Accuracy and speed. I'm impressed.

Answered

Comments

54 comments

  • Avatar
    ShadowTail
    Blender comes to mind but the learning curve is quite steep.

    But thankfully Dr. Youtube and Brother Google have a healthy amount of tutorials available :)
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Modern phones cameras are good quality but sensors are still small. In my opinion 12mpx isn't good if you want to create reconstructions massive objects with many details. Small objects ok, but not big like this coal mine from this post. Dji Phantom 3 Pro has 12mpx(3992x2992) sensor Dji Phantom 4 Pro 20mpx(5464x3640) sensor. Difference between P3P and P4P is massive. I'm not using JPG files because are compressed and you can't recover details from dark and highlighted areas. Try compare small, tiled, very detailed surface for example bricks. RAW vs JPEG. JPG well be flat. RAW>>TIFF is still detailed. Götz If you want to render high polygon textured models I recommend Blender. Is simple and for free. Of course question is how big objects can lift your hardware?:) Low poly mesh + normal map mesh is better than 1m polys and of course you can render it in real time engines (unreal, unity). BTW ShadowTail nice model.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    ShadowTail, thanks.
    That was one I really want to avoid for the reason of the curve. :?
    And those two are my friends in that respect, but I already see them so often and sometimes I need to do something that raises the number on my bank statement... :D

    Robert, since you say Blender is easy, I might get back to you on it! ;)
    Since I got two recommendations, I will probably look into it sooner than later.

    About the resolution:
    I would say: Jein! Yes and no (combined and german). In theory, with a smaller resolution you just need to take more images to achieve the same density. That means you have to go in closer which can in some cases also benefit the geometry. Of course, if time is a factor the higher resolution wins! There is an open end anyway, somebody mentioned 42 mpx the other day...

    Jpeg we don't need to discuss, I hang my head in shame that I ever thought I could get away with it! :lol:
    No seriously, after all my examples are derived from jpegs - it is possible, but not the end of all possibility. I would argue that in some cases it can still be the better option, depending on the case (there are weird combinations of circumstances out there). I would argue that in very many cases RAW is just being used because it is said to be more professional and the results are in fact worse than somebody else could achieve with a low resolution jpeg. Especially in "normal" photography. My standard documentation I will still shoot in jpeg only because to me hdd space still matters and if you don't completely mangle them there is no visible difference once they are printed, which I have to for archiving purposes.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ShadowTail
    Here is another example of a practically flawless reconstruction.

    What you see here is a render of a 22M tri textured mesh.
    Tealight Buddha White.jpg


    Even the finest detail is faithfully captured.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Yes, looks good.
    The surface seems a little bit rougher than the texture implies, but that could be down to rendering.
    What resolution does th 1100D have?
    Oh, and how big is the statue in real life?

    I attached two of my jpeg atrocities.
    And - yes, I admit it - flash, at least partly.
    The width of all three is roughly 30cm.
    Base:
    115 imgages @ 10 mpx
    1.5 milion tris
    stone-tooling_B.jpg

    Capitals: 315/348 imgs and 2.5 million tris
    stone-tooling_K.jpg

    stone-tooling_K2.jpg

    Walls and floor are not always perfect but they are not the POI. On the basis itself you can see which surfaces have been tooled and which ones smoothed, the crudely altered parts are also distinguished. Even the tracing line under the mason's mark on the base and on top of the second capital come out really well, I think. The bumps are plaster and paint splatters and the funny veins are cobwebs. With the texture of course none of the small imperfections on the walls matter at all. And since my goal was orthophotos, that is even less relevant.
    NW-1-K2x.jpg
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ShadowTail
    The 1100D is a 12MP camera.
    got it with an 18-55 lens bundled.

    The statue is about 12cm tall. Just big enough so you can put a tealight into that flowery pot he's holding.

    Here is one of the source images:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/255 ... G_3041.JPG
    And yes, they are all jpeg :).
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    That is very small for so many pixels! :D
    Amazing what render material can do.
    I would never have guessed that it is made from sandstone, I though the second render was just shaded...

    Did I get it right that your's are jpeg too?
    Shot as such or developed from RAW?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ShadowTail
    I use jpegs straight from the camera.

    It can output raw images as well but the jpegs are, as you can see, more than good enough for what I need :).

    Those statues are made of plastic btw. Somewhere in China, probably :)
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Well, then your first rendering was far more accurate! :lol:
    It is a very good imitation though, at least on the pictures.
    The cracks and damage is quite realistic, also the fake leftover of vegetation.
    So not from the one euro shelf, I guess.
    I wondered where you would get hold of such a weathered "artefact".
    Is it covered by sand or just spray painted?
    Actually, I remember now why I thought it might be bronze imitation at first, because the lotus and below shows signs of beings sculptured by wax or something - only the shoulder bits look like carved sandstone.
    Anyways...

    Nice to see that somebody has good experience with jpegs.

    With the LX100 the main problem is that it auto corrects a significant distortion at 24mm, as Robert already pointed out.
    Other than that I think there would be not much reason to do RAW in my case.
    I will definitely experiment and if there is no significant loss, just develop to jpeg.
    My suspicion is that the difference will be marginal and only relevant if you have top of the notch lenses and are aiming to squeeze the very last bit out of every pixel. That is necessary for example with aerial photography, where you often can't just go back and take more images or flight time is so limited, that you have to focus (pun not intended). But in our cases, we can compensate with additional images. In theory, jpeg compression and bit restriction should be evened out a bit like Robert's stacking technique - the more redundancy you have on one pixel, the more you approach the "real" value by average...
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Vlad Kuzmin
    If you good with Lightroom or DxO i strongly recommend forgot about JPGs and use only RAWs. Even from iPhone RAW files have a bit wider dynamic range, and this mean you can extract more details from shadows. But noise from smartphone sensor is a big problem. on JPEGs you see only good result of system/hardware image optimisations. But with RAW you'll see how much in reality have great but small smartphone sensor.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Vlad Kuzmin
    BTW, ShadowTail.
    Looks like on both scans you have bad coverage on object head. On second image because of this you have strongly visible misalinment.

