animation: "photogrammetry" test

[kyphur]

Good first try, if you want some inspiration you should look at the fightclub expanded DVD. You used to be able to go to buf.com (buf international visual effects company) and they had detailed runs on how they did it.

How did you go about it? Did you take the multiple shots for texturing to use pixel lighting or just a standard one shot texture?

I'd like to see the rough process that you used.

Kyph

P.S. Here's the link:

http://www.buf.fr/FILM_INDEX/

They used Mental Ray for their renders, what are you using?

[Cogliostros]

I'm impressed, good stuff!

What software did you use and renderer?


P.S. and Long Live BUF! :D

[kyphur]

Yeah, BUF rocks mucho big time.

Kyph

[nanabaky]

yeah, cool stuf ! i would like to see it in an openning motion :cool:

[Charbel]

I Dont get it :shrug:

what are you trying to do:hmm:

[kyphur]

photogrammetry:
The science or art of obtaining reliable measurements from photographic images.

photogrammetry is the ability to use pictures to recreate a 3D environment. Not using the images as image planes and modeling from them but in the sense of taking multiple images of an object(s) and then translating them into an algorhythm that can recreate the environment. In true VFX situations you also use them to recreate textures and you can do individual pixel sampling that allows light to reflect off the texture in a more realistic way and from different angles (i.e. five shots of an object from different angles then applied to the texture so that when the camera moves the light refracts like the real environment). Much like in Fight Club with the kitchen fly through when it was blowing up. David Flincher didn't want the camera to be seen in the chrome reflection on the coffee/tea pot deal as it came over the stove. The entire pass was rendered as a CG element using this type of technology and this was an extremely accurate recreation of the real environment that Edward Norton was walking through in earlier shots.

http://3dgraphics.about.com/library/weekly/aa031401a.htm?iam=savvy&terms=photogrammetry

Kyph

[Britton]

hey guys,
I guess if you don't know what I'm trying to do it's pretty underwhelming... Basically, I'm trying to use actual photos to piece together an environment in 3d, that way I can move the camera around all I want without having to worry about fancy cranes or anything, I can just use a virtual camera. This way the lighting is all completely accurate, and since it's based off real photos things should (ideally) look pretty much photoreal...
The way I did it was pretty simple. first off, it's 3dsmax, with the standard renderer. At this stage, the renderer makes no difference at all really cuz I'm not using any artificial lights... First off, I took four pictures of the phonebooks, with a little camera matching jig I've used in the past. Here they are (scaled down)

http://members.rogers.com/britton.plewes/IMG_1495_small.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/britton.plewes/IMG_1496_small.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/britton.plewes/IMG_1497_small.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/britton.plewes/IMG_1498_small.jpg

Then I defined the 12 points in space in max, and used the camera matcher to create four virtual cameras that are positioned accurately with respect to each other and the points... From there I just modeled the books as best I could.

http://members.rogers.com/britton.plewes/phonebook_screen.jpg

The materials I just made completely self-illuminated and used the photos as textures, using unwrapuvw to make them fit perfectly onto the mesh. This way the lighting is perfect, so I don't need any fancy renderers. Plus, it means it renders really quickly...
Pretty simple, only took a few hours from start to finish...

kyphur - thanks for that buf link, pretty cool stuff. I still can't believe that whole sex scene was 3d, nuts...

[kyphur]

No prob, I personally think the scene with Edward Norton shooting himself in the face was more impressive. Not saying the sex wasn't impressive, it was damn amazing but the head shot on Norton is extremely insane IMHO.

So you're not using the individual pixel technique for lighting? Just a basic lighting on this?

Kyph

[Britton]

What do you mean by "individual pixel" technique? Basically, the lighting that you see is what existed in the photos, I haven't artificially added or subtracted any light (except for the highlight on the front cover)...

[sinthetic]

Nice job on the attention to detail on your phone books! they look very realistic, the floor texture looks a little less real, but your books are the main focus and look great.

[kyphur]

Britton> It's my understanding that in Photogammetry they take pictures from multiple angles to apply to textures on a per-pixel basis. It's an easy way to get a GI look through the texture without using expensive GI rendering times.

example: They take five pictures of the same object each one from a different angle. Then they find a way so that if you're looking at the object from a relative angle in 3D to one of those five angles the pixels that you are looking at on that texture reflect that form of lighting from the photograph. That way the lighting looks as if it's being refracted from the light and surface when all it is doing is being shown by the texture. The lighting will change as the camera moves when in reality the lighting doesn't change, just the texture on that per pixel basis. I've never done Photogammetry before but from my understanding of the theory that's the main reason for using it along with being able to replicate a real environement used by real actors.

Kyph

[Eman597]

how did you use yoru photos as lights if they arent HDRI?

[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.