Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Infinite

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25
Do you know any manufacturer?
I don't want to deal with soldering.
Like most people, I like grabbing things right off the shelf.

You want Esper:

Hi Eunchi,

We at Esper make an opto isolated cam trigger, see our website for details:


Extremely reliable and incredible build quality.

General / Re: Single camera scanning thread?
« on: April 21, 2014, 10:37:08 AM »

This was my main point. You lack multi-camera experience to make such a sweeping comment about Photoscan.

He doesn't need to have experience with multi camera setups to give his opinion on the quality though? All he needs to see is the result (the mesh itself)?

Of course you do, it's not just about the final output. You need to know how to use the data properly. For example there's a big difference between an 80 camera system to a 150 camera system. Incremental improvements. Once you've scanned 100's and 100's of people, different clothing, different poses. Instant capture. Faster post-processing. Amazing colour output and high frequency details you can't get with an Artec system. You begin to realize the differences.

The quality and speed far out way any structured light system. You gain that knowledge through experience.

Plus an Artec Spider is useless for full body scanning. It would take about an hour to scan someone and you would have way too much polygonal data to manage.

General / Re: Single camera scanning thread?
« on: April 20, 2014, 07:11:42 PM »
Very overly dramatic. You will need a much thicker skin than that if you are trying to interact and share your experience with the community.

"they pale in comparison to detailed work I'm getting from a combination of Artec Eva and the Artec Spider."

I have every right to say what I think against that. It's rude and ignorant to post that here. It's like sh*tting on your own door step.

"As for doctored scans, the shoe and hand are RAW output."

Yes. I can tell.

"I am speaking from my own experience."

This was my main point. You lack multi-camera experience to make such a sweeping comment about Photoscan.

General / Re: Single camera scanning thread?
« on: April 20, 2014, 12:51:37 PM »
James of Ten24 had a talk with me.  Told me it was BS for me not to keep participating on the site.

With all due respect to James and Chris (the owner) at Ten24, they will say that. As they are one of the companies who sadly don't participate here, yet make a very good living out of Photoscan. It's a shame they haven't posted here over the years and I hope to see them do so soon (perhaps this post will encourage that!)

I in fact can't stand Photoscan body scans, they pale in comparison to detailed work I'm getting from a combination of Artec Eva and the Artec Spider.

Information like this is negative and incorrect. You can't make a sweeping statement like that Jeffrey. It will alienate you to others.

Also posting a composite full body scan, that has had a ton of post work and modelling as a scanning comparison is moot. The amount of post work an Artec scan needs is mind numbing.

If you have the correct multi DSLR set-up the results can be amazing. The Artec system is VERY dated and VERY cumbersome. I know, I've owned several since 2008 before they were even commercially available in Europe, let alone the US.

It's commendable that you are trying to encourage others and teach from your experience. Stay positive.

Face and Body Scanning / Re: Face scanner - Prototype
« on: April 16, 2014, 03:27:55 PM »

 :) - Movement takes 3 seconds right now - for testing purposes, it will be 2.2 seconds soon.
Flashes are not in position, i was building my own micro flashes, (with just the bulb and the capacitor) but i got electroshocked, never manipulate a flash if you dont know perfectly what youre doing! :o ... so im using comercial ones at the moment ..

It looks very smart but 2.2 seconds is a long time in the world of face scanning. You can see the face moving even from this distance. Do you find this an issue during build? How do you solve that?

General / Re: Single camera scanning thread?
« on: April 15, 2014, 06:57:00 PM »

Thank You for your kind words...  The internet is what it is I guess.  I have half a mind to release another free video just for spite... :)


Do it, but only through openness and wanting to. Don't feed any trolls through spite.

I'm thinking of doing something similar soon, more on a hardware side. I didn't see your video but I'm sure it's filled with interesting info. Don't let any negative comments get you down.

Face and Body Scanning / Re: Face scanner - Prototype
« on: April 15, 2014, 06:22:58 PM »
Yeah its a big servomotor, lifting 15kg from the axis takes a serious amount of resources hehe. (there are smaller and lighter ways however, like a linear actuator... but i decided to do it simple for now.
Cameras are synced by flash so shake is not really a problem.  :)

Is it a time machine ! ?  :o

Would love to see this in motion. Very interesting concept  :)

General / Re: Single camera scanning thread?
« on: April 15, 2014, 05:54:56 PM »
A sticky FAQ is certainly a very good idea!  :)

General / Re: Single camera scanning thread?
« on: April 15, 2014, 05:53:38 PM »
I'm not sure if your rant was aimed at me or others, but I would just like to point out that I've been using Photoscan for years for face scanning, it was me that suggested to Lee (Infinite) that he should try the software, the rest is history... the whole reason all these "mini-me" 3D printing companies sprang up in the last few years is due to Lee openly talking about his Photoscan process.
Just to put that in context I have never made a single penny from using Photoscan, i don't offer a scanning service, I design and build hardware.

Whilst this is partially true Merry, the industry was generally heading in this direction, Photoscan. It's just no one had ever tested with a multi camera system. Luckily IR was the first to do that properly. I was aware of Agisoft before you mentioned it to me. I actually saw the work Samuel Poirier was doing before that which tempted me but I was already knee deep with Dimensional Imaging and had an expensive Scanner Killer license, my journey started back in 2008 thanks primarily to DI and XYZ-RGB, who were the true pioneers.

