[QUOTE][QUOTE][IMG]http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2014/3dscanningwi.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Traditionally, 3-D scanning has required expensive laser scanner equipment, complicated software, and technological expertise.
But MIT spinout Viztu Technologies helped change that: Back in 2011, Viztu released software, free online, that essentially replaced expensive scanning hardware with personal cameras. This innovation led to a rapidly rising commercial enterprise that concluded with Viztu's sale to a tech giant, which is now bringing the technology to the public worldwide.
Viztu's flagship web service, Hypr3D, could rapidly generate digital 3-D models of an object (human or inanimate) or scene from a series of user-uploaded 2-D digital photos or videos, usually captured by digital cameras, smartphones, or webcams.
"We gave people the easiest scanner available: the cameras they already owned," says Thomas Milnes PhD '13, Viztu's chief technology officer, who developed the software behind Hypr3D as part of his MIT dissertation. "Now it only takes a smartphone or digital camera a few minutes online to build a 3-D model and only a few moments more to send it off to be 3-D printed."
Source:
[URL]http://phys.org/news/2014-01-d-scanning-smartphone.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
Now THIS is AWESOME.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;43736346]Not really[/QUOTE]
Go on..
That will be a lovely half of a pineapple
[QUOTE=chaz13;43736350]Go on..[/QUOTE]Kinect?
I've waited long enough to get into modeling in maya.. Guess I have no excuses not to now :v:
I think my next question is; can these models be imported into maya?
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;43736512]I've waited long enough to get into modeling in maya.. Guess I have no excuses not to now :v:
I think my next question is; can these models be imported into maya?[/QUOTE]
It's just a data-structure representing points and faces in 3D. It can be imported into anything really.
Autodesk has had a thing like this for awhile. You take a bunch of pictures with your phone around an object and upload them, then it calculates it into a mesh.
[url]http://apps.123dapp.com/catch/[/url]
I scanned Max Payne things with it
[url]http://p3d.in/GhgCh[/url]
[editline]31st January 2014[/editline]
Although I don't think Autodesk's thing can do video, that seems useful
im gonna scan my dick with it
[QUOTE=SuPeR_MaN;43736793]im gonna scan my dick with it[/QUOTE]
Is it really capable of scanning things that small?
[QUOTE=Leestons;43736821]Is it really capable of scanning things that small?[/QUOTE]
The modern marvels of humanity.
[QUOTE=proch;43736448]That will be a lovely half of a pineapple[/QUOTE]
If you had actually gone on the website, it asks you take photos at multiple angles, there's no way it could generate a 3d model off 1 photo, you're thinking of the kinect which only captures in 3d what it can directly see, so you get half an object
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;43736346]Not really[/QUOTE]
The laser scanning equipment is expensive, and any software that can do this without laser scanning hardware is also extremely complicated, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say..
[QUOTE=A big fat ass;43736740]Autodesk has had a thing like this for awhile. You take a bunch of pictures with your phone around an object and upload them, then it calculates it into a mesh.
[url]http://apps.123dapp.com/catch/[/url]
I scanned Max Payne things with it
[url]http://p3d.in/GhgCh[/url]
[editline]31st January 2014[/editline]
Although I don't think Autodesk's thing can do video, that seems useful[/QUOTE]
Is this normal ?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/YjucmtU.png[/t]
Why would you need 10k+ polys for it ?
I took like 8 pictures of it in a room that was not well lit, and I don't know why you would expect 3D scans to be optimized.
[QUOTE=A big fat ass;43736740]Autodesk has had a thing like this for awhile. You take a bunch of pictures with your phone around an object and upload them, then it calculates it into a mesh.
[url]http://apps.123dapp.com/catch/[/url]
I scanned Max Payne things with it
[url]http://p3d.in/GhgCh[/url]
[editline]31st January 2014[/editline]
Although I don't think Autodesk's thing can do video, that seems useful[/QUOTE]
123D Catch is a good concept but it barely works most of the time.
It also sends everything to 'the cloud' to be processed which takes ages and seems stupid when you're sitting on a monster PC.
[QUOTE=Downsider;43737023]The laser scanning equipment is expensive, and any software that can do this without laser scanning hardware is also extremely complicated, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say..[/QUOTE]
Please don't talk about shit you don't know. All you need is a laser, a webcam and a stand that would rotate the object and move the laser up and down. Then you get the distance calculated with basic trigonometry.
