Jump to content

Kinect vs PlayStation Eye RGB video quality comparison


WhiteWolf

Recommended Posts

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4210649/Kinect-s-BOM-roughly--56--teardown-finds-

 

Microsoft Corp.'s Kinect motion-gaming add on for its Xbox 360 gaming platform carries a bill-of-materials (BOM) of roughly $56 and features chips made by PrimeSense Ltd., Marvell Technology Group Ltd., Texas Instruments Inc. and STMicroelectronics NV, according to a teardown analysis performed by UBM TechInsights.

 

Loks like MS is making lot of profit with KINECT :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time - Bill of Materials is cost of only the raw material. Add to that a hundred other things to arrive at the real cost i.e. administrative expensive, sales and marketing, cost of financing, general expenses, and God alone knows what else. A rule of thumb is that the gross cost of goods may be 1/3 or 1/2 of the final cost of the product, rarely more. MS is not making a LOT of money on Kinect per unit - yet. They are making a lot of money - yes, but they have to show returns on the humongous marketing cost that went in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

*************

 

PS eye camera reso..is higher than Kinect reso...for more check the link...

 

 

I wonder why.

That's cuz Kinect doesn't NEED a higher resolution. It is meant for motion/controller-free gaming primarily and it works fine at the resolution it has so MS decided to cut costs by not going for a higher resolution that wouldn't really add anything (+ maybe they can come up with a kinect 2 a few years down the line with higher resolution when it is really needed)

 

That's the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time - Bill of Materials is cost of only the raw material. Add to that a hundred other things to arrive at the real cost i.e. administrative expensive, sales and marketing, cost of financing, general expenses, and God alone knows what else. A rule of thumb is that the gross cost of goods may be 1/3 or 1/2 of the final cost of the product, rarely more. MS is not making a LOT of money on Kinect per unit - yet. They are making a lot of money - yes, but they have to show returns on the humongous marketing cost that went in.

+1. I'm fed of these guys who assume that BOM is the gross cost. These same guys also assume that smartphone manufacturers are pocketing something like 300$ per smartphone sold. Apart from the list that you mentioned, there is another BIG expense called "R&D". Kinect didn't happen overnight. MS just didn't stumble upon the design plans and then gave it to an ODM to manufacture. God knows how much money they spent in the materials and salaries to finally come with something that worked like kinect. Not to mention the R&D time and money spent on 10-100 other similar designs/devices that would have been dropped along the way before they finally decided to go ahead with commercializing kinect. As I said above, MS actually had to cut costs by limiting the resolution. In fact, I would not be surprised if MS is not actually making any profit on the kinect devices themselves and rather selling them on a loss to capture the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fed up or not. i am interested in the tech aspect of why this is so cos i'm sure i read kinect has a decent res and by experience, my PS Eye gives a messy noisy crappy video even under good lighting...

nothing like those youtube videos show. how the hell do they get those clear shots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cuz Kinect doesn't NEED a higher resolution. It is meant for motion/controller-free gaming primarily and it works fine at the resolution it has so MS decided to cut costs by not going for a higher resolution that wouldn't really add anything (+ maybe they can come up with a kinect 2 a few years down the line with higher resolution when it is really needed)

If you've used Kinect, you'll know that the resolution is not enough unless this is the first time you're playing a game and just the experience is enough to impress you.

 

Kinect and PS Eye actually have the same native resolution AFAIK (640x480), but MS has locked Kinect to 320x240 because rendering at full resolution will tax the 360 hardware a lot more. Frankly, if MS ever intends to release games that they hope to appeal to core gamers, they will need to unlock that native resolution, because right now, the tracking is very basic. It doesn't even pick up movements in the palm and rotations of the wrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fed up or not. i am interested in the tech aspect of why this is so cos i'm sure i read kinect has a decent res and by experience, my PS Eye gives a messy noisy crappy video even under good lighting...

nothing like those youtube videos show. how the hell do they get those clear shots?

 

 

well ithink u must be using lights from either white tube light or the cfls.both of them suck when it comes to ps eye..the flicker is too much.... in cfls it is d most...... if u want some good quality video .go with the yellow incandescent light bulb.....

done a lot of reseacrh while playing THE FiGHt....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've used Kinect, you'll know that the resolution is not enough unless this is the first time you're playing a game and just the experience is enough to impress you.

 

Kinect and PS Eye actually have the same native resolution AFAIK (640x480), but MS has locked Kinect to 320x240 because rendering at full resolution will tax the 360 hardware a lot more. Frankly, if MS ever intends to release games that they hope to appeal to core gamers, they will need to unlock that native resolution, because right now, the tracking is very basic. It doesn't even pick up movements in the palm and rotations of the wrist.

 

At 640*480, it will be at least 2times the amount of processing required. Don't worry, I am not bad at maths, but I have also included the fact, that IR cameras, microphone array and few other mapping algorithm will take nearly same amount of time. Anyway there will be too much of extra lag unless they process most of the data upfront in the kinect, and send just the coordinates to the console. For that to happen, a processing chip is necessary in Kinect, which is not the case with this version. Possible future upgrades of kinect hardware might make it possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well ithink u must be using lights from either white tube light or the cfls.both of them suck when it comes to ps eye..the flicker is too much.... in cfls it is d most...... if u want some good quality video .go with the yellow incandescent light bulb.....

done a lot of reseacrh while playing THE FiGHt....

hmmmm... will try that. any specific reason why white light is not good for PS Eye (or any webcam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The low res camera is actually due to low data transfer rate of USB ports on older non-slim 360. The slim is pretty much capable of handling full res gameplay because it doesn't use USB for Kinect. But they can't unlock it since they have to go with lowest common denominator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The low res camera is actually due to low data transfer rate of USB ports on older non-slim 360. The slim is pretty much capable of handling full res gameplay because it doesn't use USB for Kinect. But they can't unlock it since they have to go with lowest common denominator.

The majority still owns that girl yo! :ranting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...