Does the capture-kit packing result survive real, sourced device weights, energies and runtimes?

What it found

Re-runs the capture-kit search (11,520 kits, 6,912 legal) on a catalogue of real devices whose weights, battery energies and runtimes come from manufacturer and retailer pages read 2026-10-21 (Insta360 X4, DJI Osmo Action 4, iPhone 15 Pro Max, Sony a7C II with three lenses, Peak Design tripod, two Anker banks). With a 4 h recording floor, exact search reaches all 18 band × viewpoint shots at 4 kg (the assumed catalogue needed 5 kg) and a greedy packer stalls at 12, as before: the lens-needs-a-body complementarity survives real figures. Sweeping the figures no source gave (phone recording draw, selfie-pole, mini-tripod and mast masses, within ±30%) shows the ranking is robust (greedy is below exact in 77–99% of draws from 1.5 kg up) but the exact variety at a given budget is not: at 4 kg it falls from 18 to as low as 8, so the mount masses, which no source gave, matter more than any camera. Not sourced: those mass and draw figures, the iPhone recording draw (Apple publishes playback only), cell voltages used to turn mAh into Wh, and which bands each device covers.

A figure from its own output

Paper, code and results

• README and method
• Experiments and results
• Code
• Tests

More in Autonomous multi-angle capture

• Does trimming sync windows by their distance from the fitted clock line, with no tuned threshold, beat the peak-sharpness gate on real audio?Does a clip-free residual-from-the-clock-line trim beat the PSR gate? At 0 dB a little (1.4% to 0.9% of cuts over a frame); at -10 dB no (46% vs 38% for PSR).
• In a reverberant room, does PHAT win after all, and can the whitening exponent be chosen per window?In a reverberant room, does PHAT win after all? No: across 10 simulated rooms PHAT is the worst fixed weighting; gamma 0.5 cuts failures from 0.26 to 0.09, and choosing gamma per window by peak-to-sidelobe ratio helps less than just fixing it.
• Does a soft confidence weight beat a hard switch for repairing stereo-depth view synthesis, and does matching cost help?Does a soft confidence weight beat a hard switch for repairing stereo-depth view synthesis, and does the matcher's cost help? A ramped weight on warp disagreement beats the hard gate by 0.1 to 0.5 dB in every condition (29.5 vs 29.3 dB held out at 15°) and leaves a quarter fewer seams, closing only a tenth of the oracle gap; matching cost is a worse signal than disagreement (level with hole filling, worse with a bystander). Toy scene.
• How much footage does a multi-camera travel kit produce, and what limits carrying and backing it up?How much footage does a multi-camera travel kit produce, and what limits carrying and backing it up? Four cameras make ~860 GB a day; cards weigh ~8 g but the evening copy takes 2.7 h on one reader, so a safe plan needs 6 readers and ~450 g (assumed device figures).
• How often must free-running cameras be re-synced by audio, and does rejecting wild estimates help?How often must free-running cameras be re-synced by audio? At 40 ppm a sync lasts 1000 s for a 40 ms tolerance; a drift gate on fresh estimates helps only if you re-sync every 300 s. Synthetic audio.
• Does a residual audio-sync error show at the cuts of an automatic multi-camera edit?Does a residual audio-sync error show at the cuts of an automatic edit? A sync made once leaves 50% of cuts jumping over a frame; a robust fit leaves none down to -10 dB SNR (2 s windows) and then fails outright, with 11 to 24% of cuts repeating or dropping a loud event.

All 34 Autonomous multi-angle capture projects →

Other research topics

Proper scoring & elicitation28Effort & peer prediction9Verification games & slashing19Detection & tolerances14Markets as routers13Prediction-market design9Paying contributors8Decentralised training systems23Digital twins & sim-to-real164LLM chip design loops40Robot manufacturing loops53Ambient AI assistant46Self-replicating manufacturing34Simulation-first design64Engineered clothing45Task-specific AI accelerators40Algorithmic chip-design loops42Open-source purpose-built robots44The software-engineering loop43Adversarial human imitation41Open-source residential construction41Autonomous multi-angle capture34Sensing, imaging and 3D31Energy supply and dense energy storage39Robot societies among people31Agentic co-design of low-cost robots27Laundry-hanging robots25Machine learning on qualitative data23Robots on the building site27Civilizations & group psychology1History & human sciences1

Produced with AI assistance (Claude). Results are from the code in this repository and are simulated or stylised unless the abstract says otherwise; nothing here implies affiliation with or endorsement by any lab, researcher or company cited. MIT licensed.