Extracting 3D objects from photographs

[RickS (Rick)]

This is very cool:
http://petapixel.com/2013/09/09/type...n/#more-122333

[pluto (Hugh)]

Very cool!
It's not going to put me out of a job (yet) but it looks amazing for quick adjustments in 2D, in fact I could have used that a lot this week...

[rally]

Thanks Rick,

That's very cool.
I wonder what the transport/export options are for the finished 3D models - that could have lots of useful applications in my field !

[gary]

Thanks Rick,

I routinely use 2D images as the basis for creating 3D CAD models so this is
very impressive indeed!

[RobF (Rob)]

Sure is impressive. Thanks Rick.
Thought you might have been going to show some clever new way of rendering nebulae in 3D?!

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by RobF

Sure is impressive. Thanks Rick.
Thought you might have been going to show some clever new way of rendering nebulae in 3D?!

Not me, but have you seen the work of J-P Metsavainio? http://www.astroanarchy.blogspot.fi/...bel/animations

[RobF (Rob)]

Yep. Veil is an absolute CLASSIC!

[multiweb (Marc)]

Very impressive indeed. The video makes it look very easy. I wonder how practical it is in reality. Most parts are figures of revolution or extrusion around a path at different scale so I get the object detection to some extent but texture mapping is another deal. You can't make up faces you don't see. I'm not talking about background image, just mapped surfaces.

[Barrykgerdes]

Yes the video looks good but like Marc says you can't display information that is not in the picture. It should be able to construct a more complete 3D image from two separate views taking more of the actual surfaces.

If you are interested in 3D displays download and install QB64gl. The latest version has the source code (in basic format) to create 3D displays and samples. This will allow you to make your own 3D from png images

Barry

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Very impressive indeed. The video makes it look very easy. I wonder how practical it is in reality. Most parts are figures of revolution or extrusion around a path at different scale so I get the object detection to some extent but texture mapping is another deal. You can't make up faces you don't see. I'm not talking about background image, just mapped surfaces.

No, it's clearly just a proof of concept and you are correct that it can't create information that doesn't exist in the original image. I still thought it was interesting and may lead to useful stuff.

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

If you are interested in 3D displays download and install QB64gl. The latest version has the source code (in basic format) to create 3D displays and samples. This will allow you to make your own 3D from png images

BASIC Didn't they manage to stamp that poor excuse for a programming language out yet?

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by RickS

BASIC Didn't they manage to stamp that poor excuse for a programming language out yet?

BASIC is a simple language to learn and use. It is still used in many places for simple computing by people who have not learned the higher level structured languages. 64 bit computer O/S's don't allow BASIC or programs compiled with the BASIC compiler. QB64gl reads BASIC code and transforms it int C++ routines that are then compiled with gcc and OpenGl to make programs that will run seamlessly in DOS, Windows, Linux and Apple. It also has many new commands that provide the graphics capability that was the main drawback with GBasic and QBasic.

It may not be as sophisticated as C but rubbishing it is to your own loss

Barry

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

It may not be as sophisticated as C but rubbishing it is to your own loss

The smiley indicated a somewhat tongue in cheek comment but there is some truth in it, IMHO. Most dialects of BASIC are not well suited to building substantial software systems. C is pretty crap for large scale development too.

I have no interest in having a religious war about programming languages so I'll shut up now apart from quoting one version of an old chestnut for comedy relief:

How to Shoot Yourself In the Foot

Developer's Insight, December 1991 (approx version)

The proliferation of modern programming languages (all of which seem to have stolen countless features from one another) sometimes makes it difficult to remember what language you're currently using. This guide is offered as a public service to help programmers who find themselves in such dilemmas.

C
You shoot yourself in the foot.

C++
You accidently create a dozen instances of yourself and shoot them all in the foot. Providing emergency medical assistance is impossible since you can't tell which are bitwise copies and which are just pointing at others and saying "That's me, over there."

FORTRAN
You shoot yourself in each toe, iteratively, until you run out of toes, then you read in the next foot and repeat. If you run out of bullets, you continue anyway because you have no exception-handling facility.

Modula-2
After realizing that you can't actually accomplish anything in this language, you shoot yourself in the head.

COBOL
USEing a COLT 45 HANDGUN, AIM gun at LEG.FOOT, THEN place ARM.HAND.FINGER on HANDGUN.TRIGGER and SQUEEZE. THEN return HANDGUN to HOLSTER. CHECK whether shoelace needs to be retied.

Lisp
You shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds...

BASIC
Shoot yourself in the foot with a water pistol. On big systems, continue until entire lower body is waterlogged.

Forth
Foot yourself in the shoot.

APL
You shoot yourself in the foot; then spend all day figuring out how to do it in fewer characters.

Pascal
The compiler won't let you shoot yourself in the foot.

Snobol
If you succeed, shoot yourself in the left foot. If you fail, shoot yourself in the right foot.

HyperTalk
Put the first bullet of the gun into foot left of leg of you. Answer the result.

Prolog
You tell your program you want to be shot in the foot. The program figures out how to do it, but the syntax doesn't allow it to explain.

370 JCL
You send your foot down to MIS with a 4000-page document explaining how you want it to be shot. Three years later, your foot comes back deep-fried.

[RobF (Rob)]

[troypiggo (Troy)]

Originally Posted by RickS

The smiley indicated a somewhat tongue in cheek comment but there is some truth in it, IMHO. Most dialects of BASIC are not well suited to building substantial software systems. C is pretty crap for large scale development too.

I have no interest in having a religious war about programming languages so I'll shut up now apart from quoting one version of an old chestnut for comedy relief:

Classic! You forgot:

Malbolge:
You shoot yourself in the ('&%:9]!~}|z2Vxwv-,POqponl$Hjig%eB@@>}=<M:9wv6WsU2T|n m-,jcL(I&%$#"
`CB]V?Tx<uVtT`Rpo3NlF.Jh++FdbCBA@?]!~|4XzyTT43Qsqq(Lnmkj"Fhg${z@>

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by troypiggo

Classic! You forgot:

Malbolge:
You shoot yourself in the ('&%:9]!~}|z2Vxwv-,POqponl$Hjig%eB@@>}=<M:9wv6WsU2T|n m-,jcL(I&%$#"
`CB]V?Tx<uVtT`Rpo3NlF.Jh++FdbCBA@?]!~|4XzyTT43Qsqq(Lnmkj"Fhg${z@>

I only know one person masochistic enough to program in Malbolge. Actually, he's not masochistic. He likes to see others suffer when they have to maintain his code, so I guess he's sadistic.

[astronobob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by RickS

Not me, but have you seen the work of J-P Metsavainio? http://www.astroanarchy.blogspot.fi/...bel/animations

Hey wow Rick, that link is stupendious Thanx for posting. And an interesting thread also

Incredible animation, when click on the image and opens a new window, it rotates back & forth with amaizing integrity, it is mind-blowingly brilliant, mind you, it took 4mins to load, but who cares when you see it