Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Resistance Is Futile

Expand Messages
  • erik_leeman
    3D Computer Generated Imaging has been eating away work for photographers for a while now, and I m sure its appetite is far from satisfied. This is worrying of
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      3D Computer Generated Imaging has been eating away work for photographers for a while now, and I'm sure its appetite is far from satisfied. This is worrying of course, but as the saying goes: "If you can't beat them, why not join them" (or something along that line).

      To find out what we're up against I decided to invest some serious time and effort into this subject about a year ago, and was thoroughly surprised (and amazed) by what I could do with it even after a relatively short time, and with a VERY limited budget.

      Here's an image of an object 'built' in 3D, using only images found on the Internet as reference:
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/7995271832/
      Does this look convincing or what?

      One essential ingredient in making it look like this is the use of a 360x180 degree HDR panorama in the rendering process. And WE as a group know everything there is to know about those, don't we?

      There's really no limit to what you can create this way, and as I've shown here before: by using PTGui 'in reverse' we can place those 3D objects back into our equirectangulars to make it look as if they were there the moment the photos were taken!

      These are exiting times for image-makers!

      Cheers!

      Erik Leeman

      <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>
      <http://erik-nl.deviantart.com/>
      <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
    • Roger D. Williams
      The image looks just like a photograph, although it probably was a bit more trouble to make. Roger W. On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:44:47 +0900, erik_leeman
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        The image looks just like a photograph, although it probably was
        a bit more trouble to make. <grin>

        Roger W.


        On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:44:47 +0900, erik_leeman <erik.leeman@...>
        wrote:

        > 3D Computer Generated Imaging has been eating away work for
        > photographers for a while now, and I'm sure its appetite is far from
        > satisfied. This is worrying of course, but as the saying goes: "If you
        > can't beat them, why not join them" (or something along that line).
        > These are exiting times for image-makers!
        >
        > Cheers!
        >
        > Erik Leeman

        --
        Business: www.adex-japan.com
        Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
        Panorama: Rogerama at photosynth.net
      • Sacha Griffin
        Awesome yes, convincing no. It s too perfect. No scratches or uneven lighting imperfections. There is sort of an odd blur where it meets the surface. Simulated
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          Awesome yes, convincing no.

          It’s too perfect.

          No scratches or uneven lighting imperfections.

           

          There is sort of an odd blur where it meets the surface. Simulated bokeh?

          I guess all that’s fixable though.

           

          I remember sometime back there was this quiz about whether or not an image was cgi or not. Some of them were extremely convincing.

           

          Best Regards,

           

          Sacha Griffin

          Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia

          http://www.seeit360.com

          http://twitter.com/SeeIt360

          http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360

          IM: sachagriffin007@...

          Office: 404-551-4275

           

           

          From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of erik_leeman
          Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:45 AM
          To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Resistance Is Futile

           

           

          3D Computer Generated Imaging has been eating away work for photographers for a while now, and I'm sure its appetite is far from satisfied. This is worrying of course, but as the saying goes: "If you can't beat them, why not join them" (or something along that line).

          To find out what we're up against I decided to invest some serious time and effort into this subject about a year ago, and was thoroughly surprised (and amazed) by what I could do with it even after a relatively short time, and with a VERY limited budget.

          Here's an image of an object 'built' in 3D, using only images found on the Internet as reference:
          http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/7995271832/
          Does this look convincing or what?

          One essential ingredient in making it look like this is the use of a 360x180 degree HDR panorama in the rendering process. And WE as a group know everything there is to know about those, don't we?

          There's really no limit to what you can create this way, and as I've shown here before: by using PTGui 'in reverse' we can place those 3D objects back into our equirectangulars to make it look as if they were there the moment the photos were taken!

          These are exiting times for image-makers!

          Cheers!

