|
The Management posted:I didn’t mean that it sees your bones. it’s a laser that projects a bunch of tiny dots at your face and takes a picture of them. it calculates where the dots are versus where they should be and constructs a 3D model of your face. it then compares the shape and ratios of the major features it sees. in particular, the placement of your eyes, the shape of your head, nose, cheek bones, and jaw. it does not have millimeter accuracy, it’s about getting a good approximation of several of those things that gives it enough confidence to declare that it’s you. it doesn’t see skin color, it doesn’t see your pimples. it can survive your beard or scarf obscuring some things, but maybe not your sunglasses. is it a laser? an led should work and would be cheaper also is it a speckle pattern or something else?
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:is it a laser? an led should work and would be cheaper
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
they bought out my former boss’s grad student lab so I think they’re good on that front took them long enough to actually use the 3d stuff instead of just the touch stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:is it a laser? an led should work and would be cheaper I literally had to take a laser safety class before being given an early prototype and have my eyes examined so they can determine how much vision I lost in case it blinds me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:is it a laser? an led should work and would be cheaper *clears throat, points at Apple logo*
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
The Management posted:it doesn’t see skin color me neither
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
The Management posted:I didn’t mean that it sees your bones. it’s a laser that projects a bunch of tiny dots at your face and takes a picture of them. it calculates where the dots are versus where they should be and constructs a 3D model of your face. it then compares the shape and ratios of the major features it sees. in particular, the placement of your eyes, the shape of your head, nose, cheek bones, and jaw. it does not have millimeter accuracy, it’s about getting a good approximation of several of those things that gives it enough confidence to declare that it’s you. it doesn’t see skin color, it doesn’t see your pimples. it can survive your beard or scarf obscuring some things, but maybe not your sunglasses. i wasn't worried about acne because of skin color. it's measuring the orientation of the tangent planes of your face at various points by seeing how the dots are skewed. a big rear end pimple in a spot where a dot is projected will completely deform that measurement. they probably filter the data to ignore a few outlier dots but if you're talking a teen with tons of acne i could imagine it making GBS threads the bed. either way it's a different issue than a scarf or a beard. The Management posted:aluminum foil does a pretty great job keeping my burrito warm. and hair does a great job of keeping my head from baking in the sun. nah, aluminum is a terrible thermal insulator, that's why cans feel colder than plastic bottles straight from the fridge. go out in freezing weather with a piece of foil wrapped closely around your skin and see how long you last. hair, clothes, double ply windows, foam insulation-- none of these have anything to do with blocking IR radiation, they work by surrounding the warm thing in a blanket of air that is prevented from convecting (blowing away), which is the main way air transfers heat (but anyway gizmodo says the X does have trouble with hats and scarves that cover too much, so i guess that proves i was wrong about it seeing through the scarf) hobbesmaster posted:is it a laser? an led should work and would be cheaper if the apple marketing is accurate they show a picture of a grid of dots on their website. how would you get each led to stay focused to make the tiny dots on a face? it probably needs those to be very well-focused to measure
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:
you don’t actually need a particularly good focus
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:i wasn't worried about acne because of skin color. it's measuring the orientation of the tangent planes of your face at various points by seeing how the dots are skewed. a big rear end pimple in a spot where a dot is projected will completely deform that measurement. they probably filter the data to ignore a few outlier dots but if you're talking a teen with tons of acne i could imagine it making GBS threads the bed. either way it's a different issue than a scarf or a beard. no, it measures the x-y offset of where the dots are projected to where they are expected. since the camera is offset from the laser, this allows it to determine the depth of the dot. your pimples are in the noise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
if it’s projecting 30k dots so assuming say a 25 cm by 25 cm area that’d be maybe 1.5mm x-y resolution. so a simple median filter is probably going to knock out any acne if it can even be picked up
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
it's taking photos and using them for comparison but the technology is being jazzed up by talking about the light sensor
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
The Management posted:no, it measures the x-y offset of where the dots are projected to where they are expected. since the camera is offset from the laser, this allows it to determine the depth of the dot. your pimples are in the noise. uh obviously you underestimate the size of my pimples (wherever i got the distortion idea from must've been guessing, what you said makes sense) hobbesmaster posted:you don’t actually need a particularly good focus yea? with thousands of dots, even in conditions where there is some normal level of background IR noise?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:uh obviously you underestimate the size of my pimples ir noise isn’t a big issue with a decent band pass filter for your sensor and as for focus, I guess it depends on what you define as good focus but you just something you can find a centroid for
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
if the iphone x blinds me im gonna get pretty mad i probably wouldnt buy any new iphones for 3 or 4 years just to teach apple a lesson
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
The Management posted:I literally had to take a laser safety class before being given an early prototype and have my eyes examined so they can determine how much vision I lost in case it blinds me. what's the upper limit on radiation output before it needs the laser warning? iirc there isn't even a class i notice on the iphone x packaging i've never seen the connect box but i'd assume it had one given the distance it was meant to operate at