    Götz Echtenacher nice captures!
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ShadowTail
    The darker tealight I did not get the top of the head. It was more or less just a test setup.

    On both images you can see the seams of the mold the figurines were made with on the side of the head. It has not been properly cleaned up.
    Also, for the hair parts the camera was ever so slightly out of focus.

    But there was actually no misalignment there at all.

    Here's another project I did over the weekend:
    193 photos, 35M tris decimated to just below 50k.
    drg_pick_nose.jpg


    There are still a few flaws in that mesh due to some hard to photograph areas. I may have to add some more photos focusing on those. Overall that is the result I got without cleaning up the reconstructed mesh.

    RC just does its magic and reliably delivers what all the competition fails at :)
    Over and over again.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Vlad Kuzmin
    Ha. So that was just a plastic replica. :)
    This heads was always gave me pain on outdoor scans :)
    https://www.artstation.com/artwork/EggL0
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Thanks Vladlen! :-)
    Nothing compared to yours though!
    But I'll get there...
    Nice work with the thumb too!
    What gives you "head"aches? The intricate detail?
    Thanks for sharing btw.

    ShadowTail, also nice one!
    Yeh, the nooks and crannies are the worst!
    About the suspected misalignment:
    With your buddha the scale can be really confusing! 12 cm is tiny!!!

    Vladlen, nice retopo - is that zbrush?
    How much time did you spend on that?
    Also, which mapping method did you use for the detail?
    That's really not bad - I thought it was high res at first.
    About the "orange" skin texture:
    I am sure in most places it is the real surface (compared with texture) but in others it seems like artifacts.
    This is something I am struggling with quite a bit and since I am interested in stone tooling it is quite vital for me.
    Is that the limit of the technology? I am expecting better results with RAW, but since you already do that, I was wondering...
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Vlad Kuzmin
    Hi Götz.

    "head"aches:
    Repeatable pattern, small details and as result any small error (low coverage, blur, etc) - problem with alignment that really hard to fix especially with manual control points (sometime hard to understand this this dot on image is that on other... even as we smarter than any Ai)

    Regarding zBrush:
    I hate if people use zBrush automatic quads retopology when not needed, and this is 99% of all scans. (hate more only InstantMeshes retopo).
    For static solid organic shaped objects quads give usually more errors and produce meshes with higher poly counts.
    I Use quadric edge error decimation in MeshLab that produce low poly mesh that work much better with combination with baked from high resolution scan tangent space normals.
    And 3DCoat (UV Path tool) for manual UV unwrap. Because this tool allow broke addiction to quads that have better edge loops.

    And last time using Marmoset Toolbag for bake normals/color and Ambient occlusion from high res mesh to low poly.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Vladlen Great Job!!!
    I don't like zBrush. I prefer Autodesk products. Definitely I agree with you and I recommend RAWs than JPG. You don't need Lightroom, RAWTherapee is good enough as Blender and for free:] You can bake AO or normal maps in Blender as well. Blender has good retopology and UV tools as well.
    https://blendermarket.com/products/retopoflow/
    Ok this is external plugin but much cheaper than zBrush, Mudbox or Maya. In my opinion, maybe I am wrong, but it is much easier to create low poly meshes objects like yours or ShadowTail than gothic or renaissance buildings with many details.
    Once Again Great Job:]
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Vladlen
    Well, the headache was worth it though!
    The head looks really good - very crisp!

    Oh-oh. That baking-workflow I am happy to leave it for other people... ;-)

    Robert
    What Autodesk product do you use, mesh-mixer?
    And did you use the RAW-developer on Affinity Photo yet?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Götz
    Yes I've tried. Even I thinking buy license. So Affinity is good idea. I'm trying to reduce costs. But now I'm using Lightroom + Photoshop, Mudbox, Maya and Blender. RAWT only when I need to process RAWs from LX100. I never tried mesh-mixer.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Here is another good example for accuracy and detail fresh from the processor.
    The railing andsteps are only 1 cm thick.
    Much better than I would have hoped for and only at Normal!
    With my 10 mpx JPEGs from a 1/2,3" sensor... ;-)
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ShadowTail
    One more Reconstruction I have for you:

    26 photos taken with my Galaxy S7 phone with the camera locked to ISO 100.

    The reconstruction was 8.4 million tris, this render is from the simplified mesh (480k tris).

    The quality is surprisingly good.

    metal_structure.jpg
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Cheers.
    Indeed it is not!
    Would you mind uploading a wireframe?
    How big is the model in real life? Like half a meter wide?
    Did you have any problems with alignment and did you have to add CPs?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ShadowTail
    Get the source files and project here:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/255 ... ucture.zip

    The alignment went through without problems. No CPs needed at all.

    The main beams are about a meter or so apart.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Howard Cook

    Robert,

    What flight mission planning software did you use for this project?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Howard Cook

    Robert,

    What flight mission planning software did you use for this project?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.