On 2024-05-06, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 05:51, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Arno,
>>
>>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an
>>> image of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
>>
>> Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
>
> That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for?

These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
now.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Alan,

>> And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
>> fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are
>> fooled.
>
> Easy when presented as a YT video.

Yes, its always looks easy when its done by someone who knows he's doing.
On a YT video or IRL.

> Not many people will actually:
>
> - lift the print from something
> - make the 'fake' print
> - get access to the physical phone or other device
> - get in

Not many people wil break into houses. Yet, you have a lock on your outside
doors. Your point ?

But now you have acknowledged its possible, all we would be discussing about
is how easy/hard it would be. Thats a large step forward, padawan. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Alan,

>>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
>>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
>>
>> Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
>
> That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for?

You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current is
passed thru it ?

Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is
pushed thru ?

And do excuse me if I take that "thermal (IR) faceprint" as a hogwash. It
would mean that if you would be outside in changing weather conditions
(changing the heat patterns in your face) you would not be able to unlock
your phone.

And that would be a death-sentence for the technology. They rather have a
lot of false positives than just a handfull of false negatives.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Chris,

>> And as a more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds
>> in New York. (and others like it).
>
> They are universally shit. I don't understand how waxworks museums are
> still a thing. I'm sure they were amazing in Victorian times.

Well, I do seem to remember when a certain actor took the place of his wax
counterpart. The people walking by didn't even notice his different
appearance from the wax puppets next to him.

Always funny to see people jump when such a "wax figure" suddenly comes to
life. :-)

Also, its not how such wax figures look exactly like the person they are
supposed to represent, its about the possibility of creating a
topographically close enough faximile of a persons head. You know, for
those face-ID scanners

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Jolly,

> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
> ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
> now.

And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?

.... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us both ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 2024-05-06 12:55, R.Wieser wrote:
> Alan,
>
>>> And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
>>> fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are
>>> fooled.
>>
>> Easy when presented as a YT video.
>
> Yes, its always looks easy when its done by someone who knows he's doing.
> On a YT video or IRL.
>
>> Not many people will actually:
>>
>> - lift the print from something
>> - make the 'fake' print
>> - get access to the physical phone or other device
>> - get in
>
> Not many people wil break into houses. Yet, you have a lock on your outside
> doors. Your point ?

B&E is trivial compared to the fingerprint hack.

>
> But now you have acknowledged its possible, all we would be discussing about
> is how easy/hard it would be. Thats a large step forward, padawan. :-)

Get over yourself. You're nobody's teacher.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06 13:03, R.Wieser wrote:
> Alan,
>
>>>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
>>>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
>>>
>>> Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
>>
>> That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for?
>
> You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current is
> passed thru it ?
>
> Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is
> pushed thru ?

Then you would need to know what the pattern was as the iPhone encoded
it from its "learning" session.

>
> And do excuse me if I take that "thermal (IR) faceprint" as a hogwash. It
> would mean that if you would be outside in changing weather conditions
> (changing the heat patterns in your face) you would not be able to unlock
> your phone.

Differences (not to mention the device's ML) are a thing. You dwell in
absolutes and fud. (And not very good at it either).

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06 13:13, R.Wieser wrote:
> Jolly,
>
>> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
>> ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
>> now.
>
> And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
>
> ... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us both ?

You fail again. I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
something more in line with your meagre talents.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06 01:16, Andrew wrote:
> R.Wieser wrote on Mon, 6 May 2024 09:04:57 +0200 :
>
>>> Yet trying to unlock an iPhone with its owner's photo will not work
>>
>> They said the same about fingerprints. Yet, here we are ...
>>
>> The point is not about how easy it (now!) is to reproduce something like
>> that, but that anyone can "take" from you what's supposed to be only yours.
>>
>>> and you have to go through a lot of contortions if you happen to have
>>> their fingerprint.
>>
>> As long as you don't need the owner of said fingerprints to be present, who
>> cares ?
>>
>> And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
>> fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are fooled.
>>
>> Yes, yes. IPhone fingerprint locks are superior and noone can bypass them.
>> Go pull my other finger.
>
> Fingerprint biometric unlocks on most phones are only a marketing gimmick.
>
> Mainly you'll see the Apple religious nutjob zealots defending its use.
>
> That's because Apple zealots always believe everything Apple tells them to.
> Apple religious nutjob zealots have no capacity to think on their own.

