3 ms·

Umbra Composit does high-resolution 3D scans

44 points by vinnyglennon 8y ago

jefft255 8y ago
I think the claim "scan the whole world down to the detail of a single grain of sand" is hot garbage. SfM or any kind of 3D scanning method doable with cell phone or drone data will not get close to that. You'd need some very expensive scanners for that and no one would use these to scan a large area. It doesn't matter if your mesh is that precise when your data acquisition method isn't.
John_KZ 8y ago
The 3D panning shots were pretty nice considering there's no specular information in those 3D scans. The claims are, of course, insane, but I guess they're trying to sell some kind of fancy correction algorithm to fill in the gaps.
ris 8y ago
The issue here is one of rights. Who owns the rights of the generated data? Especially if it was the "crowdsourced" product of n people. Does the data make any sense outside the context of Umbra's software? Is it exportable? Or do Umbra retain the rights to take their ball away at any time? These are all questions anyone should be asking before putting any sort of time & effort into "contributing" to some sort of "crowdsourced" project. Or even putting a significant amount of work into a cloud-based tool. Mapillary's answer was a compromise - contributed image data is published under a creative commons license, but Mapillary retain copyright over the metadata (most importantly positioning information). This is a bit of a fudge which would prevent users reclaiming the entire dataset and taking it elsewhere, but it seems to work for the community ... mostly.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Generally this is considered a compilation. And the compiler owns the rights to a compilation. The biggest example would be the yellow pages (let's assume you remember those). The company putting it out certain owns copyright over the book, it's exact contents, even if it owns none of the individual details inside of it.
  - daveguy 8y ago
    I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. Is the statement just not correct? (seems right) Or does it vary significantly throughout the world? Or is it down voted because people don't like the idea of their collected information being owned by the compiler? There has to be a lot of grey in this space. Can someone clarify?

44 points by vinnyglennon 8y ago

I think the claim "scan the whole world down to the detail of a single grain of sand" is hot garbage. SfM or any kind of 3D scanning method doable with cell phone or drone data will not get close to that. You'd need some very expensive scanners for that and no one would use these to scan a large area. It doesn't matter if your mesh is that precise when your data acquisition method isn't.

John_KZ 8y ago

The 3D panning shots were pretty nice considering there's no specular information in those 3D scans. The claims are, of course, insane, but I guess they're trying to sell some kind of fancy correction algorithm to fill in the gaps.

ris 8y ago

The issue here is one of rights. Who owns the rights of the generated data? Especially if it was the "crowdsourced" product of n people. Does the data make any sense outside the context of Umbra's software? Is it exportable? Or do Umbra retain the rights to take their ball away at any time? These are all questions anyone should be asking before putting any sort of time & effort into "contributing" to some sort of "crowdsourced" project. Or even putting a significant amount of work into a cloud-based tool. Mapillary's answer was a compromise - contributed image data is published under a creative commons license, but Mapillary retain copyright over the metadata (most importantly positioning information). This is a bit of a fudge which would prevent users reclaiming the entire dataset and taking it elsewhere, but it seems to work for the community ... mostly.

candiodari 8y ago
Generally this is considered a compilation. And the compiler owns the rights to a compilation. The biggest example would be the yellow pages (let's assume you remember those). The company putting it out certain owns copyright over the book, it's exact contents, even if it owns none of the individual details inside of it.
- daveguy 8y ago
  I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. Is the statement just not correct? (seems right) Or does it vary significantly throughout the world? Or is it down voted because people don't like the idea of their collected information being owned by the compiler? There has to be a lot of grey in this space. Can someone clarify?