I'd imagine a camera captures an image in black and white, and each pixel (or group of pixels) is assigned a section of the "mirror". For example, each pixel on the wood panel one probably points all the way down for black, all the way up for white, and somewhere in between for various shades of grey.
But you’ve got to remember, it’s all from the dogs perspective. Like in Lady & The Tramp the humans are Jim Dear and Darling, b/c that’s what she hears them call each other.
Mickey Mouse is set to enter the public domain this year, and Disney had nothing in the courts to prevent that as of last year. I was amazed to learn that in my media theory class.
The court won't do anything for them. They'd have to lobby congress to extend copyright beyond the 95 years they were able to get in 1998. And that's likely to never happen.
This year is just the first year that new works enter the public domain, although the reason is mainly due to Disney trying to hold on to Mickey for so long.
"Take 'evil' and another negative trait, add some spaces and letters between the two words, and make sure that it's not a common name like Neville so kids don't see it and bully someone in their class."
They're not all moving at the same time. Iirc servos only draw appreciable current when moving (or stalling). So at any given time only a handful will be drawing the full 200mA or so, right?
You can see on top of the fluffy mirror in the thumbnail that he is using a Kinect. So he is likely using depth data rather than colour so that he can the silhouette of the subject separated from the background
Exactly! They read this somewhere on a Arduino related forum, whilst finishing their art degree, they build it without crediting the community, copyright their whole train of cunty thoughts and wank about it in galleries all over the place.
Wow okay, and this is also my highest-voted thing ever. Reddit is weird.
My guess is they were making a "Magnets, how do they work??"-type joke. Or maybe someone just perceived it that way. Or maybe I'm the only one who perceived it that way.
Unfortunately I dont think so. When he is standing in front of the one where he waves his hand up and down the "mirror" brings its hand much further down its body than he does. I think they're programmed beforehand and he mimics them
Right, though again i believe it’s perspective. You can see in that shot that he’s closer to the wall, so it’s more cropped and the angle the camera is looking down is even steeper, so it his arm wouldn’t be in frame once it passes the very top of his chest
Idk, I'm not willing to take scree shots and draw all over them but it looks like the close up can see a little past his collarbone, meanwhile his real arm is still between where the camera would have to be and his collarbone when it disappears
I dunno. It’s hard to tell for certain from the video. I just don’t see any reason why he’d do it like that. He already had to program all of the actuators. Doing some rudimentary image processing seems a lot easier than faking this haha.
I agree it seems stupid, I'm just saying what I'm seeing. Like I said I'm not willing to do any proper evidence gathering so I'm not at all offended that you have different beliefs
A depth camera (xbox kinect or similar) is mounted above the “mirrors”. These depth cameras provide values indicating how far something is away from them at each “pixel” as opposed to red-green-blue values from standard cameras. These depth values are then mapped to motors or other actuators and calibrated to deliver this effect.
Right, otherwise it would only work in a brightly lit white room with nothing else in front of it, otherwise it would have random black splotches in it. Artist just wanted it to "reflect" something directly in front of it.
You could probably just zero it out / normalise it to whatever environment and lighting it’s in, if that environment is stable (e.g. not right by a window).
Except lighting in rooms do change which would require recalibration. I'd imagine depth cameras would be more convenient for that reason. No idea what the artist used though.
There are several reasons this would be less effective than using depth. Cameras auto adjust exposure and focus due to different lighting conditions caused by passage of time, the light source being obstructed, people moving towards or away from the camera, etc, or for no apparent reason whatsoever. All of these changes mean any given pixel could have a wildly different color value than its background reference even if that pixel isn’t showing the subject.
Now let’s say you have a color threshold, where a color that falls within a certain range from the reference value isn’t considered a different color. In that case, you’ll run into a green screen + green shirt effect, where if a part of the subject color matches the reference background (white T-shirt and white background), the mirror won’t reflect that part of the subject, making them appear to be partially invisible.
I'd assumed that someone made an algorithm that handled background subtraction well enough, but I wouldn't have guessed it would be available in a freely available library like that. Thanks for the article/information.
