2 ms·
As a 3D artist who uses a lot of photoscans -- the scan quality looks fantastic to me! Photoscanned assets aren't usually meant to hold up up close, they're mor
by mkaic 5y ago
As a 3D artist who uses a lot of photoscans -- the scan quality looks fantastic to me! Photoscanned assets aren't usually meant to hold up up close, they're more intended for quickly building out a larger scene. Additionally, the material you see straight out of the app can be enhanced significantly with some common shader tricks like faking a bump/roughness map. Lastly, good lighting makes a world of difference when using photoscanned assets. Personally, I've just joined the beta and expect I'll be taking advantage of it heavily for several upcoming CGI projects.
- smoldesu 5y agoAll good! I'm not trying to detract from anyone's enjoyment/use of the product if they have one :p I'm just a 3D hobbyist, and I don't really do a lot of photo scans. My thoughts on the matter are coming purely from a CG/asset generation perspective, if you're an artist with a little more agency with how you represent 3D objects then I bet you could work wonders with this (especially the geometry portion). Perhaps it was silly for me to expect these scans to rival hand-made assets, but my larger point was that we simply have a long ways to go before we reach parity with the two. In the time that's passed, I actually did come up with a use for it though. It might be fun to use Blender's layer functionality to "trace" a 3D scan into a higher-res production model, just to get proportions right. I'll probably still hold off until this reaches general availability though.