I'm not trying to prevent the CIA from unlocking my phone, Arlen.

Just the dick who steals it.

On 2024-05-06 02:51, R.Wieser wrote:
> Arno,
>
>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
>
> Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
>
> And thats the buget solution. People who created 3D heads (and full body
> representations) have existed since *forever* - statues anyone? And as a
> more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds in New York.
> (and others like it).
>
>> Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is indeed
>> not a good idea.
>
> Its a *very good* idea. It should *not ever* happen though. :-)
>
> Coming up with a new locking mechanism (mechanical or software) isn't all
> that hard. What is is to make sure that only the key designed for it can
> actually open it.
>
> If you want to see examples of how locks, even expensive ones, can be
> bypassed with the proverbial paperclip I would like to refer you to the
> "Lockpicking Lawyer" clips on YouTube. Those are enlighting.

Yes, you incredible simpleton...

....but this is never about stopping people with huge amounts of
resources from getting in.

You put a lock on the front door of your house, not because you know it
will stop anyone from breaking in.

You put it there because you HOPE it will convince them to break in to
somewhere EASIER.

On 2024-05-06 10:10, R.Wieser wrote:
> Chris,
>
>>> And as a more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds
>>> in New York. (and others like it).
>>
>> They are universally shit. I don't understand how waxworks museums are
>> still a thing. I'm sure they were amazing in Victorian times.
>
> Well, I do seem to remember when a certain actor took the place of his wax
> counterpart. The people walking by didn't even notice his different
> appearance from the wax puppets next to him.

How many hours (and therefore how many DOLLARS) weren't spent creating
the wax figure, doofus?

>
> Always funny to see people jump when such a "wax figure" suddenly comes to
> life. :-)
>
> Also, its not how such wax figures look exactly like the person they are
> supposed to represent, its about the possibility of creating a
> topographically close enough faximile of a persons head. You know, for
> those face-ID scanners
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>

On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:59:27 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

>> What is a "3D sensor" actually?� :-)
>
> In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described
> here:
>
> https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381
>
> The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"
>
> Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."

Phone biometrics are nothing more or less than a marketing gimmick.

You're the same Alan Browne on the Apple newsgroup who claims that you read
white papers from Apple "proving" there is no such thing as the walled
garden.

Only a nutcase Apple religious zealot would deny the existence of the
infamous walled garden - especially amongst an Android/Windows newsgroup.

Because Apple said so, you are adamant the walled garden is a myth.
Likewise with all the fancy words Apple marketing uses for its gimmicks.

You only eat, drink & excrete Apple marketing bullshit gimmickry.

On Mon, 6 May 2024 15:06:54 +0100, Chris wrote:

>> You misunderstood. It's all about identifying the EXACT camera.
>
> Like I said, it's been a while. Things might have improved.
>
>> There are many forensic techniques which take advantage of the unique
>> errors inherent in any camera sensor, all of which improve over time.
>> https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/10/2/31
>
> Thanks.
>
> Not sure I see what you're seeing. The review is not very precise in its
> language. Looking at a couple of specific papers, they still are
> comparing make/model not specific cameras.
>
> This one - not peer-reviewed - supposedly labelled as "individual
> camera" with an accuracy of 99.15%, is actually only six different
> devices (two phones and four cameras).
> https://repository.derby.ac.uk/download/45e22f10d5dfc1d211a4392c591cd80d392237fa032ccc9f37f772a325fc91f5/922645/DIGITAL%20VIDEO%20SOURCE%20IDENTIFICATION%20BASED%20ON%20GREEN-CHANNEL%20PHOTO%20RESPONSE%20NON-UNIFORMITY%20%28G-PRNU%29.pdf
>
> And this one - peer-reviewed - has 11 smartphones from six difference
> manufacturers is similarly labelled as "individual camera" with an
> accuracy of 96.18%.
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742287616300998
>
> I don't understand how either of those studies can be called
> individual-level identification of cameras?
>
> The evidence (sorry!) just isn't there. A study needs to be done with
> 15-20 examples of each camera across multiple models and brands and see
> if they can be individualised.
>
>> There are even companies that sell this software already.
>> https://www.mobiledit.com/camera-ballistics
>>
>> Don't ask me how they do it though as it uses sophisticated math.
>
> Sorry, but the forensic market is not very healthy with plenty of
> products which sell a dream. If a product cannot back itself with
> published scientific research - rather than hide behind math - then it's
> snake oil. It's notable that the software has not been updated since 2017!
>
>> There are articles out there on how to defeat it if you care to look.
>> https://duckduckgo.com/&q=how+to+defeat+camera+photo+forensics
>
> Which is probably why things haven't moved on: it's simply of academic
> interest with little applicability in practice.