          Erik Leeman

          <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>
          <http://erik-nl.deviantart.com/>
          <http://www.erikleeman.com/>

        • erik_leeman
          ... Thanks for having a look! It still looks squeaky clean in this render because it s pure geometry, I haven t made any normal-, displacement- or texture maps
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin" wrote:
            >
            > Awesome yes, convincing no.
            > It's too perfect.
            > No scratches or uneven lighting imperfections.
            > There is sort of an odd blur where it meets the surface.
            > Simulated bokeh?
            >
            > I guess all that's fixable though.
            >
            > I remember sometime back there was this quiz about whether or not
            > an image was cgi or not. Some of them were extremely convincing.
            >
            > Best Regards,
            >
            > Sacha Griffin

            Thanks for having a look!
            It still looks squeaky clean in this render because it's pure geometry, I haven't made any normal-, displacement- or texture maps for it yet. With those it's easy enough to give it a weathered look, but I'm still working on the internal parts (so I can make a cut-away version).

            That blur you see probably was caused by reflections of reflections of reflections etc. etc. in that area. A couple more hours rendering should clear that up.

            That quiz most likely was about images in the latest IKEA catalog.
            According to that article IKEA has over the years retrained all of its photographers and carpenters to work with 3D CGI, and if I remember correctly about 20% of the images in that catalog were 'fake' photographs.

            Cheers!

            Erik Leeman

            <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>
            <http://erik-nl.deviantart.com/>
            <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
          • bigwade
            The blurr in the fingerpart is normal. As a studio photographer I would lift the gun a little IRL The light source is an outdoor pano and that makes it a bit
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              The blurr in the fingerpart is normal.
              As a studio photographer I would lift the gun a little IRL
              The light source is an outdoor pano and that makes it a bit strange for a studio shot.
              But hey, a new profession is born now; master of imperfection ;-)
              Thanks Erik for sharing.
              I would like a 3D printed working one..
            • John Riley
              ... Erik, how does the HDR pano come in to this? John Riley 4Pi-VR Media Solutions http://4pi-vr.com johnriley@chesnet.net (h)864-461-3504 (c)864-431-7075
              Message 6 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment

                On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:44 AM, erik_leeman wrote:

                One essential ingredient in making it look like this is the use of a 360x180 degree HDR panorama in the rendering process. And WE as a group know everything there is to know about those, don't we?

                Erik, how does the HDR pano come in to this?

                John Riley
                4Pi-VR Media Solutions
                http://4pi-vr.com
                johnriley@...
                (h)864-461-3504
                (c)864-431-7075
                (w)864-503-5775

              • erik_leeman
                ... Hi John, It s essentially WHY there are HDR panoramas in the first place: to serve as an ambient light (and reflection) environment for synthetic 3D
                Message 7 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, John Riley wrote:
                  >
                  > On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:44 AM, erik_leeman wrote:
                  >
                  > > One essential ingredient in making it look like this is the use
                  > > of a 360x180 degree HDR panorama in the rendering process.
                  > > And WE as a group know everything there is to know about those,
                  > > don't we?
                  >
                  >
                  > Erik, how does the HDR pano come in to this?
                  >
                  > John Riley
                  > 4Pi-VR Media Solutions

                  Hi John,

                  It's essentially WHY there are HDR panoramas in the first place: to serve as an ambient light (and reflection) environment for synthetic 3D geometry. This makes an image of that geometry look like it was captured 'in a real place'.

                  Much, if not all, about this subject can be learned on fellow list member Christian Bloch's website:

                  <http://www.hdrlabs.com/news/index.php>

                  Cheers!

                  Erik Leeman
                • John Riley
                  I guess I was wondering if someone did an HDR pano in a plain white room. Maybe I should just go read the link 8-) John Riley 4Pi-VR Media Solutions
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I guess I was wondering if someone did an HDR pano in a plain white room. Maybe I should just go read the link 8-)

                    John Riley
                    4Pi-VR Media Solutions
                    http://4pi-vr.com
                    johnriley@...
                    (h)864-461-3504
                    (c)864-431-7075
                    (w)864-503-5775

                    On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:30 AM, erik_leeman wrote:

                     

                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, John Riley wrote:
                    >
                    > On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:44 AM, erik_leeman wrote:
                    >
                    > > One essential ingredient in making it look like this is the use
                    > > of a 360x180 degree HDR panorama in the rendering process.
                    > > And WE as a group know everything there is to know about those,
                    > > don't we?
                    >
                    >
                    > Erik, how does the HDR pano come in to this?
                    >
                    > John Riley
                    > 4Pi-VR Media Solutions

                    Hi John,

                    It's essentially WHY there are HDR panoramas in the first place: to serve as an ambient light (and reflection) environment for synthetic 3D geometry. This makes an image of that geometry look like it was captured 'in a real place'.

                    Much, if not all, about this subject can be learned on fellow list member Christian Bloch's website:

                    <http://www.hdrlabs.com/news/index.php>

                    Cheers!

                    Erik Leeman


                  • Mark D. Fink
                    Now THAT would be interesting! Think of all the shades of white you could convey... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGA8z3ycKcE Mark _____ From:
                    Message 9 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Now THAT would be interesting! Think of all the shades of white you could convey...

                       

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGA8z3ycKcE

                       

                      Mark

                       


                      From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Riley
                      Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:16 PM
                      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Resistance Is Futile

                       



                      I guess I was wondering if someone did an HDR pano in a plain white room. Maybe I should just go read the link 8-)

                       

                      John Riley
                      4Pi-VR Media Solutions
                      http://4pi-vr.com
                      johnriley@...
                      (h)864-461-3504
                      (c)864-431-7075
                      (w)864-503-5775

                       

                      On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:30 AM, erik_leeman wrote:



                       

                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, John Riley wrote:

                      >
                      > On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:44 AM, erik_leeman wrote:
                      >
                      > > One essential ingredient in making it look like this is the use
                      > > of a 360x180 degree HDR panorama in the rendering process.
                      > > And WE as a group know everything there is to know about those,
                      > > don't we?
                      >
                      >
                      > Erik, how does the HDR pano come in to this?
                      >
                      > John Riley
                      > 4Pi-VR Media Solutions

                      Hi John,

                      It's essentially WHY there are HDR panoramas in the first place: to serve as an ambient light (and reflection) environment for synthetic 3D geometry. This makes an image of that geometry look like it was captured 'in a real place'.

                      Much, if not all, about this subject can be learned on fellow list member Christian Bloch's website:

                      <http://www.hdrlabs.com/news/index.php>

                      Cheers!

                      Erik Leeman

                       


                    • erik_leeman
                      ... Look more carefully John, there s a sun, a blue sky with clouds, and brown rocks reflected in that thing! Cheers! Erik Leeman
                      Message 10 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, John Riley wrote:
                        >
                        > I guess I was wondering if someone did an HDR pano in a plain white
                        > room. Maybe I should just go read the link 8-)
                        >
                        > John Riley
                        > 4Pi-VR Media Solutions

                        Look more carefully John, there's a sun, a blue sky with clouds, and brown rocks reflected in that thing!

                        Cheers!

                        Erik Leeman
                      • Bostjan Burger
                        Very real to me. Bostjan ________________________________ From: erik_leeman To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17,
                        Message 11 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Very real to me.

                          Bostjan


                          From: erik_leeman <erik.leeman@...>
                          To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:44 AM
                          Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Resistance Is Futile

                           
                          3D Computer Generated Imaging has been eating away work for photographers for a while now, and I'm sure its appetite is far from satisfied. This is worrying of course, but as the saying goes: "If you can't beat them, why not join them" (or something along that line).

                          To find out what we're up against I decided to invest some serious time and effort into this subject about a year ago, and was thoroughly surprised (and amazed) by what I could do with it even after a relatively short time, and with a VERY limited budget.

                          Here's an image of an object 'built' in 3D, using only images found on the Internet as reference:
                          http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/7995271832/
                          Does this look convincing or what?

                          One essential ingredient in making it look like this is the use of a 360x180 degree HDR panorama in the rendering process. And WE as a group know everything there is to know about those, don't we?

                          There's really no limit to what you can create this way, and as I've shown here before: by using PTGui 'in reverse' we can place those 3D objects back into our equirectangulars to make it look as if they were there the moment the photos were taken!

                          These are exiting times for image-makers!

                          Cheers!

                          Erik Leeman

                          <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>
                          <http://erik-nl.deviantart.com/>
                          <http://www.erikleeman.com/>




                        • Trausti Hraunfjord
                          Too well done, too perfect to be believable. The lack of scratches, dust and other imperfections make it look fake. Looking at my own 9mm ammo, makes the
                          Message 12 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Too well done, too perfect to be believable.

                            The lack of scratches, dust and other imperfections make it look fake.

                            Looking at my own 9mm ammo, makes the difference become very obvious.

                            This is of course just a matter of more processing, adding dust and scratches... which makes most things simpler to shoot with real objects, but this is a field which will gain much more ground for sure, and for many subjects it would make a lot more sense to create CGI than having to build a whole set for shooting a few photos, then having to pull things apart again. 

                            How much time did you dedicate to learning in order to reach your current level?  I find the quality impressive, even though it doesn't match the imperfect reality we live in.

                            Trausti
                          • panovrx
                            It is impressive work and much beyond me even though I have playing with 3d programs for years. 3d from photo software is getting better lately though. First
                            Message 13 of 23 , Sep 17, 2012
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              It is impressive work and much beyond me even though I have playing with 3d programs for years. 3d from photo software is getting better lately though. First there was Autodesk's Photofly but now there is a program called Photoscan 3d which has a lot more professional features but is still easy to user for someone who is 3d challenged. It costs about $180 if you dont want the version targeted at photogrammetrists.
                              Here are a few renders of scans from half a dozen photos each
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JIQJviFpYM
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=XpvFZ1kF0z4
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIHt7SzbyNM

                              for people scanning with Kinects KScan3d is better than the free Reconstructme but it costs $300 -- but the demo works for 6 weeks. KScan3d has very good 3d stitching features so you can do you objects slowly in bits and stitch them together later.

                              The photo scanning softwares are capable of much finer detail than Kinect ones but you rapidly need PCs with lots of memory if you use lots of pictures

                              PeterM


                              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Too well done, too perfect to be believable.
                              >
                              > The lack of scratches, dust and other imperfections make it look fake.
                              >
                              > Looking at my own 9mm ammo, makes the difference become very obvious.
                              >
                              > This is of course just a matter of more processing, adding dust and
                              > scratches... which makes most things simpler to shoot with real objects,
                              > but this is a field which will gain much more ground for sure, and for many
                              > subjects it would make a lot more sense to create CGI than having to build
                              > a whole set for shooting a few photos, then having to pull things apart
                              > again.
                              >
                              > How much time did you dedicate to learning in order to reach your current
                              > level? I find the quality impressive, even though it doesn't match the
                              > imperfect reality we live in.
                              >
                              > Trausti
                              >
                            • Uri
                              ... 3D imaging plugs right into the current development of 3D printing - this technology has the potential to radically alter the way manufacturing and
                              Message 14 of 23 , Sep 18, 2012
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:

                                > This is of course just a matter of more processing, adding dust and
                                > scratches... which makes most things simpler to shoot with real objects,
                                > but this is a field which will gain much more ground for sure, and for many
                                > subjects it would make a lot more sense to create CGI than having to build
                                > a whole set for shooting a few photos, then having to pull things apart
                                > again.

