FullView: Technology Main


Technology

Each FullView^® camera uses several discrete cameras to provide unrivaled, live, high-resolution, seamless, artifact-free, blur-free, up-to-360° panoramic images and video of any scene — of a scene without any constraints, for instance, on object depth or motion.

In particular, FullView provides 360°, artifact-free, seamless video that has several times the image resolution of competing "seamless" video — see Comparison below. Then, with FullView cameras, objects can be seen much more clearly and much farther away than with its competitors.

FullView's higher image resolution than its competitors is the direct result of, one, FullView using multiple image sensors, and, two, FullView using each sensor more effectively than others, both as described below. FullView's superiority is reflected in its images — see Gallery.

Our Camera Design

The basic FullView design has multiple cameras effectively looking out in different directions from substantially the same viewpoint, with each but at most one camera looking off an individual planar mirror.

Whereas several variants of the above design are possible, its original implementation by FullView was the first to provide seamless, artifact-free composite images from multiple cameras. This implementation — executed at Bell Labs in 1995 exactly as illustrated above, and then described in A True Omni-Directional Viewer — has been on permanent display in the lobby of Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ since around 2000, where it is photographed below in 2009.

Other Designs: Drawbacks

			Multiple cameras, each looking out directly in a different direction: Individual images cannot be integrated seamlessly unless objects are extremely distant, and even then only with time-consuming and complex image processing that blurs the final image. See www.ptgrey.com, www.immersivemedia.com and www.imoveinc.com.

			Single camera looking in different directions at different instants: Images of moving objects are distorted, fragmented or missing, all of which makes this approach suitable only for imaging still scenes. See www.panoscan.com.

			Single camera looking out through a fisheye or fisheye-type lens: Images of nearby objects are distorted irretrievably, the scene must be well illuminated or slow changing, and even then images can be captured only at a relatively low resolution. See www.ipix.com and www.immervision.com.

			Single camera looking off a nonplanar mirror: Images have low optical quality, the scene must be very brightly illuminated or static, and even then images can be captured only at a relatively low resolution. See www.remotereality.com, www.vri.ca and www.behere.com.

Primer on Technical Issues

Multiple cameras looking out directly into the scene from different positions see the world with inherently different perspectives — that is, they each see each point in space in a different direction, the difference in directions depending on the depth of the point — making it impossible in general to combine images from such cameras into a single coherent image without "image blending," a process that requires substantial image overlap, often leads to artifacts, and at the very least will blur the composite image.
See also this primer by us: Outwardly Pointing Cameras.

In images from a camera that is rotating to create a single wide-field-of-view image, a moving object will in general appear different at different instants and could persistently occlude some parts of the scene — thus, in general, precluding both the object's whole and undistorted inclusion in the composite image and its complete omission from that image.

Designs that use a single stationary camera — such as those employing a fisheye-type lens, a panoramic lens, or a nonplanar mirror — provide low resolution not only because they use a single image sensor unlike multi-camera designs, but also because their circular or ring-shaped optical image typically spans only about half the area of a standard 4:3 rectangular sensor. However, ImmerVision, mentioned above, has substantially overcome this shortcoming of single stationary cameras.

Reflection off a nonplanar mirror is, in general, blurred because each perceived image point is actually an image of an extended region in space — the size and shape of this region depending not only on the shape of the mirror, but also on the size of the camera aperture and its position relative to the mirror.

Reflection off a planar mirror is always clear and sharp, irrespective of the size of the camera aperture and its position relative to the mirror.

Patents

FullView has numerous patents worldwide that it strives to enforce vigorously. If you are aware of any potential infringement of our patents, we would greatly appreciate hearing about it.

FullView's patents in the U.S. include the following:

· Panoramic Viewing System with a Composite Field of View
Patent No. 6,700,711, Priority Nov 30, 1995, Issued Mar 2, 2004.

· Panoramic Viewing System With Shades
Patent No. 6,356,397, Priority Nov 30, 1995, Issued Mar 12, 2002.

· Icon Referenced Panoramic Image Display
Patent No. 6,285,365, Filed Aug 28, 1998, Issued Sep 4, 2001.

· Panoramic Viewing System With Offset Virtual Optical Centers
Patent No. 6,219,090, Priority Nov 30, 1995, Issued Apr 17, 2001.

· Compact High Resolution Panoramic Viewing System
Patent No. 6,195,204, Filed Aug 28, 1998, Issued Feb 27, 2001.

· Split Mirrored Panoramic Image Display
Patent No. 6,144,501, Filed Aug 28, 1998, Issued Nov 7, 2000.

· Stereo Panoramic Viewing System
Patent No. 6,141,145, Filed Aug 28, 1998, Issued Oct 31, 2000.

· Panoramic Viewing System With Support Stand
Patent No. 6,128,143, Filed Aug 28, 1998, Issued Oct 3, 2000.

· Spherical Viewing/Projection Apparatus
Patent No. 6,115,176, Filed Nov 30, 1995, Issued Sep 5, 2000.

· Panoramic Viewing System With Offset Virtual Optical Centers
Patent No. 6,111,702, Priority Nov 30, 1995, Issued Aug 29, 2000.

· Method And System For Panoramic Viewing
Patent No. 5,990,934, Filed Apr 28, 1995, Issued Nov 23, 1999.

· High Resolution Viewing System
Patent No. 5,793,527, Filed Jun 30, 1995, Issued Aug 11, 1998.

· Panoramic Viewing Apparatus
Patent No. 5,745,305, Filed Apr 28, 1995, Issued Apr 28, 1998.

· Panoramic Projection Apparatus
Patent No. 5,539,483, Filed Jun 30, 1995, Issued Jul 23, 1996.

Comparison of 360° Cameras

Currently, 360° cameras are primarily one of three types:

    1.  A single camera with a fisheye-type lens or curved mirror.

    2.  Multiple cameras looking out directly in different directions.

    3.  Multiple cameras looking out off flat mirrors, as by FullView.

Whereas a single camera is hindered by its low resolution, multiple cameras looking out directly cannot, in general, provide seamless, artifact-free images no matter what, as illustrated below and explained at length in Outwardly Pointing Cameras.

Below is a good-faith comparison of the various 360° cameras in use today. Please visit the websites of the various companies listed below to learn more about their products and to see their image quality first hand. Included in the comparison below are still cameras, which capture still images, but excluded from it are still-scene cameras, which we define as cameras that are suitable only for still scenes, such as cameras that rotate to create panoramas. If you are a manufacturer and believe that the representation of your technology here is inaccurate, incomplete or missing, we would welcome your bringing this to our attention.