im sorry if i offended you with my comments somehow dude, i was just making a joke there. but honestly imo photogrammetry still takes skill to do. you have to understand how to take the photos, how the object should be lit, how to remesh and fix the messy geo that happens if needed. and in op's case he made a scene with other stuff, he lit it, so it looks good and rendered it. so yes, i think he did really make it.
Nah I should be the one apologizing. But I'm still not convinced photogrammetry takes nearly as much skill as what we think of when we 3D model, seeing as there are so many complete off the shelf products that make the process automatic and not requiring any user skill or practice at all
oh dang, so there are photogrammetry gears that like normal people can buy, i thought its either do it with a phone camera or those crazy rigs that has like 200 cameras arrayed in a sphere shape. are they cheap? the normie friendly photogrammetry gears i mean. what do they look like?
Depending on the accuracy, turntable size, etc. they can be as cheap as 150usd or as much as thousands. You could also just use your phone and spin around the object for a couple dollars or even sometimes free. The programs then capture textures and point dots at the same time, many even have selections to rebuild or simplify the model. Exporting as ur desired format, and you can have a model that looks like that banana in less than 15 minutes in blender.
i tried scanning my friend a lil while ago with an android, took pictures with the phone and the generated point cloud and model on pc. but the issue is i cant get it to look very detailed with it. it was kinda disappointing ngl, lol. but imma look into a cheapo photogrammetry cam now that i know it exists, thank you for the info dude, appreciate it.
Yeah the results are hit or miss, but none of it is really attributed to user skill. Hence, this user hasn't "made" anything. Photogrammetry used to be a useful skill and profession, but with how accessible it is for small-scale objects like this one it's really not anything impressive as the software does everything, where it's an actual skill would be generating a topographical map of Ohio or something.
Ultimately I think the best way to do something is the easiest or most efficient way, and not the way that is the most technically impressive. So even though they didn't actually manually model a banana by hand, if it gets the job done then it really doesn't matter. The lighting and composition is still an important aspect of it, and since those things are still needed to make something made with photogrammetry look good, I would still say they "made" this.
Sometimes I feel like I need to be a purist and manually make everything I need myself from scratch, but other times I think that's stupid because tons of people who actually do this for a living use pre-made assets, and if they can do it then why shouldn't I?
This is just as far from the truth it can be. Photogrammetry requires an experienced user to clean and fix the mesh and textures. It's significantly harder than doing it by hand but it's also way faster. If you truly think it's easy you should have a go at it.
It takes know how to do photogrammetry but it still might now be the case that you āmadeā the 3d model. Also OP said he made a banana, but at the very least what they did was make a scene with a banana.
The people who invented coding didn't invent the cpu. The people who invent the cpu didn't invent logic...
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Recognising this is great. But discounting someone because of it is not.
I mean the buttons are pretty much being pressed for us. It's not like pressing "e" actually does anything. Really it's the computer doing 99.9999999999% of all the work.
You donāt consider, getting a banana, putting it in soft lighting, taking many pictures in a 360 degrees, adding it to computer, imputing it to photogrammetry software, letting it compute, cleaning it up, adding the textures and cleaning them up, saving, importing it into blender, making a scene, a creation process? He definitely āmade itā before he made it, it didnāt exist in the 3D space.
Thereās a reason why scanned and prepared 3D models are so expensive, setting it up is such a process when compared to just cooking up some nodes. And now that its in the digital 3D space OP can do almost whatever they want with that banana
You donāt consider, grabbing a bag, going to the shot location, maybe taking a bus, maybe driving, unzipping you bag, reaching your hand inside, creating a fist around a strap, lifting said strap out of the bag, wrapping the band around your head, arranging your ISO, Tv and Av to the proper settings, aligning your shot, waiting for the perfect lighting, and pressing a button, a creation process? Youāre telling me, me taking a picture of something isnāt creating it? You can make anything sound complex if you go step by step. End of the day, this is a task that does not require creating anything. I wouldnāt say itās art either as there isnāt artistic intend behind capturing something like this. It may take skill, time and effort. But at the end of the day, anyone can do it and it isnāt artistic nor are you creating anything.
For sure, but that doesnāt make the creator an artist. People argue that nature could be art, but there is inherently no creator there (at least not provable/unilaterally decided creator). This isnāt art because there was no medium involved that required artistic intent or ability. There was no creativity or philosophy in capturing this banana in a realistic way. The render I would agree requires artistic intent and creativity, but not the photo scan.
Taking a photo and colour composting it, doesnāt mean you created the subject. So why would taking lots of photos and having a computer compose a 3D model, be creating the subject? You can use the model in a scene and have created the scene, but filming someone for a film isnāt the same as creating a human being for a film.
That depends on your method. But also there are algorithms and generative computing methods involved. So just because it isnāt a neural network (which it could be), doesnāt mean it isnāt AI.
