Timeline for How to make all layers seamless in a same way?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2021 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackDesign/status/1428824169425346566 | ||
| Aug 20, 2021 at 19:34 | answer | added | AlienBoy | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 15:20 | comment | added | Artturi | Okay, now you made me interested. There are not too many people here in Finland who are working with this kind of things. :) And I agree that with dedicated devices it, of course, works better, but I am still quite sure also that in some projects it is very much ok to use just the camera. I have seen people doing with some simple gear nice things. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 15:07 | comment | added | joojaa | @Artturi yeah ive used photogrammetry on projects before. I kind of stopped since the results suck, and i can get way better results with a kinect like point cloud setup or dedicated 3d scanner. Both of which i have many of in my office (and yeah i have a dedicated photo studio on the next floor too) | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 12:43 | comment | added | Artturi | There is also free software that can construct 3d files from images very well. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 12:35 | comment | added | Artturi | Tbh for me, it's ok if it works or if it does not work. I am not here because of that. Here anyway is some random tutorial I found about photogrammetry if you're interested of the topic: youtube.com/watch?v=pGyoM3tujlc | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 12:25 | comment | added | joojaa | @Artturi photogrametry will not work very well with this intricate images quite that well. Granted it works because its a diffuse surface. OTOH a 3d depth camera does not cost more than 300 $. Also blending works ok for depth but not so much for the normal map | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 11:33 | comment | added | Artturi | You're right. I generated this in 3D-program, but photogrammetry is still all the time more and more common way to generate textures. And you don't necessarily need a studio for that. (it can help a lot tho) But just a camera and time to take lots and lots of photos will also do the job. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 10:20 | comment | added | joojaa | The source maps have actually been done in 3d Because generating the depth map or normal map out of a image is not really possible unless you have a VERY well equipped photographic lab for this purpose at your disposal. But yes you can also tile it by masking isntead of cloning which would keep multiple separate source images the same. But then making the 3d tileable is pretty easy. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 9:45 | answer | added | Cai | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 9:32 | history | edited | Artturi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 238 characters in body
|
| Feb 2, 2018 at 8:40 | comment | added | Artturi | Yes, the composition of the images is similar in all of those, they just have different colors. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 8:32 | comment | added | Cai | Am I right that the images are compositionally the same to begin with? | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 8:17 | comment | added | Artturi | Because the process of making this kind of images don't work like that. If I, for example, do camera mapping/photogrammetry, the first image is the cluster of photos from which I have to generate the other images. | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 8:15 | comment | added | user82991 | Why do you not create at first the grey version as a tileable pattern and process then the colored versions from the result? | |
| Feb 2, 2018 at 8:08 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 2, 2018 at 8:41 | |||||
| Feb 2, 2018 at 8:05 | history | asked | Artturi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |