4 ms·
Okay, so you're creating many approximate representations of opaque and (mostly) rigid real world objects, and don't care about surface topology, rigging or UV
by 542458 10y ago
Okay, so you're creating many approximate representations of opaque and (mostly) rigid real world objects, and don't care about surface topology, rigging or UV layout. Using raw scan data works for that highly specific workflow, but let me assure you that for the overwhelming majority of the various 3D industries this is not the case.
> Making those models is much more efficient with structured light or photogrammetry systems
Only if you don't care about topology, representing unscannable things, polygon efficiency, UV layout, rigging, etc etc etc. For animation it's nowhere near competitive at present - you basically have to resculpt or retopo everything for anything but static matte background props.
Maybe long-run pure scanning workflows will become more competitive, but that's not what my comment was about.
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoand don't care about surface topology, rigging or UV layout Not true. In fact those are important aspects - especially UV layout as texture baking correctly across dynamic finishes with the same underlying polygons is critical for accurate rendering. majority of the various 3D industries Like which? Aside from production level CAD/CAM we cover most other use cases as they are almost strictly rendering/modeling. Only if you don't care about topology, representing unscannable things, polygon efficiency, UV layout, rigging Again, not true. Especially polygon efficiency - our model requires polygon optimization so that our models can be utilized by low-bandwidth areas. It has been a massive challenge but one we cracked big nuts on. "Unscannable things" is an issue, but again, there are solutions including destructive scanning and X-Ray/MRI which give us insight.