                                3D imaging plugs right into the current development of 3D printing - this technology has the potential to radically alter the way manufacturing and distribution is done.
                              • erik_leeman
                                ... For those wondering exactly which Photoscan program Peter is referring to, here s the URL: http://www.agisoft.ru/products/photoscan/standard/ Apart from
                                Message 15 of 23 , Sep 18, 2012
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" wrote:
                                  >
                                  > It is impressive work and much beyond me even though I have playing
                                  > with 3d programs for years. 3d from photo software is getting
                                  > better lately though. First there was Autodesk's Photofly but now
                                  > there is a program called Photoscan 3d which has a lot more
                                  > professional features but is still easy to user for someone who is
                                  > 3d challenged. It costs about $180 if you dont want the version
                                  > targeted at photogrammetrists.
                                  > Here are a few renders of scans from half a dozen photos each
                                  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JIQJviFpYM
                                  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=XpvFZ1kF0z4
                                  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIHt7SzbyNM
                                  >
                                  > for people scanning with Kinects KScan3d is better than the free
                                  > Reconstructme but it costs $300 -- but the demo works for 6 weeks.
                                  > KScan3d has very good 3d stitching features so you can do you
                                  > objects slowly in bits and stitch them together later.
                                  >
                                  > The photo scanning softwares are capable of much finer detail than
                                  > Kinect ones but you rapidly need PCs with lots of memory if you use
                                  > lots of pictures
                                  >
                                  > PeterM

                                  For those wondering exactly which Photoscan program Peter is referring to, here's the URL:
                                  http://www.agisoft.ru/products/photoscan/standard/

                                  Apart from some frivolous tests (the result of which can be seen in my Flickr stream) I've used the cheap version for 'serious' reverse engineering work with great success!

                                  One of the attractions of 3D reconstruction from images (photogrammetry) is that it can be used on any scale, from very small objects to very large scenes. But the downside is that it usually captures FAR too much data, and filtering all of it down to what you actually need can be quite complicated and thus costly.

                                  However, do NOT expect results like what you could get using a 3D modeling program, they are each others opposite: instead of too clean and sterile, 3D scans tend to be too messy and chaotic to be used 'straight from the box'. Getting truly photorealistic results requires extra work with both.

                                  Cheers!

                                  Erik Leeman

                                  <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>
                                  <http://erik-nl.deviantart.com/>
                                  <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
                                • erik_leeman
                                  Maybe the emphasis in this thread has been a little bit too much on *creating* 3D content, and too little on the advantages of *using* it when creating images
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Sep 18, 2012
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Maybe the emphasis in this thread has been a little bit too much on *creating* 3D content, and too little on the advantages of *using* it when creating images (which is what we, as a group, do).

                                    For (some, not all) photographers CGI could become a serious danger to their income, but my point (and reason for this thread) is that you can also embrace it, and in doing so *expand* your business in stead of losing it.

                                    You don't necessarily need to be able to create 3D content yourself, but you do need to be able to process it, and 'fold' it into your image-creating workflow. Beautiful ready-made 3D props can be bought on-line, which is a LOT easier than the cost and logistics of buying/renting the real stuff. And you can still use all your photographic composition and lighting skills and experience, which can be a considerable advantage.

                                    I think it is worth diving into, even if all of this looks pretty intimidating at first glance.

                                    Cheers!

                                    Erik Leeman

                                    <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>
                                    <http://erik-nl.deviantart.com/>
                                    <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
                                  • Erik Krause
                                    ... Do you know how this compares to VisualSFM and Meshlab? Both are free. I only managed to create some 3D models from images in VisualSFM but didn t get into
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Sep 18, 2012
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Am 18.09.2012 07:24, schrieb panovrx:
                                      > Photoscan 3d which has a lot more professional features but is still
                                      > easy to user for someone who is 3d challenged.

                                      Do you know how this compares to VisualSFM and Meshlab? Both are free. I
                                      only managed to create some 3D models from images in VisualSFM but
                                      didn't get into Meshlab yet.

                                      My impression is that 3D photo scanning will replace object movies
                                      altogether sooner or later.

