What's the best way to represent 3D data when you might have a large area with sparse geometry? I'm thinking something like a visual SLAM system, where you build up a map of the surroundings while moving through it. In 2D it should be pretty straight forward, but using a 3D grid seems like it would get out of hand fast. Is it a KD-tree with voxels? Signed Distance Fields? How do robots and self driving cars store the dynamic maps they build from sensor data?
That is an interesting question! Whether a 3d grid gets out of hand depends how big you can make your cells. Tree based techniques are inflexible with respect to bounding volume changes, requiring some kind of complex rebalancing technique to stay efficient.
Cars or moving robots still move on a 2d surface, so projecting everything into a 2d plane works for these applications.
If you mean geometry, you can just store the points. If you mean voxels or dynamically loading and unloading of points, a kd-tree or octree is probably what you are looking for.
It seems like your library is much more integrated into Python than the point cloud library. I have been frustrated with the point cloud library and this seems much better to work with numpy also. Looks great !
Be careful guys. The original repo is open3d.org open-3d.org is a copy of open3d repo. This repo squashed all the commit history of open3d contributors.
1. Squashing the commit history is not a very nice thing to do IMO.
2. When you fork as in you actually plan on taking the code in another direction you should come up with a name of your own.
For example, GraphicsMagick forked from ImageMagick all the way back in 2002 and they came up with a name of their own as one should. The GraphicsMagick website even displays the following message prominently on their website http://www.graphicsmagick.org/ to this day:
> GraphicsMagick is originally derived from ImageMagick 5.5.2 as of November 2002 but has been completely independent of the ImageMagick project since then. Since the fork from ImageMagick many improvements have been made (see NEWS) by many authors using an open development model but without breaking the API or utilities operation.
That's the proper way to fork. You don't just take somebody else's project and stick with the name that they were using unless you have their blessing to do so.
The Open3D fork website at http://www.open-3d.org/ is giving the impression that maintenance of the project was handed over by its original creators;
> Although the Open3D project is currently maintained by the Open3D community, it was initiated by Qianyi Zhou and Jaesik Park, who have wrote a paper, and they ask you to kindly cite it!
Meanwhile in the GitHub issue at https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321 that was linked in a sibling comment, one of the original authors of Open3D says, among other things:
> Only the code is under MIT license. The website is not. You should not use any materials from the www.open3d.org website without our permission.
and
> Open3D is a branded name we own. You can say your project is a fork of the Open3D project but you cannot claim your project is Open3D.
[+] [-] sorenjan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gmueckl|8 years ago|reply
Cars or moving robots still move on a 2d surface, so projecting everything into a 2d plane works for these applications.
[+] [-] jascenso|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CyberDildonics|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sfgeek26|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sctb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codetrotter|8 years ago|reply
1. Squashing the commit history is not a very nice thing to do IMO.
2. When you fork as in you actually plan on taking the code in another direction you should come up with a name of your own.
For example, GraphicsMagick forked from ImageMagick all the way back in 2002 and they came up with a name of their own as one should. The GraphicsMagick website even displays the following message prominently on their website http://www.graphicsmagick.org/ to this day:
> GraphicsMagick is originally derived from ImageMagick 5.5.2 as of November 2002 but has been completely independent of the ImageMagick project since then. Since the fork from ImageMagick many improvements have been made (see NEWS) by many authors using an open development model but without breaking the API or utilities operation.
That's the proper way to fork. You don't just take somebody else's project and stick with the name that they were using unless you have their blessing to do so.
The Open3D fork website at http://www.open-3d.org/ is giving the impression that maintenance of the project was handed over by its original creators;
> Although the Open3D project is currently maintained by the Open3D community, it was initiated by Qianyi Zhou and Jaesik Park, who have wrote a paper, and they ask you to kindly cite it!
Meanwhile in the GitHub issue at https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321 that was linked in a sibling comment, one of the original authors of Open3D says, among other things:
> Only the code is under MIT license. The website is not. You should not use any materials from the www.open3d.org website without our permission.
and
> Open3D is a branded name we own. You can say your project is a fork of the Open3D project but you cannot claim your project is Open3D.
A hostile fork if I ever saw one.
In light of this, and seeing as how the original is still maintained, I think the mods should change the OP link from http://www.open-3d.org/ to http://www.open3d.org/
[+] [-] integricho|8 years ago|reply