Face Scan (self-portrait), Todd Moyer (3D)

[kryoboy]

intresting.. I have been reading about that scanner..

Thinking of getting one my self, hows your experiance using the device and software.

[guardonduty]

Just watched the video. Pretty kool https://www.nextengine.com/indexSecure.htm

[Dennik]

Interesting regarding the amount of facial detail it can capture from the front projection.
But other than that, this is a forum for 3d artwork.
If you manage to make a subdiv model of your face using that model as a guide, that would be great. It will help you learn a great deal about the structure of your head, as it is a much more accurate reference than a 2d photo.

Looking forward to see what you make out of it.

Edit: Nevermind, that was a product ad wasn't it? I see you work for these guys. Maybe you should better post it on the general forums.

[NextTodd]

Yes. I want to be clear about that. I work for NextEngine. My position is Senior Web Designer.

I have a background in 3D modeling and I've been doing scans at home in my spare time. I thought this was a cool result so I wanted to share it. People have been asking to see more results and this seemed like the right place to do it to get real feedback.

There is an art to scanning, so hopefully this won't be looked at as "cheating".

Kryoboy, obviously I have a bias, but the hardware is really top-notch. The software is continually evolving and we have a bunch of new stuff soon to be released. We're planning on allowing non-customers to download the app from our web site so they can view native models and try out the software tools before they buy (I'm not sure when this is going to happen yet - I have about a million other things on my to-do list).

In the mean time, check out http://www.nextengine.com/todd/decimation/
for an example of how our software can reprocess a scan at varying mesh densities.

- Todd

[j3st3r]

To be honest, it's not art. I think that posting here (3d stills) a scanned model is a bit...funny. Ok, interesting technology, but there is NOTHING that I would consider as art. There is no image composition, no painted textures, no interesting lighting, no painted details, etc. If you made your own model based upon the scanned model, it would be a very interesting WIP. But now, it's just a product demonstration of the scanner device.

[newellteapot]

I think it's interesting, thanks for posting it. I think we should be more flexible, this is an amazing technology and I don't think it's problem that it's been posted here.
Please let's concentrate on the positive quality of the message, which is: "Hey look at this, it's cool I would like to share it with you" :)
:)

[aliismail]

I am with "j3st3r" and "Dennik" on this one, its that we ara against posting new technologies and "cool" things but its just that this is not the place as the guys have already said, you could post it on the general forum section, to make things more clear posting this as 3d art is not much different than someone taking a photo and claiming its 3d art. :banghead:

[Guillermo]

Well, this forum is supposed to be controlled by the mods when they say that images are reviewed before appear on the gallery, so if it´s here, it´s ok...

Anyway, I agree with "monica-taddei", it´s cool to see things like these in the forum (so thanks for posting:)).

I understand what you guys mean when you say this is not "art" but I guess waht is really "Art"... I´ve seen many many pictures in this gallery which are still WIPs or partially finished "3D Artwork" (like all the ZBrushed models which even doesn´t have a texture) and some of them even reach front page! I think this gallery is more a showcase of your skills in 3D than a real "Gallery of Art" itself.

By the way, going deeper on the question about using scans on artwork is considered cheating, I think it´s not... it´s just another way of getting a result. It´s like if you say using a wacom tablet to paint instead of a mouse is cheating beacouse it´s much easier... IMHO the objective is to get the reuslt, not the way you get it.

(looking fordward to responses on this interesting debate :))
Cheers!

[j3st3r]

I think it's nothing to do with art. It's interesting technology, but not more. To post it here (3D Stills) it's a little bit strange. The author's skills have minimal effect on the product, there is nothing expressive, or visually interesting. As I said, it's just a demonstration of the device, and not the skills of the author. This is very similar when one of my colleagues posted a motion capture scene (ie. rough mocap data he has recorded) in an animation gallery. He was not the actor, he didn`t used the mocap as a resource for an animation, he just processed it. It was technically good, but it`s just the work of an operator, not an artwork. Same here. It's not matter of flexibility. I consider me as an open eyed guy towards technology, but this forum (3D Stills) is not just showcase for technology, but HUMAN skills of expressing themselves. Especially when there are many extremely talented modellers out there.

[captainpopo]

how does that work? interesting machine but have to agree with j3st3r on this

[EnlightenedPixel]

Ive got to agree, this isnt technicaly 'art' its just a scan you did. To a lot of us, this may actualy seem like a promotion for the scanner. You say you have experience with 3d modeling, how about posting some of that instead?

[CJ Crave]

As people have already chosen to point out this is a "3D Stills" gallery, which leads me to ask 2 things. Is it 3D? yep it sure is, he may not have modelled it but it is still very much a 3d object so he fits that criteria. Next question, Is it a still image? I don't see any movement, so I'm pretty sure it is. It seems to me, "art" or not, this image has perfectly legitimate reason to be in this gallery and why don't we stop ragging on this guy just because we don't like his methods. I'm not a fan of "Poser" because most of the work is done by the software and not the artist but that doesn't mean people don't have a right to post poser models in here so why shouldn't this guy get to post 3d scans. I'm giving him some stars for being bold.