My research how ever would have not been possible without Merry's hardware designs for trigger and power.

I'm sorry to hear Jeffrey got a bunch of hate mail, there was no need for that (whoever did it should apologize) There is nothing wrong with sharing.

It is a shame some companies use Agisoft as their main business and don't participate here and help others but no one is forcing anyone to share or not to share. We can do as we please.

It's now a very competitive industry thanks to the monetary system we live in.

What annoys me most is when people don't talk openly about Agisoft Photoscan, or get it linked in press releases. The more exposure the better.

General / Re: Compare insight3d, PythonPhotogrammetry, VisualSFM
« on: April 10, 2014, 12:57:37 PM »
Reading this comment thread, lots of people praising Agisoft and PS for the product performance, which is great - why we all bought it, I'm sure. And I agree it's worth its weight in gold (lots more really, since I don't think my copy actually weighs anything).

But I have to say, I think to find the true meaning of life is to find happiness, not money. And one of the things I enjoy most about Agisoft and Photoscan is the active participation and helping each other by both the users and Agisoft on this forum. I've PM'd and even talked with a few other users who I've met on this board, and the user community is a huge asset as far as I am concerned. For solving problems, bouncing off ideas, even developing the product, it's clear that the Agisoft team and the user community are pretty close-knit (way more than I am used to) and I think that is worth its weight in gold and a very big reason that I would recommend PhotoScan - whether you use this software for art, science, profit, or just for curiousity.


Whilst I agree with these lofty sentiments. Don't forget money does bring you (as in everyone) happiness. Why? Because it gives you options. Options to grow and explore, to employ people, to get further options to meet people, to spread knowledge, learn, help others, push development and grow. Photoscan can enable this and it has done for many businesses now.

If you knew what photogrammetry was like before Photoscan (Dimensional Imaging, Scanner Killer etc) trust me, you would worship Photoscan on a pedestal every morning :)

15 minute - 3 hour stereo calibration times, is no dancing matter! Scanner Killer itself was over $12k, a DI3D 4x camera kit and stereo software was $30k!!

Lee, I am not playing the devil's advocate , but sorry I am currently using each 3 meters + 5 meters cable distance with USB 2.0 Hubs for 60+ Cameras.  Although, in your point of view, I will give go for some USB 3.0 Hubs and see the result. 


I would start my reply with your name, but it's not listed.

but sorry I am currently using each 3 meters + 5 meters

No need to apologize.

Exhale, I wouldn't be surprised at 5m. After USB2, the extra power should boost the signal. The point is the set 3m distance from camera to what ever source it's plugged into, Hub or PC. That's the limit with USB2.

From my 5 years worth of experience in this field, USB2 is a nightmare and terribly unreliable. So yes, I would recommend USB3 for many reasons. If you want to cover larger distances and require 99.99% reliability, USB3. Try it.

Plus the Anker USB3 hubs have nice little blue lights on them that only light up when a camera is working. Very handy.

That's very interesting indeed, Lee! None of us expected any improvement unless the source (cameras) were USB 3.0 as well.

From what I gather, you are using 3.0 hubs, 3.0 cables between hubs and PC, and obviously 3.0 in your PC. But, did you keep the 2.0 miniUSB->USB from cameras to hubs? Do these even exist in 3.0 flavor? I did a search in some local stores around here and couldn't find any.


You go USB2 (no longer than 3m) to USB3 (over 15m fine) then to the PC. Experiment a little and you will see the gains. Sometimes the type of USB2 and USB3 cables play a big role in the reliability aspect, as well as the type of USB hubs you get (I recommend 7 port Anker) Some USB2 cables wont work at all, while others will work perfectly.


1) the edge of the mask is often too generous in letting in the background, which lets through the white background; this is particularly problematic when creating textures for hair and areas where 'webbing' is likely (fingers, armpit, crotch)

It doesn't really matter how accurate the masks are in this regard as Photoscan still doesn't take into account masks during hole fill stage. Webbing will always occur until hole fill is taking masking into account. I believe this is a complex problem to solve.

It's just as fast to do your editing after dense point cloud reconstruction. Edit / delete the points directly in 3D, then build the mesh. Photoscan will still web but it will produce better results and will be faster than manually editing each mask image by hand.

I made some experiments. I used Desktop and Laptop computers. As long as your camera is USB 2.0  , it doesn't matter if you use USB 3.0
Although, I can say there is a difference with USB Hubs. I would recommend a reliable USB hub, it will do.

It matters a great deal
. Mainly because you can overcome the 3m limit set to USB2. You can extend to 10m, 15m and daisy chain more.

USB3 hubs are also far more stable and reliable on a multi-camera rig, and you can achieve over 70 cameras per PC.

For your face rig, if you haven't already try switching over to USB3. It's far more reliable, you can overcome distance issues associated with USB2 cables, you can send more data and hook up more cameras per PC.

Thanks for the tip, Lee! I actually do hook things up to USB3.0 on my Lenovo notebook, but since cameras themselves (600D's) are 2.0, I didn't bother to search for 3.0 cables and hubs. It didn't occur to me that it would make a difference, unless cameras were USB 3.0 as well...


Try it and see, sometimes depends on the motherboard used. Desktops are far better than relying on Laptops.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25