                                      --
                                      Erik Krause
                                      http://www.erik-krause.de
                                    • erik_leeman
                                      ... Looks like you re asking Peter, but as far as I m concerned I wouldn t recommend anyone spending much time with those free Structure From Motion
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Sep 18, 2012
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Am 18.09.2012 07:24, schrieb panovrx:
                                        > > Photoscan 3d which has a lot more professional features but is
                                        > > still easy to user for someone who is 3d challenged.
                                        >
                                        > Do you know how this compares to VisualSFM and Meshlab? Both are
                                        > free. I only managed to create some 3D models from images in
                                        > VisualSFM but didn't get into Meshlab yet.
                                        >
                                        > My impression is that 3D photo scanning will replace object movies
                                        > altogether sooner or later.
                                        >
                                        > --
                                        > Erik Krause
                                        > http://www.erik-krause.de

                                        Looks like you're asking Peter, but as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't recommend anyone spending much time with those 'free' Structure From Motion packages.
                                        I've tried a few of them before I found AGISOFT Photoscan, and almost immediately decided to buy Photoscan when I tried that one, the difference that obvious. Besides, you cannot use (most of) those packages for commercial work without a licence, so why bother?

                                        Here's one of the screenshots from VisualSFM in my Flickr stream:
                                        <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/6658909997/in/photostream>

                                        MeshLab is a different kind of tool, as it cannot convert images into geometry. MeshLab is not particularly easy to use, but utterly indispensable when working with 3D data as produced by most scanning software.

                                        Cheers!

                                        Erik Leeman

                                        <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>
                                        <http://erik-nl.deviantart.com/>
                                        <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
                                      • Erik Krause
                                        ... If I understood correctly, VisualSFM does only create (more or less dense) point clouds. You would need to feed them to Meshlab (or another program) in
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Sep 18, 2012
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Am 18.09.2012 15:24, schrieb erik_leeman:
                                          > Here's one of the screenshots from VisualSFM in my Flickr stream:
                                          > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/6658909997/in/photostream>
                                          >
                                          > MeshLab is a different kind of tool, as it cannot convert images into
                                          > geometry. MeshLab is not particularly easy to use, but utterly
                                          > indispensable when working with 3D data as produced by most scanning
                                          > software.

                                          If I understood correctly, VisualSFM does only create (more or less
                                          dense) point clouds. You would need to feed them to Meshlab (or another
                                          program) in order to get real 3D models.

                                          --
                                          Erik Krause
                                          http://www.erik-krause.de
                                        • Erik Krause
                                          ... Ok, I found your SFM in Meshlab example. Thought that it would create a grid and re-project the images on it. Will have to try Photoscan... -- Erik Krause
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Sep 18, 2012
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Am 18.09.2012 15:37, schrieb Erik Krause:
                                            >> >MeshLab is a different kind of tool, as it cannot convert images into
                                            >> >geometry. MeshLab is not particularly easy to use, but utterly
                                            >> >indispensable when working with 3D data as produced by most scanning
                                            >> >software.
                                            > If I understood correctly, VisualSFM does only create (more or less
                                            > dense) point clouds. You would need to feed them to Meshlab (or another
                                            > program) in order to get real 3D models.

                                            Ok, I found your SFM in Meshlab example. Thought that it would create a
                                            grid and re-project the images on it. Will have to try Photoscan...

                                            --
                                            Erik Krause
                                            http://www.erik-krause.de
                                          • Christian Bloch
                                            Hi Erik, I salute you to your attitude. Yes, embrace the 3D and go with the flow. With a bit of practice you will notice that photography and 3D are not
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Sep 18, 2012
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hi Erik,

                                              I salute you to your attitude. Yes, embrace the 3D and go with the flow. With a bit of practice you will notice that photography and 3D are not enemies, they go hand in hand together. And I wouldn't even say that 3D people are stealing jobs away from photographers, but it's photographers who are courageous enough to jump in the waters who steal jobs from photographers who don't.
                                              Because the traditional fields of work for 3D folks are game design, visual effects for moving footage, and all that stuff. The 3D for commercial stills is mostly done by photographers, it's handled through the same agencies, and they are masters in shooting their own elements.

