Attached Link: http://www.realviz.com/products/im/index.php

i can't believe everyone isn't talking about this. it's on sale at eovia.com marked down to 350 from over 1000 dollars love esther ps okay it's still very expensive!

Assuming it works the miracles it advertises, it would be cool for making pictures that you took of buildings you designed, or else maybe someone's copyright would be violated?

Admittedly, I don't know if that would be an issue or not.

In any event, the best something like that could do would be to approximate the data for the depth - and I would think photo quality would be a huge consideration - and it would be a highly questionable approximation at best.

As for why "everyone isn't talking about this", think about it: This thing makes buildings and other relatively simple composites of geometric shapes.
However, if you could take a picture of some Victoria's Secret model and use this software to auotomate a model of her nightie, then "everyone" probably would be talking about it. ;)

Message edited on: 04/02/2006 22:31

canoma used to do something similar, but look what happened - it's as dead as vaudeville. it's so dead, they even got rid of the forum here that they used to have for it. but be fair - maybe realviz is better than canoma.

That Is cool. They have been around for a long time. The software isn;t new but I am curious when it was last updated. Definately worth trying out.

it's an interesting technique a good example of it's use is in the Doctor Who episode 'The Empty Child' where they create wartime London seen from the air...

people who're interested in this sort of thing might also want to check out photomodeler.

Attached Link: http://www.debevec.org/Items/3DWorld-2002/3DWorld-Campanile-200205-medium.jpg

photogrammetry has been around for a few years now,but it is very limited. it might be a good starting point for a model..but expect to tweak the mesh & texture in external programs to get anything worth using. it's good when used for distant buildings that only take up a few pixels on screen,but once you zoom into the model blind spots & other erors become obvious Canoma was probably the best photogrammetry app,but it was bought & killed off by Adobe,I think it was found that using projected textures & manually doing the buildings in a dedicated 3d app was what everyone preffered to do.

" photogrammetry has been around for a few years now,but it is very limited. it might be a good starting point for a model..but expect to tweak the mesh & texture in external programs to get anything worth using. it's good when used for distant buildings that only take up a few pixels on screen,but once you zoom into the model blind spots & other erors become obvious" erm... watch that Dr Who episode.. they were only a coupla hundred feet up over London during an airraid.. and non of the limits you've said were evident...

stonemason is basically correct, actually. I own RealViz's ImageModeler (v3.5) and it takes a lot of work and careful preparation to turn a set of photographs into a reasonable 3D model (textured or not). And if the model isn't reasonable, the textures will not be either. You need a good set of photographs - various angles, same camera properties, same distance if possible, good lighting. Then you need to correlate points between them in a way that captures the shape. ImageModeler was a ba$-turd to get the calculation to work properly even with 8 or 16 images and dozens of correlated control points. You can get a good detail in both the model and texture, but it really requires some work. Unless you really need photogrammetry for some reason, it is almost always easier to model the object yourself. Texturing can be fun to go from photo to flat for UV mapping, but it can be done. Maybe the guys over at BBC have better software - there is some better photogrammetry software out there - if you have $5K to $15K to splurge! ;)

well it was the Mill actually (Harry Potter, Gladiator,etc) and they do have the top end gear ;) in the shots for The Empty Child, they held the views of London for several seconds, at about 500 feet.. places like St Pauls were about 1/4 of the screen..

Attached Link: The Mill..making of 'flying over london'

Khai,I don't think they've used image modeler or any dedicated photgrammetry app for that. rather they're using camera projection,a technique of rendering a scene..then painting over the render in a 2d app & then projecting that back onto the geometrie for re-rendering. the bonus being you dont need to uv map anything & you can paint as much detail as you like in it,make multiple projections & you can also animate it. it's like postworking an animation before you've animated it I used the technique on this shot: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=316562 the scene 'flying over london' ..according to a making of video from the Mill(the studio that did the effects) mentions they've used matte painted camera projection.

and the word they (the Mill) used in Dr Who Confidential was "Photogrammetry "

I can sample it and mail it to you if you want.... so.. which interview is correct I wonder? lol

Message edited on: 04/03/2006 00:32

Attached Link: corrected link

sorry..new link,the city shot is mentioned toward the end of the video,no mention of photogrammetry. the earlier link is a different article I dont doubt it may have been used somewhere. I'm saying the detail of those shots are projected from cameras...not modeled from photos. Cheers Stefan 3dsmorrell@gmail.com <

Attached Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/confidential/index.shtml

I did say Confidential Mate.. here they are..

you want Episode 9 - FX
'We've employed a techinque called Photogrammtry...'

Message edited on: 04/03/2006 01:06

cheers..we have two different videos with two different people talking about the same shot..each mentioning different techniques ,lol

so they've used top shots of london to create a 'crude' basic model,then matte painted over them for a camera projection.
crude being the point of my first post,it may be a good starting point but it's rarely good enough for a final shot.

those videos are the first I've seen of the new dr who series,
looks like they got the daleks past the staircase at last :-)

Message edited on: 04/03/2006 01:24

confused? You Wlll Be!... Confuse! CONFUSE! cough had a dalek in my throat.. oh it's more than just getting past the stairs ;) the other Mod's they did to the Daleks made them truely scary at long last...

The nonsensical locomotive mode of the -old- Daleks always made me wonder if they only invaded worlds that had ramps and no staircases... ;) Don't give any of the Dalek mods away - I haven't seen them yet! I should mention that the SciFi channel has finally endeared themselves to this Doctor fan. :) This is getting very off topic. "xTerminate, xTerminate"

Hmm. I remember being a kid watching the Tom Baker episodes quite accidently once. Sara was his partner(Baker's first) and I was hooked. The first Who I ever saw was the Darleks. I must admit that the new show is very hard to resist even for the loyalists. The Living Paper cracked me up. "Moisturize me! Moisturize me!"

Message edited on: 04/03/2006 02:22

Sarah-Jane is coming back with K-9 in the 2007 season for an episode :)

bookmark