Schrade said:
Interesting. If these specs are real, then they've certainly dropped since it was first announced. I seem to remember their RGB camera able to go to 1600x1200 or something.
That's for static pictures, I think, not video stream. Maybe it's still able to do that, but the limitation with video streams is the USB2 bandwidth. We calculated a few days ago in another kinect thread that the pseye used almost all of the 480 Mb/s when running 640x480@60fps.
We assumed at the time that for kinect, the depth map was 8 bits and 640x480. If it turns out to be 320x240 and 16 bits, it's a bit smaller, but should still take a lot of the bandwith.
Even if the lower XY resolution is a bit disappointing, the higher depth resolution is a good surprise.
gofreak said:
But in fact, in pretty much every respect - asides from the depth camera of course - those specs are inferior to PSeye. Lower camera capture rate, smaller FOV, lower quality mics (PSeye's are 16-bit 48hz).
I think it's not about having the higher performances available with current technology, but making the best compromise for what you want to do.
As said above, the video resolution and framerate is dictated by USB2 limitations, and I suppose that the field of view is due to the depth sensor (either technical limitations or because they wanted a given precision range). They could obviously have used a wider FOV for the camera, but it's half useless if it covers areas that the depth camera doesn't.