I think you're doomed if you think fingerprinting is only of academic
interest since there isn't a well funded TLA out there who isn't doing it
(IMHO).

As I said, don't ask me how it works except from the basic fundamentals,
(which everyone already knows) which is that every camera sensor has
millions of pixel bits, where some have inevitable color encoding errors.

Those hardware errors are permanent, and unique to the camera.

They simply find the same hardware errors in multiple photos and bingo.
It's a match for that specific camera. Just like fingerprints & DNA are.

What constantly improves are each researcher is testing his/her own special
algorithm (using Fourier transforms, statistical variants, whatever) to get
as close to 100% photo to camera fingerprinting as they can do.

The technology (and the math) just improves over time, as you're aware.

Probably the easiest way to explain it, as I understand it anyway, is let's
say at x:y position 100:200 on your camera sensor is a flaw such that for
the next 75 pixels, the colors are 20% "bluer" than all other pixels are.

Then they would look for a region in the x direction from approximately
25 to 175 and in the y direction from approximately 125 to 275 that has
that built-in 20% bluer color.

Of course you can crop a photo, so they would probably look for any area
with that dimension which is 20% bluer, and that would be one datum.

Put together thousands of these locales & you have a fingerprint process.

Given the prevalence of phone photos on the net, I can't imagine that the
well-funded TLAs aren't pouring billions of dollars into this research.

Since photo fingerprint can only get better over time, what the warning is
for is just to let people know that now, since they will scrape all the
photos on the net if that's what they want to do.

There are almost certainly techniques you can use to foil them but you have
to know what they're using first.

https://duckduckgo.com/&q=photo+forensic+fingerprinting

There are many news articles on sensor imperfection fingerprinting.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210324-the-hidden-fingerprint-inside-your-photos

And there's even a book on Multimedia Forensics you can download for free.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-7621-5_4

Here's the PDF for the sensor identification chapter.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-981-16-7621-5.pdf

And the EPUB.
https://link.springer.com/download/epub/10.1007/978-981-16-7621-5.epub

Alan,

> B&E is trivial compared to the fingerprint hack.

That fully depends on the locks.

>> But now you have acknowledged its possible, all we would be discussing
>> about is how easy/hard it would be. Thats a large step forward, padawan.
>> :-)
>
> Get over yourself. You're nobody's teacher.

I already did.

regards,
Rudy Wieser

Alan,

>>> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
>>> ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
>>> now.
>>
>> And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
>>
>> ... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us both
>> ?
>
> You fail again. I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
> for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
> something more in line with your meagre talents.

All I see is someone who claims stuff, but brings nothing forward to support
it. A hot-air balloon.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Alan,

>> You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current
>> is
>> passed thru it ?
>>
>> Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is
>> pushed thru ?
>
> Then you would need to know what the pattern was as the iPhone encoded it
> from its "learning" session.

No, I don't. Thats the lock. The face would be the key. You would only
have to
make an acceptable faximile of the key.

Let me tell you a stupid story :
Once passwords where send to the server in plain text
Some person though that wasn't very secure - a smart guy.
So, he thought that he should encrypt the password before sending it
He was rather surprised when someone broke into his account as easily as
with a plain-text password.

