What can't you create?


yes, i recall this one, Very nice.


 
So are you vegetarian or what?
this is only for dune people :D and sandworms, and rough rocky people.
No Seriously, my stuff could use more vegetation, at least one Cactus.

i was actually gonna post some Quixel photoscans from Iceland, but the Cactus example was easier.

ok, i guess i could post this example, made with Quixel assets....



 

prometheus

REBORN
i was actually gonna post some Quixel photoscans from Iceland, but the Cactus example was easier.

ok, i guess i could post this example, made with Quixel assets....



Yes..I am afraid if I dive in to unreal, I wouldn´t be looking back for landscape stuff, sure is amazing..I watched some forrest scenes in there, so stunning, though still missing some raytracing stuff.

It´s late now, need to jump in to the bed, and lightwave chocked and freezed when I was tweaking the volumetric clouds, guess that is a signe to shut down and try another day.
 

a crash often is a small hint

Unreal "gets it" when it comes to creating scenery fast.
but with Advanced Placement in LightWave things ain't all that bad. More tests needed,


 

gdkeast

Member
More and more, I gravitate toward things LW Guru has said. By way of LW Guru's analogy, no one is going to question what type of guitar Jimi Hendrix uses or think that what Jimi Hendrix created was based on his guitar. His guitar was his preference, a choice, a tool he likes to use to create whatever he wants. And even though Billy Gibbons of ZZ Top uses a completely different guitar, no one again, questions it. So, in the end, I never blame LW, I blame myself if I'm not getting what I want or perhaps I switch to a different program for a particular effect. But 3D modeling and creating otherworldly things and some other cool fx, I would use and always use LW.
 

I'd blame a horrible shovel any day. I wouldn't blink.
however LightWave is not a bad shovel. For its use it is Very nice. (depending!needless2say)

 

prometheus

REBORN
I'd blame a horrible shovel any day. I wouldn't blink.
however LightWave is not a bad shovel. For its use it is Very nice. (depending!needless2say)

Yup, just as well as you pick a bad canvas, bad brush, or bad pigment in the colors when painting, I can also paint artwork with chalk coal that is only black, but I wouldn´t be able to create at a level to display vibrant colors needed for other styles of art, no matter how good I am as an artist, tools matters.

There are limits for everything, period.
 
Last edited:

prometheus

REBORN
bit both related / unrelated
been looking into this lately >


Yes..it seems that ready scanned assets is ..and will be an ever increasing market, maybe leaving much manual 3D work in the dust as the proper workflow.
Though getting in to that would probably require expensive investments in good scanners, cameras etc, and it will still be a lot of work to prepare the stuff.
Once done, nothing can really compete with that kind of realism.

Mostly this is focused around nature stuff, which often is enough to have some variations and no one can tell the difference between artists using it.
The exception is of course if you need quite stylized or special cliffs, rocks and vegetation that simply isn´t scanned, when you need a very distinctive look that actually would require a Designer to work it out rather than stealing a copy from the nature.

And I agree with you erikals, look in to that stuff, I will have to start with ureal as well and try some quixel assets as well.

I think liberty3D com has some tutorials now about using photogrammetry assets in production inside of Lightwave.
 
Last edited:

And I agree with you erikals, look in to that stuff, I will have to start with Unreal as well and try some quixel assets as well.
it is Fantastic in terms of quality/cost.
I'm not touching Unreal at the moment, since the installer is like 20+ GB (agh) so installed Quixel Bridge instead. (200MB)
Though getting in to that would probably require expensive investments in good scanners, cameras etc, a
not really, there are free options now, and you can use a cellphone. (not optimal, but works)
free 3D scanner app > https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Meshroom
with cellphone >


the real catch is getting started.
(i'm still only 15% finished with my photoscan-adventure)

 
Last edited:

prometheus

REBORN
it is Fantastic in terms of quality/cost.
I'm not touching Unreal at the moment, since the installer is like 20+ GB (agh) so installed Quixel Bridge instead. (200MB)

not really, there are free options now, and you can use a cellphone. (not optimal, but works)
free 3D scanner app > https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Meshroom
with cellphone >


the real catch is getting started.
(i'm still only 15% finished with my photoscan-adventure)
Perhaps I should have stressed on this...
The question is if those free options gives you equal resolution, quality and speed of use than the more expensive ones, that was the whole incitament for argueing that investing in it Sersiously and avoiding things not being good enough or taking too long time to produce.

