1 / 24

[I/O] ³ Input/Output Cubed

[I/O] ³ Input/Output Cubed. Kevin Eykholt Tom Finneran Chris Pitoniak Shamit Som. Problem Statement. Problem: Time : Mistakes can be time-consuming to correct Visualization : It is hard to use a computer to make virtual 3D models

rob
Download Presentation

[I/O] ³ Input/Output Cubed

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. [I/O]³ Input/OutputCubed Kevin Eykholt Tom Finneran Chris Pitoniak ShamitSom

  2. Problem Statement • Problem: • Time:Mistakes can be time-consuming to correct • Visualization:It is hard to use a computer to make virtual 3D models • Health Hazard: Long-term exposure to sculpting materials can cause significant health hazards • Waste: Many iterations of physical models require materials that are not resused

  3. Effect on the Individual • It should allow the user to correct mistakes easily without having to restart the project • It should make computer modeling more intuitive and efficient for the user Current Approach On this We want this

  4. Effect on Group • Extensive work with sculpting materials exposes modelers to dust, a significant health hazard • Long-term exposure to silica dust, common in ceramic sculpting, can lead to Silicosis, a.k.a. “Potter’s Rot”

  5. Effect on Group • Need to reduce the amount of waste generated from failed project attempts

  6. Significance • 3D Modeling covers many disciplines: • Entertainment: Movies, Games, Art • Concept Art • Mechanical/Civil Engineering and Architecture • Product mock-ups • Biology and Chemistry • Displaying chemical structures • DNA and protein models

  7. Requirements Analysis: User Specifications • Use hand gestures to create, modify, and manipulate virtual 3D models • Display accurate, distortion-free holographic image • Respond to user inputs in real-time • Relatively inexpensive - <$1000

  8. Inputs and Outputs • Inputs • Hand Gestures • Outputs • Hologram • Virtual 3D Computer Model

  9. General Solution Block Diagram Input Hand Gesture Recognition Computer/Software 3D Object Data Traditional 2D Representation Output 3D Volumetric Display

  10. Requirement Analysis – Technical Specifications • Real-time response – <100ms update time • No major power specifications – device is mains powered • No major weight specifications – device is stationary • Input Specifications: • Respond to hand gestures • Recognize enough different gestures to distinguish between different functions • 1 millimeter skeletal precision • Software Specifications: • Map input gestures to functions in the virtual 3D object space • Object functions: creation, translation, rotation, scaling • Control functions: save, undo • Display traditional 2D representation of virtual objects • Generate appropriate output for volumetric display

  11. Requirement Analysis – Technical Specifications • Output: • Distortion-free, volumetric image • 75 X 75 x 75 voxel resolution minimum • ≥20 FPS refresh rate • No smaller than a 2 inch cube display • Quiet operation (<30 dBa)

  12. Design Alternatives - Input • Kinect • About $100 on Amazon • Pros: • Great for tracking large body movements • Widely available software support • Cons: • Low precision finger tracking (>1mm)

  13. Design Alternatives - Software • 3D Modeling Software: • Pros: • Complex object manipulation is already implemented in the software • Cons: • Expensive: Maya and 3DS Max are $195 a month • Tough to programmatically control due to lack of low-level access

  14. Design Alternatives - Output • Stacked Spinning LED Display • Pros: • Cheaper components • Simple theory of operation • Cons: • Low resolution • Mechanically complex • Difficult to transmit data due to moving parts

  15. Design Alternatives - Output • Planar Spinning LED Display • Pros: • Simple theory of operation • Cons: • Low resolution • Mechanically complex • Prohibitively expensive • 5000+ LEDs for decent resolution • Control circuitry • Difficult to transmit data due to moving parts

  16. Design Alternatives - Output • Helical Volumetric Sweep • Pros: • Simple mechanical implementation • Can transmit data over a cable • Cons: • Difficult to focus on entire depth of volumetric sweep • Complex real-time processing due to helical cross sections

  17. Our Solution - Block Diagram Input Leap Motion Leap Motion Sensor Data Output Input Parsing Data Processing 2D Visual Diagnostic Projector Output Data Planar Volumetric Sweep Device Output Processing Computer

  18. Input Concept - LEAPMotion • LEAPMotion sensor reads in hand motion, stores relevant data • Stores hand/finger positions into lists to determine corresponding gesture • Sensor can differentiate between hand gestures • Swipes, finger clicks, circles, pinches • 1mm skeletal precision

  19. Input Concept - Software • Map input gestures to specific manipulations • Create, rotate, translate, scale, undo, save, etc • Virtual models displayed on the 2D visual diagnostic software • Planar cross sections are taken and sent to the output for 3D display • Using JOGL for rendering traditional 2D representation

  20. Output Concept • Piston converts rotary motion (supplied by motor) into constant, reciprocating linear motion • Projector and projection plane will be fixed relative to each other– eliminates focus issues • Possible issues with sourcing cable able to withstand mechanical stress • Projection screen must be thin and mostly translucent • Slight opacity needed to successfully project image visibly on both sides of screen

  21. Output Concept • Projector will project planar cross-sections of desired image • Software processing of planar cross sections significantly easier to manage than helical cross sections • Fast enough reciprocation (~12Hz for 24fps interlaced) will allow for persistence-of-vision effects • Projection rate determines resolution in sweeping axis • Higher projection rate  more sections per cycle

  22. Team ShamitSom - EE Class of 2014 Kevin Eykholt - CSE Class of 2014 Dennis Goeckel - Professor Faculty Advisor Tom Finneran- CSE Class of 2014 Chris Pitoniak- CSE Class of 2014

  23. Timeline MDR 27 Oct 12 Nov 20 Nov 31 Dec 15 Jan 20 Feb 21 Mar Chris Kevin Shamit Tom Test gesture mapping Leap Motion gesture recognition Leap Motion gesture mapping Basic Shape Generation Scaling, Translation, Rotation Generate planar cross sections Integrate Full system and test Build volumetric sweep frame Add motor and ensure mechanical stability CDR Test and optimize POV effect Implement and test interface Test POV Effect Add projector Conceptual design for software to projector interface

  24. MDR Deliverables • Input: • Demonstrate Scalingand Rotation • Demonstrate interaction between Leap Motion and software • Confirmed with 2D Visual Diagnostic • Output: • Create a volumetric sweep device • Critical path to entire output system • Simple demonstration of POV effect

More Related