Google maps 2.0 ?
-
Eric,
I doubt SU would ever be shelved in the near future as it was not bought out by a competitor! If Google finds a better way to produce GE models I imagine SketchUp would continue as a good app for making 3D models and hopefully be developed further to meet these needs, not always slanting towards GE uses.
Maybe it would not be such a bad idea if Google hired a couple of those SAAB jet fighters to cover the globe and get the info in!
These buildings would then need some interiors as those SAABs would not have xray vision! Then again, maybe that is there next trick
Mike
PS: I feel I need to read 'Who Moved My Cheese?' again for some strange reason
-
Astounding technolgy. I think you are being a little negative, Mike. You could just as easily do this from any kind of plane or even a chopper. In any case, much of the Google Earth imagery is not satellite coverage either. All the hi-res stuff is taken from aircraft...same as C3. It seamlessly goes from satellite to aerial as you zoom in.
-
The technology could probably be used (in this or that quality) from smaller planes as well. My city council got an offer for something like this at about € 4-500,000 although I'mnot sure what technology they would've used exactly.
Also, there's always a question of "details". From the point cloud mesh like image he was showing, many of the buildings wouldn't meet Google's acceptance criteria as far as poly count goes i.e. lots of useless vertices on (presumably) simple, flat faces, too.
Yet definitely a stunning tour as seen on the video.
-
I have had a look at Oslo and overall level of detail gives very good impression of the city, but if single buildings, especially those smaller, look funny. They are not rectangular but rather 'sub-divided'. One cannot view a building from a street level. Position of a camera seems to be limited to several meters above buildings.
What I like is that the web plugin is very small
-
Something weird has happened to the map data since I last used this service. The maps for Trondheim is all very dark. They used to be very clear before. hm... or maybe it's a problem on my end?
anyone else see the maps as very dark for Trondheim? http://kart.finn.no/?mapType=3D&utmx=271370&utmy=7041731&heading=163&pitch=47&distance=200&autoRotate=0&showPin=1&mapPinX=271354&mapPinY=7041714
-
I knew someone would find a way, sooner or later, to do this straight from pictures. When I looked at Birds Views in M$ Virtual Earth, it was so evident for me that combining high resolution aerial pictures with a technology similar to VideoTrace would definitely work. For me the most amazing thing is the fact, that 3D model has been acquired automatically from pictures without human interaction.
With computers and GPUs getting faster and faster, the amount of polygons should not be a problem. I am not sure about bandwidth of our internet connection, if it would take it. I think he had all data on his laptop.
I have done one model for GE and doing new one. The C3 method is good for a large areas. He didn't show a close-up of a single building from a street perspective. The automation of the process have certainly drawbacks. The 'Triumphal Arch' had no opening in it as far as I can tell.
Anyway, what he has shown was stunning.
EDIT. I have now checked Thomas' link and have to explore cities in 3D!
Thanks
Tomasz -
@thomthom said:
anyone else see the maps as very dark for Trondheim?
It looks like they have taken pictures in the late afternoon or in winter with long shadows.
-
@unknownuser said:
@thomthom said:
anyone else see the maps as very dark for Trondheim?
It looks like they have taken pictures in the late afternoon or in winter with long shadows.
Not during winter - it'd be white with snow then. It looks like the same imagery they used before, except that they've been darkened with too much contrast.
-
Right, definitely not during winter
Here is a transmission tower from your home town. It shows limitation of the current image processing method.
-
@unknownuser said:
Here is a transmission tower from your home town. It shows limitation of the current image processing method.
At least our "manpower" to model manually for GE is saved for a couple of years.
Let's get rich NOW!
-
Hi folks.
If you need images taken from a hundred meters or so of altitude to get more details, you can consider using Kite Aerial Photography (KAP). Much cheaper than renting a plane or an helicopter. Of course you need steady winds and a place to launch an retrieve the kites.
If you are curious, look for "kite aerial photography", "kap" and "kaper" on the Internet. You will certainly find the sites of some of the best pfotographers using this technique (some call themselves "kaper"). I know a few kapers. Among them is Craig Wilson from Madison, Wisconsin, USA, who took splendid photographies of downton Madison buildings.
Just ideas.
Advertisement