Can you figure out his mistake ? 'cause you are making the same one.

>> And do excuse me if I take that "thermal (IR) faceprint" as a hogwash.
>> It
>> would mean that if you would be outside in changing weather conditions
>> (changing the heat patterns in your face) you would not be able to unlock
>> your phone.
>
> Differences (not to mention the device's ML) are a thing. You dwell in
> absolutes and fud. (And not very good at it either).

It looks to me that you are the one thinking in absolutes. As if every face
responds the same way to differences in temperature.

As for FUD ? Thinking and claiming that finger- and faceprint lock are
"tha sh*t" is, to me, just you falling for the sales department doing the
opposite of FUD (praising their stuff into high-heaven).

Feel free to disagree - but I do expect a bit more than "I don't believe
you" responses.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 5/6/2024 4:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
>>
>>> Mickey,
>>>
>>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>>>
>>> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
>>>
>>> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is
>>> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
>>> feature of yourself to everyone around you.
>>>
>>> Same goes for "faceprints".  Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken"
>>> from literally tens of meters away.
>>
>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
>> reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
>> not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face.
>
> What is a "3D sensor" actually?  :-)
>

Stereoscopic imaging is a start.

For an encyclopedic article, you have to do a lot of guessing here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_RealSense

The third party sensor there, the article makes it seem it is a
single array, but there are enough pixels for two arrays. And like
the human eye, as long as the collecting optics are separated by
enough, you get some extract-able depth information.

Some of the cameras Intel makes, have an IR projector, and the "ordinary" sensor
arrays in the Intel camera see out far enough, to pick up the IR pattern.

https://dev.intelrealsense.com/docs/projectors

For Windows Hello, this additional information (collect depth info
from projected IR onto a 3D object), was supposed to make it harder
to fake an authenticating face. But I think hackers managed to defeat
Windows Hello anyway.

One of the things with these cameras, is they don't always have
a fleet of "ready applications" for end users. They can include
an SDK and you write your own software.

One of the things on the SDK for the Intel camera, is you can
stick the head of a statue on a turntable, and rotate the object
slowly, and the Intel RealSense camera will give you a file suitable
for 3D printing. And you can make a "copy" of the object you just scanned
(out of filament).

One software person working with the Intel kit, called what the
Intel camera was sending a "point cloud", and that's also a
terminology used with LIDAR systems for automobiles.

The LIDAR industry still exists, but they've been keeping a low profile :-/

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/03/12/lidar-may-be-harmful-to-people-cameras/

Paul

On 2024-05-06 11:24, Andrew wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:59:27 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> What is a "3D sensor" actually?� :-)
>>
>> In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described
>> here:
>>
>> https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381
>>
>> The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"
>>
>> Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."
>
> Phone biometrics are nothing more or less than a marketing gimmick.

Biometric unlocking is a way to make phones convenient for the user
while sufficiently inconvenient for miscreants.

Period.

On 2024-05-06 16:08, R.Wieser wrote:
> Alan,
>
>>>> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
>>>> ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
>>>
>>> ... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us both
>>> ?
>>
>> You fail again. I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
>> for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
>> something more in line with your meagre talents.
>
> All I see is someone who claims stuff, but brings nothing forward to support
> it. A hot-air balloon.

Well, it seems that your mirror is polished to perfection, at least.
You've got that.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06 16:10, R.Wieser wrote:
> Alan,
>
>>> You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current
>>> is
>>> passed thru it ?
>>>
>>> Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is
>>> pushed thru ?
>>
>> Then you would need to know what the pattern was as the iPhone encoded it
>> from its "learning" session.
>
> No, I don't. Thats the lock. The face would be the key. You would only
> have to
> make an acceptable faximile of the key.

Completely wrong and proving you don't understand the issue. At all -
not an iota.

<Ramble snipped>

> Feel free to disagree - but I do expect a bit more than "I don't believe
> you" responses.

My responses are not based on my not believing you - they are based on
you not understanding the basic problem at all.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06 16:28, Paul wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 4:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> What is a "3D sensor" actually?  :-)
>>
>
> Stereoscopic imaging is a start.