[QUOTE=alexaz;43737471]Please don't talk about shit you don't know. All you need is a laser, a webcam and a stand that would rotate the object and move the laser up and down. Then you get the distance calculated with basic trigonometry.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so you're saying that image analysis software like OpenCV is simple. Thanks. That's really all I needed to hear.
[QUOTE=Downsider;43737664]Oh, so you're saying that image analysis software like OpenCV is simple. Thanks. That's really all I needed to hear.[/QUOTE]
You really are that narrow-minded?
You can either:
1) turn off the lights in the room. a to find a red red dot's position on a black background doesn't require OpenCV or anything complex.
2) use an IR laser and an IR pass filter. a white dot on a black background doesn't require OpenCV or anything complex.
[QUOTE=alexaz;43737471]Please don't talk about shit you don't know. All you need is a laser, a webcam and a stand that would rotate the object and move the laser up and down. Then you get the distance calculated with basic trigonometry.[/QUOTE]
he never said the software for laser scanning hardware was compex
he specifically said that software that does it [I]outside[/I] of simple laser scanning (see: the article or other similar photo analysis based mesh generation) is extremely complicated
which is wholeheartedly true
I used to work for a company that recreates technical components on armored vehicles in 3D. This invention, no matter how primitive the models are when scanned, is gonna cost a lot of jobs. And here I was, hoping for more CAD work soon...
I spent hours and hours crawling around on and inside vehicles, measuring and taking tons of pictures, and with this my workload would be reduced to half, but so would everyone else's in the company. Im aware this isnt accurate enough for real technical reconstruction, but considering most components I did would mainly be for show/presentation purposes, I guess that leaves me as a modeller out of the picture.
[QUOTE=Steff;43741748]I used to work for a company that recreates technical components on armored vehicles in 3D. This invention, no matter how primitive the models are when scanned, is gonna cost a lot of jobs. And here I was, hoping for more CAD work soon...[/QUOTE]
it is by no means a replacement, since it is quite inaccurate comparatively
if anything it could be used to get more useful references of what you're modelling
Maybe 80% of the models I made was meant for instruction manuals. They didnt have to be accurate.
Laser scanners are rather accurate and have been out for awhile now. So yeah. Don't blame this. It's muuuch less arduous to do this and edit it then it is to make it by hand
[QUOTE=proch;43736448]That will be a lovely half of a pineapple[/QUOTE]
You use multiple pictures from multiple angles.
so we can now scan and print people?
No more cardboard cutouts!
[QUOTE=alexaz;43741371]You really are that narrow-minded?
You can either:
1) turn off the lights in the room. a to find a red red dot's position on a black background doesn't require OpenCV or anything complex.
2) use an IR laser and an IR pass filter. a white dot on a black background doesn't require OpenCV or anything complex.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I can pretty much guarantee you that the "red dot" is more like a projected circle that has to be analyzed to figure out how it's deformed against the black background. I can also guarantee you that the results are dog dick if you're not doing anything more complex than trying to gauge the size of a dot on the screen and syncing it with a rotating platform.
[QUOTE=SuPeR_MaN;43736793]im gonna scan my dick with it[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/3d-printer-penis-dildos_n_2257373.html]late x1[/url]
[QUOTE=Downsider;43742308]Yeah. I can pretty much guarantee you that the "red dot" is more like a projected circle that has to be analyzed to figure out how it's deformed against the black background. I can also guarantee you that the results are dog dick if you're not doing anything more complex than trying to gauge the size of a dot on the screen and syncing it with a rotating platform.[/QUOTE]
... You are not gauging the size of the dot, you are measuring the distance between the center point of the camera and the laser dot ( since I initially said [del] that the laser was at an angle [/del] trigonometry).
[url]http://hackaday.com/2014/01/30/2d-room-mapping-with-a-laser-and-a-webcam/[/url]
OpenCV is used here, but only because it was faster than doing it yourself.
[QUOTE=Steff;43741748]I used to work for a company that recreates technical components on armored vehicles in 3D. This invention, no matter how primitive the models are when scanned, is gonna cost a lot of jobs. And here I was, hoping for more CAD work soon...
I spent hours and hours crawling around on and inside vehicles, measuring and taking tons of pictures, and with this my workload would be reduced to half, but so would everyone else's in the company. Im aware this isnt accurate enough for real technical reconstruction, but considering most components I did would mainly be for show/presentation purposes, I guess that leaves me as a modeller out of the picture.[/QUOTE]
erm, in the same way that Paint.net costs Graphic Designers jobs
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