                                              When I can give you one tip: I remember reading about a complicated conversion workflow, modeling in a CAD application and getting it into Strata and all that stuff. Forget about all that! Look at modo. That's the 3D application that designers and photographers are using now. It was made by the core team that made my beloved LightWave, and has everything in it. It can load all sorts of models, it has specialty tools for cleaning up the output from Photoscan (it's called "retopology"), it has sculpting tools (where you push and pull geometry like clay), it has 3D paint tools, it comes preloaded with an amazing material library (for example 30 kinds of brushed metal), and most importantly it has an excellent render engine with realtime preview. 

                                              Seriously. Get the fully featured "production evaluation" version for $25,- and do tutorials for a month. You will not want to go back. And you will never have to open that horrible Meshlab application again.

                                              Cheers,
                                              Blochi




                                              On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:54 AM, erik_leeman <erik.leeman@...> wrote:

                                               

                                              Maybe the emphasis in this thread has been a little bit too much on *creating* 3D content, and too little on the advantages of *using* it when creating images (which is what we, as a group, do).

                                              For (some, not all) photographers CGI could become a serious danger to their income, but my point (and reason for this thread) is that you can also embrace it, and in doing so *expand* your business in stead of losing it.

                                              You don't necessarily need to be able to create 3D content yourself, but you do need to be able to process it, and 'fold' it into your image-creating workflow. Beautiful ready-made 3D props can be bought on-line, which is a LOT easier than the cost and logistics of buying/renting the real stuff. And you can still use all your photographic composition and lighting skills and experience, which can be a considerable advantage.

                                              I think it is worth diving into, even if all of this looks pretty intimidating at first glance.


                                            • panovrx
                                              Here is a real/virtual pair of pictures with Photoscan 3d. http://www.mediavr.com/phillipreal.jpg http://www.mediavr.com/phillipvirtual.jpg The scan was from
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Sep 22, 2012
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Here is a real/virtual pair of pictures with Photoscan 3d.
                                                http://www.mediavr.com/phillipreal.jpg
                                                http://www.mediavr.com/phillipvirtual.jpg

                                                The scan was from maybe 15 pictures (taken with a pole btw. The NN pole is good for this kind of thing because as you put it up and down the camera on it stays pointed in the same direction approximately. So you can just do multiple shots a few centimeters apart elevation-wise and you know that the subject will be framed properly in at least one of them.) The scan was cleaned up a bit in Netfabb (free version) and Meshmixer (free).
                                                See http://vimeo.com/38764290

                                                PeterM



                                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Am 18.09.2012 15:37, schrieb Erik Krause:
                                                > >> >MeshLab is a different kind of tool, as it cannot convert images into
                                                > >> >geometry. MeshLab is not particularly easy to use, but utterly
                                                > >> >indispensable when working with 3D data as produced by most scanning
                                                > >> >software.
                                                > > If I understood correctly, VisualSFM does only create (more or less
                                                > > dense) point clouds. You would need to feed them to Meshlab (or another
                                                > > program) in order to get real 3D models.
                                                >
                                                > Ok, I found your SFM in Meshlab example. Thought that it would create a
                                                > grid and re-project the images on it. Will have to try Photoscan...
                                                >
                                                > --
                                                > Erik Krause
                                                > http://www.erik-krause.de
                                                >
                                              • panovrx
                                                or here is a stereo anaglyph version of the scan http://www.mediavr.com/phillipstereo.jpg
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Sep 22, 2012
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  or here is a stereo anaglyph version of the scan
                                                  http://www.mediavr.com/phillipstereo.jpg

                                                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <mediavr@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Here is a real/virtual pair of pictures with Photoscan 3d.
                                                  > http://www.mediavr.com/phillipreal.jpg
                                                  > http://www.mediavr.com/phillipvirtual.jpg
                                                  >
                                                  > The scan was from maybe 15 pictures (taken with a pole btw. The NN pole is good for this kind of thing because as you put it up and down the camera on it stays pointed in the same direction approximately. So you can just do multiple shots a few centimeters apart elevation-wise and you know that the subject will be framed properly in at least one of them.) The scan was cleaned up a bit in Netfabb (free version) and Meshmixer (free).
                                                  > See http://vimeo.com/38764290
                                                  >
                                                  > PeterM
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.