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
class I lasers don’t need to be labeled well they don’t need warnings, I don’t know if they need fine print next to the FCC certification Kinect was class I
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:what's the upper limit on radiation output before it needs the laser warning? iirc there isn't even a class i notice on the iphone x packaging I’m not an expert on this but in the production devices there are safety mechanisms that prevent it from putting out the kind of power that would roast your corneas, and therefore it’s a class 1 laser. in a development board with modules exposed and no interlocks, that’s not the case which means it’s a class 2. whether it can actually output the necessary power for amateur lasik, I don’t really know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
The Management posted:I literally had to take a laser safety class before being given an early prototype and have my eyes examined so they can determine how much vision I lost in case it blinds me. you risked your vision for Face ID ... lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:ir noise isn’t a big issue with a decent band pass filter for your sensor then why might the X have trouble with faceid in bright light?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:you risked your vision for Face ID nah, I taped a piece of cardboard over the sensor bar to avoid getting laser vision. it didn’t work yet anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:then why might the X have trouble with faceid in bright light? you can still oversaturate it
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:then why might the X have trouble with faceid in bright light? it expects you in basement level light
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 08:44
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
following on from my CarPlay post. BMW now want to charge you 80 bucks a year for the privelige of being able to use this completely free built in service. Taking tips from Tim on how to gouge the customer base... https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/01/19/bmw-shitheads
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
smellmycheese posted:following on from my CarPlay post. BMW now want to charge you 80 bucks a year for the privelige of being able to use this completely free built in service. Taking tips from Tim on how to gouge the customer base... way to cheapen the brand retards. what next? rolex smart watches?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
BMW read one of those old reports on App Store monetizing vs Google Play and are taking the lesson to heart also bmw owners will pay for it no questions asked because lol to own a bmw without a CarPlay license makes you an honorary poor the cool buff dude driving the M2 and going to LA fitness will not let that babe see him without CarPlay, he’s not a mini driving choad
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
apple should tell bmw to go gently caress themselves on this one
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
CPAAS - CarPlay As A Service
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
cool startup feel posted:apple should tell bmw to go gently caress themselves on this one yeah Apple really doesn’t like anyone loving with what their brand
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
note that previously bmw charged you $300 to “enable” CarPlay. that was a dick move. but charging a recurring fee for something that is free to them, requires no additional effort on their part is really spectacularly lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
The Management posted:note that previously bmw charged you $300 to “enable” CarPlay. that was a dick move. but charging a recurring fee for something that is free to them, requires no additional effort on their part is really spectacularly lovely. yeah but they’ve had to do extra work now, to add whatever they use to kill CarPlay if you don’t pay up. so now they need to charge a fee to recoup that cost. seems fair
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
the funny thing is they could've charged for 100 years of carplay if they included it in the car price and no one would notice. they had to do the skeevy way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:the funny thing is they could've charged for 100 years of carplay if they included it in the car price and no one would notice. they had to do the skeevy way. yeah it’s the dumbest way to do it. “CarPlay option: 800 dollars” and cover 10 years. bmw assholes wouldn’t even complain
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:yeah but they’ve had to do extra work now, to add whatever they use to kill CarPlay if you don’t pay up. so now they need to charge a fee to recoup that cost. seems fair drat, you’re right. some engineer got a work order on his desk to make it so that CarPlay stops working after a year if it isn’t reauthorized, and instead of telling his boss to get hosed he actually did it. the dickish part here is that some person will be driving this used bmw in 10 years. they bought it for $3500. and when they plug in their iPhone SE in it will tell them that they need to pay $80 to a server that doesn’t even exist anymore and it’s not like they had an extra 80 bucks to blow anyway or they wouldn’t be driving this beat up car in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
"we charge customers to update their nav maps under our old system so we should get to charge them using Apple's system too"
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
CarPlay is bad anyway because it's always on laggy pieces of poo poo with resistive touch screens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
mine is capacitive and works great once you're actually in CarPlay. admittedly, it takes a few seconds to boot and click through the nanny screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
id much rather have carplay than a crappy oem thing that will be outdated in 3 years. i get a new phone a lot more often than a new car
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
just give me bluetooth (plus an actual audio jack), and a logical place to mount a current phone, the integration between a thing which lasts 20+ years with a thing that lasts 3 need better be shallow
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Soricidus posted:yeah but they’ve had to do extra work now, to add whatever they use to kill CarPlay if you don’t pay up. so now they need to charge a fee to recoup that cost. seems fair it would be interesting to see the numbers on this. not as interesting as the numbers for 'govt spending on benefit fraud auditing' vs 'government spending on fraudulent benefit claims' but still probably pretty lolworthy
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:28
|
|