Which, alas is not what the iPhone does in FaceID. To be clear, stereo
requires at least two points of view (say two cameras a little bit
apart, or images taken from a slightly different position. This is a
passive process as well (in most cases).

What FaceID does is project a pattern onto the face and then measure the
positions to generate a depth map from a single POV sensor (therefore
not stereoscopic).

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06 16:49, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 11:24, Andrew wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:59:27 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> What is a "3D sensor" actually?� :-)
>>>
>>> In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described
>>> here:
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381
>>>
>>> The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"
>>>
>>> Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."
>>
>> Phone biometrics are nothing more or less than a marketing gimmick.
>
> Biometric unlocking is a way to make phones convenient for the user
> while sufficiently inconvenient for miscreants.

They are also a key feature of "Passkey" related login procedures which
are gaining momentum as a preferred way for people to log into various
sites.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06, R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Jolly,
>
>> These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when
>> Face ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just
>> as wrong now.
>
> And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?

The ones who are beating a dead horse about things we discussed when
Face ID first hit the market and umpteen times after, always trying to
claim it's "insecure" and so on, and never knowing or acknowledging how
it differs from other smartphone facial identification designs. They
know who they are. Either you don't, or you are one of them and are now
offended that anyone should dare to call them out. Which is it?

> ... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us
> both ?

Trolls are bullies at heart, and bullies *always* try to claim they are
the ones /AKTUALLY/ being bullied. Is this your claim now?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 5/6/2024 5:02 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 16:28, Paul wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 4:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>>> What is a "3D sensor" actually?  :-)
>>>
>>
>> Stereoscopic imaging is a start.
>
> Which, alas is not what the iPhone does in FaceID.  To be clear, stereo requires at least two points of view (say two cameras a little bit apart, or images taken from a slightly different position.  This is a passive process as well (in most cases).
>
> What FaceID does is project a pattern onto the face and then measure the positions to generate a depth map from a single POV sensor (therefore not stereoscopic).
>

The Intel projects a pattern too.

https://dev.intelrealsense.com/docs/projectors

The Wikipedia article, traces the history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_ID

"Face ID's technology is based on PrimeSense's previous work with low-cost
infrared depth perception that was the basis of the Kinect motion sensor
for the Xbox console line from Microsoft; Apple had acquired PrimeSense
in 2013 after Microsoft started to wane on the use of Kinect"

The Intel article here mentions:

https://dev.intelrealsense.com/docs/projectors

"Furthermore, different types of projectors were used for each camera. The
D415 uses two AMS Heptagon projectors, while the D435 uses an AMS Princeton
Optronics projector with a wider emission angle but fewer spots" (Not the same as PrimeSense necessarily)

"In the current systems, these projectors have been placed between the
left and right stereo imagers, and they are generally also synched to
turn on only when required.

However, it is important to note that this is not a strict requirement.
For Active Stereo Depth systems, no a priori knowledge of the projection
pattern is needed and there is no requirement of strict stability over
time of these patterns. Also, it does not matter if other cameras point
at the same scene with their projectors. To a first order, all additional
projectors actually improve the overall performance by adding more light
and more texture. We emphasize this property here, because it is in stark
contrast to “structured light” or “coded light” depth sensors that many
are familiar with (ex: The Microsoft Kinect, RealSense F200 and SR305,
Orbbec Astra, or Apple iPhone X)

where there are strong requirements on pattern stability across time and
temperature that ultimately lead to increased cost and make them more
susceptible to external interference."

That's a section comparing the schemes.

Paul

R.Wieser, 2024-05-06 18:55:

> Alan,
>
>>> And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
>>> fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are
>>> fooled.
>>
>> Easy when presented as a YT video.
>
> Yes, its always looks easy when its done by someone who knows he's doing.
> On a YT video or IRL.
>
>> Not many people will actually:
>>
>> - lift the print from something
>> - make the 'fake' print
>> - get access to the physical phone or other device
>> - get in
>
> Not many people wil break into houses. Yet, you have a lock on your outside
> doors. Your point ?

That's the reason why banks have safes and do not only rely on the
security of simple door locks.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de