[newellteapot]

I agree with you, he shared something interesting with us, it's becoming a public trial!!!
I think that it's ok and interesting, let's not be too rigid, come on.

As people have already chosen to point out this is a "3D Stills" gallery, which leads me to ask 2 things. Is it 3D? yep it sure is, he may not have modelled it but it is still very much a 3d object so he fits that criteria. Next question, Is it a still image? I don't see any movement, so I'm pretty sure it is. It seems to me, "art" or not, this image has perfectly legitimate reason to be in this gallery and why don't we stop ragging on this guy just because we don't like his methods. I'm not a fan of "Poser" because most of the work is done by the software and not the artist but that doesn't mean people don't have a right to post poser models in here so why shouldn't this guy get to post 3d scans. I'm giving him some stars for being bold.

[ronaldomiranda]

What the hell if is not art?!

Let the people post what they want...

Is not forbidden by the site or any cgtalk laws


Great idea to post that in here!!!

[j3st3r]

In that case posting a 2d scan of my face is art, and may go to the 2d stills forum. Thanks the idea.

ArtWORK is when somebody uses his own skills to create something that emotionally express something. Scanning itself is NOT art. It might be if he puts the scanned object into some setting, etc. Usually, it rather fits into the WIP category, where you may see model turntables, etc.

[Glenfx]

well, this should be in the general forums

BUT, its funny how poser IS considered for "art" and a 3d scan is not XD

[j3st3r]

Displaying a pure poser character is NOT art. But inserting a character into a setting, light it, and render it, that MAY be art. Just as the old collage or montage technique. I myself wouldn`t touch poser, but I think there are many artist who's got great texturing skills, lighting skills, who make artisitc images using poser.

As I said, if it were placed into a setting, it would be in the right place.

CJ Crave, by your logic, shots from a turntable belongs also into the Still category? It doesn't show up anything but the capabilities of a machine (the scanner). No setting, no pose, no mood, no human effect on the scanned data.

Therefore it is NOT ARTWORK.

[elfufu]

how were u able to scan with the eyes open is the laser not harmfull for the eyes?
do u have more image u can show the ones you guys picked to show on the site do more damage to the selling of the product than help it.

bubble gum packs, and a crappy remote control dont show me accuracy.
also if you scan toys you guys should really consider picking up cool ones.. not a shrek birthday candle.

no offense im trying to help out. if the scanner is this great you should showcase it better, i remember yu guy once sent me a skull model that was very impressive, why is that not online?

[NextTodd]

Hi Miguel. Thanks for your feedback.

While the laser is 10mw, the fact that it diverges so rapidly makes it eyesafe. If you figure a dilated pupil has a 7mm aperture, and a near-range scan uses a stripe that's around 25cm high, then the total milliwatts entering the eye is only 0.3 (anything under 5 is considerd safe).

I recently updated the gallery section of our site with a bunch of new models. The next step for me is to add downloadable OBJ files, so keep a lookout for that...

http://www.nextengine.com

Also check out:

http://www.nextengine.com/todd/han-jabba.mov
http://www.nextengine.com/todd/gargoyle1b.mov
http://www.nextengine.com/todd/gold-buddha.mov
http://www.nextengine.com/todd/buddha.mov
http://www.nextengine.com/todd/batman.mov
http://www.nextengine.com/todd/clown.mov
http://www.nextengine.com/todd/gargoyle-box.mov

How long ago did you get the skull model? I remember doing some skull scans a long time ago, but that was with earlier generation hardware.

- Todd
NextEngine, Inc.

[elfufu]

would it be possible to scan something like say a macfarlane toy?
something with alot of detail? I know i cannto expect to get a perfect result from this (being a $2500 scanner)
but id like to see how it would handle a ton of detail.

also whats the availability on these things?

[elfufu]

todd check your personal messages

[NextTodd]

would it be possible to scan something like say a macfarlane toy?

I think I have a Spawn figure at home. I'll see if I can find it.

also whats the availability on these things?

We are currently shipping with no backorder. Order direct from our site.

As far as the systems' capabilities, it's a good idea to separate the hardware performance from the software.

When it comes to creating a complete model of a complex object, this is really a software capability, and is dependent on the quality of the algorithm that does alignment, merging and polishing. There are many (expensive) scanners on the market that capture individual "fields", then rely on other software to put them together. Typically, you spend $40,000 to $120,000 on the hardware, then you still need to spend $10,000 to $40,000 on software.

Our hardware compares very favorably with other companies' hardware (at any price), and actually outperforms most of them in accuracy, sampling density, and surface versatility (we get good data from materials that other scanners can't even see). Our patented multi-laser system oversamples every captured point to cancel out noise, creating cleaner data than the others. And of course, we capture 3 megapixels of texture data per scan, while most others capture none.

