Just curious
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /3/ - 3DCG
You are currently reading a thread in /3/ - 3DCG
Is it real to make a good looking sculpt using just a plane and a displacement map?
How can one prepare\edit an image for this use?
>>508658
It can make a great start, you gotta set the heightmap properly. But there is no 3d data in a 2d picture. Make it b/w, make it a smaller resolution, like 500x500, create a plane, subdivide it so that it has 500x500 faces. Separate the profile from the other part of the picture, make it lighter, so that there isn't black spots that would result in 0 displacement. Make the background black. Make the plane exact same dimension as the picture and cut it so that every pixel has a face to bump. It's looking pretty flat in my example, but if you want you can take your time and do proper gradients on the parts that would be higher.
>>508659
don't know about sculpting, but it sure makes nice caricatures.
>>508661
you can add the higher res texture, afterwards, cause it's mapped properly
>>508663
This is hilarious
>>508659
Thanks mate, this is useful!
Although I can't see a difference if my plane has 2x2 faces or 500x500 or whatever. Seems like it does not affect the displacement. (I use 3ds max & vray)
Anyways this is quite fun to experiment with.
>>508669
Well, I don't know about 3dsmax, but in general you can't displace geometry that isn't there, so maybe 3dsmax is creating it in the process.
the autism is real.
>>508658
>Is it real to make a good looking sculpt using just a plane and a displacement map?
No. There is no way to extract depth information from a photograph since the projection to a 2D surface makes all depth information ambigious.
Trivial example; there is no way to tell the difference of a picture of a sphere, and a picture of a picture of a shpere.
There is just no way to algorithmically decide what is albedo and what is shadow since both will share the exact same value.
>>508697
>There is no way to extract depth information from a photograph
I bet there's a siggraph paper and demo that does exactly this.
>>508722
You probably seen one that uses a stereo source where the depth can be calculated fairly accuratly from parallax anon.
The problem of extracting depth form a single image 2D source isn't one limited by current technology it is an actually unsolvable problem.
The information you're trying to extract is simply not present in the source.
Imagine I show u a picture of a halfshaded sphere and ask you, "is this a small sphere that is close to camera, or a big sphere that is far away?"
"Or is it even a sphere? Is it perhaps a lit depression in a dark surface, or just pigment sitting on a flat surface?"
The correct answer would be: "lol, I dunno, because any of those things look the same".
Even if you built an algorithm that was this sci-fi tier strong AI that actually understood what it was looking at it would still have to guess depth in images.
>>508723
>it is an actually unsolvable problem
As a "decision" problem, yes. But as you showed in your list, you knew what it could possibly be, and I'm sure you can parse normal (non-optical-illusion) photographs without effort.
I'm sure it's possible and feasible,, but there will always be cases where any algorithm will fail.
I got curious and quickly found this 2014 paper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZXPZgz2zKY
>>508697
Its just not asking about extract depth info from usual photos.
And yes, you can make good looking sculpts with some limitations, you just need a good displacement map(which is not the same as a photo)