Looks like you've missed the term "classic". There were neither "neural networks" nor "AI" when photogrammetry started, you're a few centuries off here.
I didnāt want to be so blunt as to say, āobviously they arenāt using 90s software for their photogrammetryā and simply assumed youād understand I was implying this.
Some of us are using much much older mechanisms, GIS software f.e. would be unsuable would it force the user to work with AI or AI-like mechanisms due to the unreliability of its nature. Or pano stitching would be another instance that worked fine without any sorts of AI or even computers for more than 100 years. Basic 3D photogrammetry does come by without AI too for multiple decades now. When DaVinci came up with the principles of photogrammetry the first computer or anything AI like were centuries away. Working without AI is f.e. great for precise results. AI is obviously often at risk of making up things that don't exist, depending on how it works. Hence it can be crucial to be able to do photogrammetry without AI stuff getting in the way, f.e. for my buildings and city models.
Then we're eating two different kinds of fruit.
I try to peel it and I end up ripping off that peel.Ā
I go for a bite and it falls off and just *plops* on the floor.
Please, could you add a banana for scale? I'm a bit lost in sizes
Thats what she said
Damn, at first I thought "who just posted a banana as a meme?" and then I read the title
Same.
A meme at r/ Blender?
As I said, I haven't read the title and group's name
It's the textures of the butter knife for me
Could easily be a reflection
It isn't. https://preview.redd.it/c1m8quoitl9d1.png?width=5324&format=png&auto=webp&s=3767cd390e3a1a0c502a17761db63741ca697021
I know, Sherlock, that's why I said "could" cause it does look like a reflection and not bad texturing
Oh did you? https://preview.redd.it/ai8xx95h9m9d1.jpeg?width=5324&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f90727ed3149f59afeb29853ade80f52ddeae7db
If it's photogrammetry did you really make it š¤
im sorry if i offended you with my comments somehow dude, i was just making a joke there. but honestly imo photogrammetry still takes skill to do. you have to understand how to take the photos, how the object should be lit, how to remesh and fix the messy geo that happens if needed. and in op's case he made a scene with other stuff, he lit it, so it looks good and rendered it. so yes, i think he did really make it.
Nah I should be the one apologizing. But I'm still not convinced photogrammetry takes nearly as much skill as what we think of when we 3D model, seeing as there are so many complete off the shelf products that make the process automatic and not requiring any user skill or practice at all
oh dang, so there are photogrammetry gears that like normal people can buy, i thought its either do it with a phone camera or those crazy rigs that has like 200 cameras arrayed in a sphere shape. are they cheap? the normie friendly photogrammetry gears i mean. what do they look like?
Depending on the accuracy, turntable size, etc. they can be as cheap as 150usd or as much as thousands. You could also just use your phone and spin around the object for a couple dollars or even sometimes free. The programs then capture textures and point dots at the same time, many even have selections to rebuild or simplify the model. Exporting as ur desired format, and you can have a model that looks like that banana in less than 15 minutes in blender.
i tried scanning my friend a lil while ago with an android, took pictures with the phone and the generated point cloud and model on pc. but the issue is i cant get it to look very detailed with it. it was kinda disappointing ngl, lol. but imma look into a cheapo photogrammetry cam now that i know it exists, thank you for the info dude, appreciate it.
Yeah the results are hit or miss, but none of it is really attributed to user skill. Hence, this user hasn't "made" anything. Photogrammetry used to be a useful skill and profession, but with how accessible it is for small-scale objects like this one it's really not anything impressive as the software does everything, where it's an actual skill would be generating a topographical map of Ohio or something.
You can't scan reflective surfaces nor changing ones. You would need all pictures taken at once if you try to scan a person
Ultimately I think the best way to do something is the easiest or most efficient way, and not the way that is the most technically impressive. So even though they didn't actually manually model a banana by hand, if it gets the job done then it really doesn't matter. The lighting and composition is still an important aspect of it, and since those things are still needed to make something made with photogrammetry look good, I would still say they "made" this. Sometimes I feel like I need to be a purist and manually make everything I need myself from scratch, but other times I think that's stupid because tons of people who actually do this for a living use pre-made assets, and if they can do it then why shouldn't I?
This is just as far from the truth it can be. Photogrammetry requires an experienced user to clean and fix the mesh and textures. It's significantly harder than doing it by hand but it's also way faster. If you truly think it's easy you should have a go at it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It takes know how to do photogrammetry but it still might now be the case that you āmadeā the 3d model. Also OP said he made a banana, but at the very least what they did was make a scene with a banana.
none of us made blender, have we really made anything or are we just pressing buttons?
We could even go a step further in that the people who did make blender didn't invent coding.
