|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by dan michaels on September 28, 2007, 9:46 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> > If you got a CMUcam or AVRcam or similar device, you could probably
> > get your bot acting very similar to this right now, cueing in on a
> > colored ball rather than a face. Get it to track back and forth, and
> > then jump backwards when the size of the object increases quickly,
> > etc.
>
> True. And with the right background and clothing, you could get it to
> do that with a face too. But that's cheating!
>
Well, there's such a thing as the learning curve [meaning try the
simple
things FIRST as a step on the way to doing the more complicated
stuff],
plus how much time, money, and effort you really want to invest into
something that does no more than react to something that looks like
a face.
Plus, with a CMU/AVR cam, you can probably set the color tracking to
skin tone, once you get it tracking a ball. Also, after you try the
FIRST
step, you might decide the whole effort is just so much whimsy.
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
> Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>
|
|
Posted by Joe Strout on October 1, 2007, 3:23 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> >
> > > If you got a CMUcam or AVRcam or similar device, you could probably
> > > get your bot acting very similar to this right now, cueing in on a
> > > colored ball rather than a face. Get it to track back and forth, and
> > > then jump backwards when the size of the object increases quickly,
> > > etc.
> >
> > True. And with the right background and clothing, you could get it to
> > do that with a face too. But that's cheating!
>
> Well, there's such a thing as the learning curve [meaning try the
> simple
> things FIRST as a step on the way to doing the more complicated
> stuff],
> plus how much time, money, and effort you really want to invest into
> something that does no more than react to something that looks like
> a face.
>
> Plus, with a CMU/AVR cam, you can probably set the color tracking to
> skin tone, once you get it tracking a ball. Also, after you try the
> FIRST step, you might decide the whole effort is just so much whimsy.
I guess different people find different things easy. Over the weekend I
downloaded OpenCV and had a simple face-tracking demo up in about 20
minutes. To interface a CMU/AVR cam would have taken me much longer, I
feel certain.
Of course there's still the issue of exactly what I'm going to do with
it, and where I'm going to stuff the computer. But a robot that does no
more than react to faces is still far cooler (and more intelligent) than
any other robot I have a chance of building in the next few years.
And yes, of course it's mainly whimsy -- but let he whose robot actually
does something useful cast the first stone. Personally I think giving
up on the idea of building a robot that's actually useful is a key
milestone in one's journey through hobby robotics. On the other hand,
there's much to be said for getting beyond the typical
wander-around-trying-not-to-bump-into-things stage.
Best,
- Joe
--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>
|
|
Posted by Wayne C. Gramlich on October 1, 2007, 6:24 pm
Please log in for more thread options Joe Strout wrote:
[snip]
> I guess different people find different things easy. Over the weekend I
> downloaded OpenCV and had a simple face-tracking demo up in about 20
> minutes. To interface a CMU/AVR cam would have taken me much longer, I
> feel certain.
>
> Of course there's still the issue of exactly what I'm going to do with
> it, and where I'm going to stuff the computer. But a robot that does no
> more than react to faces is still far cooler (and more intelligent) than
> any other robot I have a chance of building in the next few years.
>
> And yes, of course it's mainly whimsy -- but let he whose robot actually
> does something useful cast the first stone. Personally I think giving
> up on the idea of building a robot that's actually useful is a key
> milestone in one's journey through hobby robotics.
I would like to make a slight modification to what you say.
I think it is OK to give up on building a robot that does
something useful for the first few robot; however, having
something a robot that does something useful is still a
reasonable and desirable goal for the longer term.
> On the other hand,
> there's much to be said for getting beyond the typical
> wander-around-trying-not-to-bump-into-things stage.
My $.02 (and less than 100 lines to boot ;-)
-Wayne
|
|
Posted by dan michaels on October 1, 2007, 11:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options >
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > If you got a CMUcam or AVRcam or similar device, you could probably
> > > > get your bot acting very similar to this right now, cueing in on a
> > > > colored ball rather than a face. Get it to track back and forth, and
> > > > then jump backwards when the size of the object increases quickly,
> > > > etc.
