It's been a while since I looked at some of these in-depth (last time being when the Kinect and related hacks came out). So far the majority of what I've seen has been very low resolution, essentially building a point map or low quality vector scan map of the area, limited in coverage distance, prone to interference from sunlight at times, and for the most part non-adjustable in terms of coverage area. My thoughts were the same as yours, coupled with a camera (especially one with some processing and analytics capabilities that could take data from the 3D sensor and couple that with the video data) this could have some merit in relatively small indoor spaces. For outdoor applications I think we're still a ways from any practical, reliable and cost-effective usage.
IPVMU Certified | 01/04/13 04:07pm
With respect to motion detection, I'd be curious to see if a 3D camera does a better job (more accurate, more resolute, etc) than current PIR technology sensors. When it comes to 'new and interesting' motion sensing technologies, the guys at Xandem seem to have an early production jump on 3D cameras for security with their 'tomographic' sensors. (Our report: Miracle Alarm Sensor? (Xandem)
It's 2013. If it's not got a standards-based interface it's broken. 3d, 4d, 7d, xray, thermal, whatever. (not to pick on 3D solutions, I'm just pointing out the tower of babel in the security camera world while the world around us moves through the 21st century...)
Many people have problems viewing 3D movies in theaters and 3D on Home Theater Systems. Those 3D media are typically produced under carefully controlled conditions and enhanced post-production before the end user even sees it. I can't imagine this offering more than limited benefits for Video Surveillance purposes but I can foresee huge negatives, like eyestrain, headaches, vertigo, etc. on the part of the poor souls that have to view the video for long periods.