Our software is free (with your scanner), and does as well or better than some of the very expensive packages. I will admit though, that there are some really cool features in some of the other software (with decades of development behind them).

The reason this kind of software is so expensive is simple: the market is relatively small compared to the development cost. Since few people can afford a $100,000 scanner, you aren't going to be able to sell many seats of your software to process the scans from it. So, the price must be high to cover the substantial development costs of such software.

But here's the really good news: Now that a low-cost scanner is available, the much larger potential market means it makes sense for other companies to offer low-cost/high-performance scan processing software. We've talked to some of the big players in this area, and (I can't divulge too much, but) you can expect to see some big market changes here in the next 3 to 6 months.

[elfufu]

so youre saying if i had more expensive software my scans would be better using the same machine? im not saying this in a negative way btw

just curious
we use GSI and paraform

[NextTodd]

so youre saying if i had more expensive software my scans would be better using the same machine? im not saying this in a negative way btw

just curious
we use GSI and paraform

The easy answer is yes.

Now for the complicated answer: It really depends... When you do a single (one field) scan with the NextEngine scanner, you get around 750,000 points (if your object fills the entire view). Our software meshes these points into a surface in a very high quality way. We have very sophisticated decimation, hole-filling and detail-preserving smoothing that can be dialed-in with the software, and the generated mesh is very well-behaved and uniform.

So for the single scan dataset, we have made our system about as good as possible. These single scans are the building blocks for more complex models.

A turntable family is multiple scans, related by a shared rotational axis. 6 to 10 is a typical number of scans in a family get an entire object. You can also do more individual scans to add data for the bottom of the object, if you need it.

There is also the case of large objects where you may need to do many more scans because of the amount of surface to cover (large maquettes etc.).

Now you get into alignment and blending.

Our alignment is similar to other systems, but I think we've made some great UI enhancements to make the process fun and easy. We also leverage the captured texture to assist in point-picking, so you can get good accuracy very easily.

For blending, we use a surface-merging technique that combines overlapping surfaces and stitches all the pieces together with "zippers" to create a single surface (manifold) mesh. We also do texture blending so that seams aren't visible in the textures. The blending algorithm is one of our primary areas of development, and we have released improvements every few weeks. We have another big set of blending improvements working their way through QA right now, and we hope to release them soon. (See update below)

Other software packages (such as RapidForm) have multiple blend algorithms available, including a volumetric (voxel based) technique. This alternate method can produce nicer looking meshes for very complicated surfaces, but for simpler surfaces surface-merging is faster and produces pretty much the same result. RapidForm uses some ParaSolid libraries, so you may have the same capabilities in your software. It's been a while since I looked at GSI, but I think it was similar and had very good alignment and resurfacing tools.

Everything is changing very rapidly. We are continuing to evolve our solution, and other players are adapting their strategies for this new market as well.

Hope this helps,

Todd
NextEngine, Inc.

Edit 7/25/07

New software released: ScanStudio CORE (included with every scanner) now includes RapidForm libraries for advanced, high-quality surfacing. Blend/Merge is now called FUSE and uses the same volumetric approach as RapidForm XOS/XOR. Improved texture blending, global curvature-based hole filling and drastic speed improvements are all part of this free upgrade.

Also, two new software products are available: ScanStudio PRO ($995) and RapidWorks ($2495). Thes are mostly geared towards engineers/CAD users but check the site for more info. www.nextengine.com

[NextTodd]

would it be possible to scan something like say a macfarlane toy?
something with alot of detail? I know i cannto expect to get a perfect result from this (being a $2500 scanner)
but id like to see how it would handle a ton of detail.

I found one of my Spawn figures and scanned it last night. Here's a preview:
http://www.nextengine.com/todd/spawn.jpg

I have another one that I may scan later, but this one had nice surface detail.

I'm rendering a 360 spin quicktime tonight - I'll post the results tomorrow.

[elfufu]

thanks for the clarification todd, this looks preety good, how many scans were required to get this result? how does this deal with scanning hands? i know theres alot of problems with hands usually...

[NextTodd]

The spawn figure was 2 turntable families. One for the lower half (legs) and one for the upper (torso/head/arms). The lower one was 8 scans and the upper was 10. Probably could have been done with less, but the extra scans don't really cost anything, since you only need to place 3 alignment points to align an entire family (regardless of the number of scans in the family). The extra scans just help fill some of the little occlusions.

Hands can be a challenge if the alignment is not good, or if they're are too small relative to the scan density. The hands on spawn were pretty small, but the scanner had no problem resolving the individual fingers.

[NextTodd]

Here's that spawn scan rendered out to QuickTime...

http://www.nextengine.com/todd/spawn.mov

[NextTodd]

Same dataset as above, reprocessed with the latest software - ScanStudio CORE 1.5. Total FUSE time was bout 4 minutes.

http://www.nextengine.com/todd/spawn-tex.mov

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.