>
> > > True. And with the right background and clothing, you could get it to
> > > do that with a face too. But that's cheating!
>
> > Well, there's such a thing as the learning curve [meaning try the
> > simple
> > things FIRST as a step on the way to doing the more complicated
> > stuff],
> > plus how much time, money, and effort you really want to invest into
> > something that does no more than react to something that looks like
> > a face.
>
> > Plus, with a CMU/AVR cam, you can probably set the color tracking to
> > skin tone, once you get it tracking a ball. Also, after you try the
> > FIRST step, you might decide the whole effort is just so much whimsy.
>
> I guess different people find different things easy. Over the weekend I
> downloaded OpenCV and had a simple face-tracking demo up in about 20
> minutes. To interface a CMU/AVR cam would have taken me much longer, I
> feel certain.
>
Yeah, having a demo program running on your PC is a little easier
than having one connected to a vid cam and running on your mini
sumo, etc.
Do you know whether the "spider" had its own visual processing on
board, or was connected to a remore PC?
> Of course there's still the issue of exactly what I'm going to do with
> it, and where I'm going to stuff the computer. But a robot that does no
> more than react to faces is still far cooler (and more intelligent) than
> any other robot I have a chance of building in the next few years.
>
As I indicated, I'll bet it would be just as impressive if the cam
caused
the bot to respond to circular moving objects. After all, spiders
don't
know about faces, they just react to moving things that might eat
them,
and vice versa.
> And yes, of course it's mainly whimsy -- but let he whose robot actually
> does something useful cast the first stone. Personally I think giving
> up on the idea of building a robot that's actually useful is a key
> milestone in one's journey through hobby robotics.
Say what?
How about a robot that can patrol your house when you're away
from home, and send pictures of intruders directly to the internet.
> On the other hand,
> there's much to be said for getting beyond the typical
> wander-around-trying-not-to-bump-into-things stage.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
> Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>-
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
|
Posted by Joe Strout on October 2, 2007, 10:18 am
Please log in for more thread options
> Do you know whether the "spider" had its own visual processing on
> board, or was connected to a remore PC?
It was connected to a remote PC.
> > And yes, of course it's mainly whimsy -- but let he whose robot actually
> > does something useful cast the first stone. Personally I think giving
> > up on the idea of building a robot that's actually useful is a key
> > milestone in one's journey through hobby robotics.
>
> Say what?
>
> How about a robot that can patrol your house when you're away
> from home, and send pictures of intruders directly to the internet.
I'm in the camp that considers remote-controlled vehicles to be more,
well, RC vehicles than robots. :) But I do recognize that they face
many of the same engineering problems and there is a great deal of
crossover in the two hobbies.
Now, a robot that patrols your home on its own, recognizes any people it
sees, and gives you a call on your cell phone if anybody comes in that
it doesn't know -- THAT would start to border on a useful robot. Though
only marginally so; it would be simpler and probably more cost-effective
to just put a camera in each room with a home entrance. And most people
would say that this simpler solution is not a robot, since it has no
moving parts.
Best,
- Joe
--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Pretty cool looking robot ! | June 24, 2008, 1:00 am |
| Pretty cool networking idea for bots | May 7, 2006, 9:41 am |
| Pretty cool micro tank chassis | May 10, 2006, 2:53 pm |
| Video of very cool robot | March 31, 2006, 9:27 am |
| you won't ignore me attempting except for your pretty highway | August 14, 2007, 1:57 am |
| hunt pretty contacts Tamara's bird | August 14, 2007, 10:41 pm |
| faction in accordance with skull lists pretty | August 16, 2007, 12:50 am |
| lodge undermines in addition the pretty session | August 22, 2007, 2:03 am |
| as remarkably as Ken reserves, you can shut the pool much more pretty | December 29, 2007, 5:24 pm |
| Triumph of "ID" - SwarmBots Play "Soccer", Pretty Well Really | June 24, 2008, 8:30 am |
|
|
|
XML site map