PlayStation Camera: What are the benefits?

In the PS2 EyeToy, I remember reading somewhere that they only tracked the movement regardless of the background. Maybe they do more now.

The new version may help a bit more if the background has the same color as the player's clothes (more sensitive and 2 cameras using different algorithms)
 
basic background removal / motion sensing looks at frame to frame difference and see what's different. difference = moving, same = background. This is not magic, I've worked on security camera with motion sensing/highlighting like 15 years ago.

what you get from stereo vision is the depth, because the closer the object is, the more different they will be from the 2 cameras (this is how human eye works).

however this depth is never going to be as good as measuring the actual depth by IR radiance or time-of-flight camera, because the depth is still derived from 2D images and it's also subjected to ambient lighting, where the actual "depth camera" measures the scene in 3D (or call it 2.5D if you like)

Try getting this kind of accuracy with the stereo camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9URIR-dEWBM

IMO I think the PS Camera is more of a "me too" product much like the SIXAXIS/MOVE for the PS3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was an article that mentioned that Sony may use the 2 cameras differently. They don't really have to stick with the 3D depth approach if the depth info (alone) is insufficient for their use cases.
 
Here's precisely my problem, if you have new videos showing new tech about the PS4 camera, just post them. But instead you put something from 4 years ago and make implications they should be better by now.

To put in perspective, you are basically posting videos of Killzone 2 and say Killzone Shadow Fall will look better than this, while it's true it says nothing about Shadow Fall.
If I show A + B, do I really need to that it equals "C"? Those proven algorithms don't get worse with increase resolution and a 2nd camera. It, obviously, gets better. The only question is...how much better.

The video Patsu provided listed basic equipment that we know the PS Camera has. Is it any different to come to the conclusions some people arrive at when seeing Kinect 2.0 has a low resolution ToF system on-board?

Try getting this kind of accuracy with the stereo camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9URIR-dEWBM

IMO I think the PS Camera is more of a "me too" product much like the SIXAXIS/MOVE for the PS3.
This is not about how precise can a camera system get. It's about the camera system's usefulness in console applications. I can have a car that is capable of slowly increasing in speed to 200mph. What good is it, if I live in a metropolitan city? That's why this thread is about gaming and other console type apps the PS Camera could introduce or further push.

PS Camera can't be a "me too" product, when it's a natural progression of something (EyeToy) that existed long before Kinect came about. Remember, Dr. Marks, at Sony R&D, researched depth cameras around the time the original Xbox hit the scene. Also, there is a video of one of Dr. Marks's presentations showing a couple sticks with balls on the end for tracking (root of PS Move). I believe that was before the original Xbox released.
 
IMO I think the PS Camera is more of a "me too" product much like the SIXAXIS/MOVE for the PS3.

So just ignore that every PS console has had a camera and that Sony has patents and research with Stereo cameras going back before the Kinect. I think you got the "me too" equation flipped.
 
So just ignore that every PS console has had a camera and that Sony has patents and research with Stereo cameras going back before the Kinect. I think you got the "me too" equation flipped.

I know that the PS2 had a camera for tracking movements for games specifically made for it. But just curious. Did the PS1 also had a camera? I cant remember the original having one
 
The only question is...how much better.

Yea, it'd be great that if you can post some research videos for the tech, because from what I'm seeing, it's not much better.
But wait, there's more, this is the exact same thing that I said last week.

Heck, you can even ship the exact same thing and it'll have lower latency because the processor runs faster now, here you go, it's better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know that the PS2 had a camera for tracking movements for games specifically made for it. But just curious. Did the PS1 also had a camera? I cant remember the original having one

Ya, I forgot about the PS1, I never had one, lol. So going back to 2000 with the PS2. I remember owning the Xbox Live Vision camera, I guess the EyeToy was a "mee to" again. Sony must have a Tardis.
 
Ya, I forgot about the PS1, I never had one, lol. So going back to 2000 with the PS2. I remember owning the Xbox Live Vision camera, I guess the EyeToy was a "mee to" again. Sony must have a Tardis.
Hmm?? The Eye Toy was released before the XBL Vision camera AFAIK
 
Its interesting that every review of the PS4 that have read (not many) also included an analysis of the PS4 camera and comparison to Kinect as part of their review. Thats a very interesting development considering all the original anti-Kinect sentiment.

I still appreciate the reviews though.
 
They should aim for completeness since this is the first time we see all the h/w. PSEye has some rudimentary use in the OS.
 