If there is no obstacles on anything of that, when using free tools(including the time you have to spend extra) then there is no reason what so ever for anyone to purchase the more expensive alternatives.

But I suppose it´s two different things, either investing in it to create assets to sell to others and market that, or to do assets mostly for yourself.
 

If there is no obstacles
there always are...

Meshroom = Free, and is quite a bit slower, but works. Quality is slightly lower, but not much.
MetaShape = $180, has ok speed. (relative) Quality is slightly better. and has additional tools.

my conclusion, Meshroom is a worthy alternative.


 

prometheus

REBORN
there always are...

Meshroom = Free, and is quite a bit slower, but works. Quality is slightly lower, but not much.
MetaShape = $180, has ok speed. (relative) Quality is slightly better. and has additional tools.

my conclusion, Meshroom is a worthy alternative.
Thank you for testing and giving feedback.
(y)
 

Tim Parsons

Active member
This was my 2nd attempt at Meshroom. First one didn't work because I sat at my kitchen table and rotated the item not the camera. So I went out to my garage for another attempt and came up with this. The only regret was not doing it on a overcast day as you can tell there was a window that factored into the scan. :) I was blown away that this could be done with an iPhone and free software.
Screen.jpg
 

i know

there is really not much differnce in terms of quality imo regarding Meshroom vs MetaShape.

Great scan!

 

jwiede

Electron wrangler
i know

there is really not much differnce in terms of quality imo regarding Meshroom vs MetaShape.
For small-scale camera/phone stuff, likely not. However, MetaShape can also work with larger-scale LIDAR-imaging results, etc. that would require vast quantities of "external help" to even get into Meshroom -- those are definitely areas where MetaShape offers MUCH better quality/workflow. MetaShape just happens to _also_ work with those small-scale uses, but is really intended for use on larger-scale LIDAR / photogrammetry scenarios.
 

prometheus

REBORN
This was my 2nd attempt at Meshroom. First one didn't work because I sat at my kitchen table and rotated the item not the camera. So I went out to my garage for another attempt and came up with this. The only regret was not doing it on a overcast day as you can tell there was a window that factored into the scan. :) I was blown away that this could be done with an iPhone and free software.
Why didn´t the first try work by rotating item? I would suppose you used a rotation board, camera fixed on a stand, just raising the height? at least for the mesh only, but I would guess you wanted full texture, which in that case wouldn´t work...seeing your scan now and talking before thinking, that must have been it right?
 

jwiede

Electron wrangler
This was my 2nd attempt at Meshroom. First one didn't work because I sat at my kitchen table and rotated the item not the camera. So I went out to my garage for another attempt and came up with this. The only regret was not doing it on a overcast day as you can tell there was a window that factored into the scan. :) I was blown away that this could be done with an iPhone and free software.
Tim, if you apply a weak "smooth/blur" operation, you'll bring the geometry dataset size WAY down. Right now you've got a lot of high-frequency detail in the geometry that better belongs in the normal map, and applying a weak smooth to the geometry should help fix that (then feed that back into extracting the normal map so it gets the HF details -- gross workflow oversimplification, but I hope you get what I mean). If Meshroom isn't up to that, you could use a tool like ZBrush or even Wrap3D to do those steps.
 

Tim Parsons

Active member
Tim, if you apply a weak "smooth/blur" operation, you'll bring the geometry dataset size WAY down. Right now you've got a lot of high-frequency detail in the geometry that better belongs in the normal map, and applying a weak smooth to the geometry should help fix that (then feed that back into extracting the normal map so it gets the HF details -- gross workflow oversimplification, but I hope you get what I mean). If Meshroom isn't up to that, you could use a tool like ZBrush or even Wrap3D to do those steps.
Yep I found settings in Meshroom to do just that after I did this particular scan. Very impressive software.
 
Top Bottom