crusade to correct
> anyone beyond these comments. I just don't like seeing new technologies
> terms being co-opted and misrepresented. It's like those HD sunglasses
> you can buy. Just co-opting the HD concept to sell some crappy yellow sunglasses.<

Happy horse shit, is happy horse shit ... and nitpicking and conflicting
definitions, instead of "correcting" anyone, looks more like someone
doesn't really understand it themselves?

Hey, don't mind me ... I'm just "wasting time here" too. :)

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On Monday, February 18, 2013 6:07:57 AM UTC-8, Swingman wrote:
> Been watching this development in 3D modeling for the past year.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Won't be long before you'll be able to sit down at your Sketchup modeled=
=20
>=20
> table to test how suitable it is for breakfast ... just a matter of scale=
:
>=20
>=20

Hmmm, your description would be more correct than how they are using "mis-u=
sing" the term Augmented Reality. In my day job I work in an industry where=
my products provide content for and interact with true AR systems and I ha=
ve contact with the top researchers in this field. The common understanding=
of augmented reality is to add new items into an existing reality.

The typical usage is to put on a pair of glasses or headset of some sort. T=
hen look around, walk around the room you are in and see new items augmente=
d into the scene. So your table example is perfect. You should be able to l=
ook down and see the table in the room. Walk around it, etc.

What they are showing is more like a hologram or 3D heads up display or som=
ething.

>=20
> That said, you should take it up with the source if you want to be=20
>=20
> nitpicking about their terminology:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> http://www.armedia.it/technology.php
>=20
>=20
>=20
> And Sony seems to agree with them:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201105/11-058E/index.html
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Let us know how far you get ...
>=20
The Sony example is correct. It augments a real sized stuffed bear into the=
reality of the room. The video you shared earlier showed a 3D model of a h=
ouse sitting on a desktop. Houses don't fit on desktops. If they had a phon=
e, then maybe. "Augmented reality (AR) is a live, direct or indirect, view =
of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented by compu=
ter-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data." Wi=
kipedia. No not an unchallenged source but they do have a correct descripti=
on.

I was just wasting time here and won't be going on any crusade to correct a=
nyone beyond these comments. I just don't like seeing new technologies term=
s being co-opted and misrepresented. It's like those HD sunglasses you can =
buy. Just co-opting the HD concept to sell some crappy yellow sunglasses.=
=20

On 2/20/2013 11:37 AM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:

> Hmmm, your description would be more correct than how they are using "mis-using" the term Augmented Reality.

> The common understanding of augmented reality is to add new items
> into an existing reality.

Hmmm, my desk (existing reality) suddenly has a virtual 3D digital model
(new item) hovering above it.

Go figure ...

That said, you should take it up with the source if you want to be
nitpicking about their terminology:

http://www.armedia.it/technology.php

And Sony seems to agree with them:

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201105/11-058E/index.html

Let us know how far you get ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)