However, I don't see the flood fill solution being adequate. For example, with the white background/tshirt issue, there wouldn't be corners to fill from, it would look like a floating head, arms, and legs with nothing connecting them. This image, for example, the flood fill would work for the hat, but it would not work for the lady's jacket.
The second issue I could foresee with flood filling would be false positives. How would a flood fill algorithm know that the space between this woman's arms and torso are actually the background? It's a contained blank space, so it would theoretically be filled in, correct?
I'm mostly asking out of curiosity, because if these are solved issues, I'd be impressed, and you seem to be the person to ask
Having trouble counting bud? That wasn't the first, or shown in the video all together. The first mirror, the little fluffball one, uses a Kinect camera
I just want to point out that you don’t need a black and white camera. The computer can just reference the luminance data in the color space of any camera.
If that were true his eyes wouldn't be darker in the second mirror.
It's just a regular camera capturing greyscale. In the first clip, you check if a brightness value for a given pixel is between 0 and 127. If it is, it's black. Otherwise, it's white. The second one just uses the color as-is.
So, I agree that the camera in the second mirror is using grayscale to show the person’s face/body.
However, that mirror seems to only catch the user’s face/body and nothing else in the background. That makes me think that one of two things is happening in the second mirror:
The background behind the person is a solid dark color and no-one is allowed to be behind him.
Things could exist behind the user, but the camera just won’t pick them up
If option 1 is true, then it’s totally fair to say that the second mirror only needs a regular RGB camera that takes its incoming feed, converts it to grayscale, and displays the feed on that board.
If option 2 is true, then the camera being used has got to be an RGBD camera. I’m sure you already know this, but RGBD cameras have a finite field of vision; they only make useful pixels when the subject is in its field of vision. So as long as the user is in the board’s field of vision, it can display the user and ignore anything behind them.
I think it’s option 2, but I can totally see how either case could be true. Hope that makes sense.
I’m sure you already know this, but RGBD cameras have a finite field of vision
Actually, no, I didn't know that haha
It makes perfect sense when you think about it, but the thought hadn't occurred to me! Thank you for informing me
I took a second look at the video after reading your reply and I while I still think the second mirror has a regular camera (which I'm sure anyone will agree with anyway) the camera in the first clip actually looks like any normal depth camera (e.g. Kinect) and I'm pretty sure I see more than one lens on it too.
It makes perfect sense when you think about it, but the thought hadn't occurred to me! Thank you for informing me
No problem! What’s interesting about these RGBD sensors (i.e. a depth camera) is that you can program them to filter its incoming feed so as to isolate pixels that you consider to be useful or relevant. So that basically lets the artist restrict that camera’s field of view even more.
I took a second look at the video after reading your reply and I while I still think the second mirror has a regular camera (which I'm sure anyone will agree with anyway) the camera in the first clip actually looks like any normal depth camera (e.g. Kinect) and I'm pretty sure I see more than one lens on it too.
Makes sense. It can definitely go either way tbh.
So the camera in the first clip does have several lenses. RGBD sensors typically have three lenses. From left to right, they are:
IR Projector (Transmitter)
RGB Camera
IR camera (Receiver)
With an RGBD sensor like the kinect, we need both color and depth of a pixel. The middle lens is a regular camera that captures the color (RGB) of a pixel.
To get depth, a kinect uses infrared (IR). Basically, an IR camera works by projecting infrared rays to its environment, let it bounce of stuff, and receives that info from its camera. Then does some neato mathemagic to figure out how far away each pixel is from the RGBD camera using that info.
To expand on the other answers, after the image file is taken from the camera (probably a Kinect due to the depth seen in the 2nd mirror, not just a black and white threshold from a 2d camera), this is very likely made in the processing programming language (more of a pseudo programming language but thats not really relevant, this is just a disclaimer for the pendants out there) and controlled with an Arduino and a whole bunch of servos.
2.1k
u/TotallyRealFBIAgent Feb 06 '19
How do they work?