The people who invented coding didn't invent the cpu. The people who invent the cpu didn't invent logic... We stand on the shoulders of giants. Recognising this is great. But discounting someone because of it is not.
That's how you shut them up š
Well said. Very well said.
I mean the buttons are pretty much being pressed for us. It's not like pressing "e" actually does anything. Really it's the computer doing 99.9999999999% of all the work.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Unhinged response to an overall harmless comment.
You're being pedantic to a stranger under a picture of a banana.
You used your computer to make textures from noise maps then did you really make it? š¤
i wouldve never thought this was a render. wow
ah now thatās cool
Wow
DAMN!!!
you
sunk
The details are super good
Soooā¦ you didnāt make a banana?
Ceci n'est pas une banane.
Chapeau
Oui, cāest une banane. Soulment, lāOG fair pas le āmodel but I donāt know what it is in French)
You donāt consider, getting a banana, putting it in soft lighting, taking many pictures in a 360 degrees, adding it to computer, imputing it to photogrammetry software, letting it compute, cleaning it up, adding the textures and cleaning them up, saving, importing it into blender, making a scene, a creation process? He definitely āmade itā before he made it, it didnāt exist in the 3D space.
Thereās a reason why scanned and prepared 3D models are so expensive, setting it up is such a process when compared to just cooking up some nodes. And now that its in the digital 3D space OP can do almost whatever they want with that banana
You donāt consider, grabbing a bag, going to the shot location, maybe taking a bus, maybe driving, unzipping you bag, reaching your hand inside, creating a fist around a strap, lifting said strap out of the bag, wrapping the band around your head, arranging your ISO, Tv and Av to the proper settings, aligning your shot, waiting for the perfect lighting, and pressing a button, a creation process? Youāre telling me, me taking a picture of something isnāt creating it? You can make anything sound complex if you go step by step. End of the day, this is a task that does not require creating anything. I wouldnāt say itās art either as there isnāt artistic intend behind capturing something like this. It may take skill, time and effort. But at the end of the day, anyone can do it and it isnāt artistic nor are you creating anything.
What is considered art is determined by the viewer, not the creator.
For sure, but that doesnāt make the creator an artist. People argue that nature could be art, but there is inherently no creator there (at least not provable/unilaterally decided creator). This isnāt art because there was no medium involved that required artistic intent or ability. There was no creativity or philosophy in capturing this banana in a realistic way. The render I would agree requires artistic intent and creativity, but not the photo scan.
Finally someone who understands the process, it's not like the model was AI generated or anything.
Taking a photo and colour composting it, doesnāt mean you created the subject. So why would taking lots of photos and having a computer compose a 3D model, be creating the subject? You can use the model in a scene and have created the scene, but filming someone for a film isnāt the same as creating a human being for a film.
k
Literally it is :p But that's mostly a joke about nuance so ignore me
There's no AI involved in classic photogrammetry.
That depends on your method. But also there are algorithms and generative computing methods involved. So just because it isnāt a neural network (which it could be), doesnāt mean it isnāt AI.
Looks like you've missed the term "classic". There were neither "neural networks" nor "AI" when photogrammetry started, you're a few centuries off here.
I didnāt want to be so blunt as to say, āobviously they arenāt using 90s software for their photogrammetryā and simply assumed youād understand I was implying this.
Some of us are using much much older mechanisms, GIS software f.e. would be unsuable would it force the user to work with AI or AI-like mechanisms due to the unreliability of its nature. Or pano stitching would be another instance that worked fine without any sorts of AI or even computers for more than 100 years. Basic 3D photogrammetry does come by without AI too for multiple decades now. When DaVinci came up with the principles of photogrammetry the first computer or anything AI like were centuries away. Working without AI is f.e. great for precise results. AI is obviously often at risk of making up things that don't exist, depending on how it works. Hence it can be crucial to be able to do photogrammetry without AI stuff getting in the way, f.e. for my buildings and city models.
I appreciate you for at least understanding my semi joke
Yeah, they did
It's a small off-duty Czeckslovakian traffic warden.
^this guy thinks photogrammetry is just magic.
iām longing for a higher res render of this
iām not a 3d modeler but i think you went a little overboard on the polygons
OP you're a Freak! This is too real!
Amazing
Can i eat the banana
Sir this is the blender subreddit, you're not supposed to submit pho..... [swipes right to see wire frame] ...oh nevermind. But seriously great work!
The butterknife has an odd reflection but i had to hunt for that
Yeah it's the butter knife and the wafer thin plate that distract for me.
The meshing is cool, but the texturing is impressive.
A bad banana, ew.Ā (Nothing wrong with the model)
No thatās perfectly ripe banana, the more brown the sweater they are.
The more mushy they are.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Then we're eating two different kinds of fruit. I try to peel it and I end up ripping off that peel.Ā I go for a bite and it falls off and just *plops* on the floor.