3 ms·
This looks bad to you? Admittedly I have little experience with 3D models. As a layperson this model looks incredible to me. If the real life results are anythi
by axg11 5y ago
This looks bad to you? Admittedly I have little experience with 3D models. As a layperson this model looks incredible to me. If the real life results are anything close to that then photogrammetry is as good as solved, as far as my eyes are concerned.
- smoldesu 5y agoWell, that's why I say I'm torn. I really do think this is cool, but when you compare it to hand-made assets the two would look starkly different. My biggest gripe is with the lighting: if you look at the creases of the couch, you can see that the lighting is literally "baked" in to the model. Shadows are rendered by the texture instead of the lighting engine, which means the models will appear static if you use them in a dynamically lit environment. Worse yet is the fact that these "shadows" can actually reflect light since the model has no reflection mapping or light mapping to tell the renderer that the shadows are rough as opposed to glossy. That gives the model the aforementioned "toy look" that I brought up earlier. It's still quite cool, but asset capture has a long ways to go (even if everyone's results are this good).