Its interesting that every review of the PS4 that have read (not many) also included an analysis of the PS4 camera and comparison to Kinect as part of their review. Thats a very interesting development considering all the original anti-Kinect sentiment.

I still appreciate the reviews though.

I don't understand your interest. The camera was available day one and it has features in the OS. To not include mentioning these in reviews would be lazy and give other media outlets a more complete review. And of course these features are natural to compare to the exact same Kinect features. I'm not sure what anti-Kinect sentiment you are referring to. People were generally against paying for something they didn't want, why would they feel that way against an optional accessory?
 
I don't understand your interest. The camera was available day one and it has features in the OS. To not include mentioning these in reviews would be lazy and give other media outlets a more complete review. And of course these features are natural to compare to the exact same Kinect features. I'm not sure what anti-Kinect sentiment you are referring to. People were generally against paying for something they didn't want, why would they feel that way against an optional accessory?

The review of PS4 camera was included in the PS4 SYSTEM review. Does the PS4 camera come with the System like Kinect does with Xbox? No. So then logically it should be in a separate review as an accessory. The reviews tended to include the camera as if it was in the system and compared it to the Kinect by name. Isnt that strange?

Since when do you include a peripheral as a considerable component of your review of a system that doesnt include it?

The AntiKinect sentiment wasnt just about paying for something additional... I didnt want or care about sixaxis in my PS3 controller even though Sony told me how great it was... Anti Kinect sentiment was based around it basically having ZERO VALUE whether as a peripheral or as an included component. I find it both amusing and stunning that PS4's camera is being evaluated as a "feature" with feature sets that are expected to grow in robustness over time...
 
The review of PS4 camera was included in the PS4 SYSTEM review. Does the PS4 camera come with the System like Kinect does with Xbox? No. So then logically it should be in a separate review as an accessory. The reviews tended to include the camera as if it was in the system and compared it to the Kinect by name. Isnt that strange?
Although the camera doesn't come as standard with all packs, it does come with some. I bagged the Killzone Mega Pack where you get the game, a second DS4 controller and the camera - which is essentially free given the cost difference between it and the basic console package.

I can't see the logic to splitting PS4 reviews into two, with the camera being reviewed separately because its an optional accessory. Certainly all the reviews I've read have made it very clear the camera is not a standard in all boxes.

What's to be gained by doing this? :???:

Since when do you include a peripheral as a considerable component of your review of a system that doesnt include it?

Certainly the reviews I've read have barely touched on the camera, it's like an afterthought - kind of like the cameras itself. Which reviews made a "considerable" deal of it?
 
The review of PS4 camera was included in the PS4 SYSTEM review. Does the PS4 camera come with the System like Kinect does with Xbox? No. So then logically it should be in a separate review as an accessory. The reviews tended to include the camera as if it was in the system and compared it to the Kinect by name. Isnt that strange?

Since when do you include a peripheral as a considerable component of your review of a system that doesnt include it?

The AntiKinect sentiment wasnt just about paying for something additional... I didnt want or care about sixaxis in my PS3 controller even though Sony told me how great it was... Anti Kinect sentiment was based around it basically having ZERO VALUE whether as a peripheral or as an included component. I find it both amusing and stunning that PS4's camera is being evaluated as a "feature" with feature sets that are expected to grow in robustness over time...
I believe, facial recognition has system (OS) level integration. I, also, remember seeing echo cancellation in a slide somewhere. Some features are, indeed, integrated. It's just that the camera isn't mandatory. It's a choice. Therefore, nothing is "strange" with those reports (in that sense). What is weird is the hate and revisionist history some people are demonstrating.
 
The review of PS4 camera was included in the PS4 SYSTEM review. Does the PS4 camera come with the System like Kinect does with Xbox? No. So then logically it should be in a separate review as an accessory. The reviews tended to include the camera as if it was in the system and compared it to the Kinect by name. Isnt that strange?

Since when do you include a peripheral as a considerable component of your review of a system that doesnt include it?

The AntiKinect sentiment wasnt just about paying for something additional... I didnt want or care about sixaxis in my PS3 controller even though Sony told me how great it was... Anti Kinect sentiment was based around it basically having ZERO VALUE whether as a peripheral or as an included component. I find it both amusing and stunning that PS4's camera is being evaluated as a "feature" with feature sets that are expected to grow in robustness over time...

You are really torn up about it, maybe write the editor and complain? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top