PhotoMatch in SU7.0Pro
-
Have you tried it in SU6 pro?
-
In my experience applying textures in general, not due to PhotoMatch, makes the file size fly sky high. And I've also noted the same, it's not growing by the size of the new texture you've created, but for each face you paint. Kindof makes you wonder if SU stores a copy of the texture for each face or something...
-
So basically PM here could be used to get the exact camera angle and FOV so that whatever you model can be later matched with the original photo.
Note that SU will crate a scene for the PM'd model if the camera angle of which you don't change and update, you can easily get rid of the original photo by deleting it (as Remus suggested). SU won't provide you with a high res output of that photo anyway.
Now when you are finished with modeling your building, you can send the model to LayOut - just make sure you turn ground and sky off in your Styles first. In LO you can set the background to be transparent (in LO1 you needed to set the background colour to white first but in LO2 you can turn it off independently). Then following these tips, you can get a png image of your model with the background transparent and in PS (or any other image editor) you can easily paste it over the original image.
-
Without an image to refer to we are all guessing here, but, I am wondering if you are using an image of the building as a texture and applying it to your model. As Thomas said, multiple copies of a large texture applied directly to the building could cause a large file size. Previously I assumed that you would be texturing the building in the 'usual' way with modestly sized textures (i.e. a bick texture etc.)
David
-
Ya....My thought was with using textures like ThomThom said. I've never used Photomatch before but have used Photos as texture. Maybe it's time to try it....
Cheers, Jeff -
Hi Guys, thanks for your input and suggestions..... I played with it over the weekend and this is what i came up with. I will look at PS or Illustrator but time is short and have to do this quickly...
your comments are appreciated.
-
This is looking good.
A couple of points:
1 As you can see a slight shadow on the lettering on the forground building, I would try and get some shadows on the front of your building - the sun screens should show them up well.
2 I would crop the foreground to eliminate the boring road.The building sits well in the scene.
Regards
David
-
Firstly, the building looks great in the scene. Great job! I'm curious....once a photomatch is done, can you then render it from that scene?
Cheers,
Jeff -
So....is that a no? You can't render a photomatch?
Thanks,
Jeff -
Jeff
All that a SU photomatch does is to set a viewpoint and zoom, such that the view will match the given photograph. It creates a scene tab and you can go back to this tab any time and render that scene. Otherwise you work on the model in the normal way.
If you render the model (e.g. with vray etc) then the finished render can be composited in Photoshop with the photo you chose to match.
If you just export a jpeg of the view, then I believe you can also composite that in the same way.
I think the latter is what Utiler has done.Modelhead
@unknownuser said:
Used photo-match once upon a time....fun (great for a bird house)...but not for production and not for revisionist approaches.
Not sure why you should think this. Photomatch is essentially a way to put your object (building) in a context. Some greate renders have been done this way, and there are lots of excellent examples around.
David
-
Thanks for both of your replies guys. I guess I need to play around to see which method works best for me....I'll keep you both posted.
Cheers,
Jeff -
Modelhead
Well I admire your skill with the eyeballing!
Before photomatch I used to eyeball the perspective too, but it often used to drive me bonkers. You know the thing, "is it the angle" or "is it the degree of zoom" that needs adjusting, so when photomatch came along it was a gift for me. I must say, I don't have to fiddle with it - just sort it out once and its done.David
-
Hi Guys, my apologies for the absence; have been away for work...
David - You are right about the shadows, I should have taken more care in getting this right considering I have know the time of day and date it was taken...
As for yoru second comment regarding cropping the boring road; two reasons for the view selection.- create depth and focal back to the intersection [important point for local authority to understand proximity]
- a closer viewpoint would force a closer shot and in turn increase perceived conflict between existing streetscape and the proposed development. [ah, the beauty of view selection!!!]
Jeff - No, cannot render from PM. the earlier suggestions regarding Illustrator would be best pursued...
Modelhead - nice pony!!! And great job of integrating both. I only really use PM when exploring context as seen here. Eye balling it was not an option for this particular process as it needed to be as close to actual as possible. [BTW, the way I was able to achieve this was as follows:
The adjoining properties both sides share a front boundary that is in the same line as this project. i know their boundary lengths so in the model I added this info to the SU model. When selecting the view, I ensured I could see the extent of both boundary corners, hence lining up the boundary line in SU with the photo..... -
I would like to add here that, while I can see the shortcomings of photomatch I had good luck with it on the job pictured below. I photographed the existing pool deck, stone wall, and an existing foundation with retaining walls. I modeled the deck and the walls and added some ground plane (just as there is existing) to hide the retaining walls in some views.
I also photomatched a second view and put them both in a movie, with parts which do not have the photo background but the replacement ground that I modeled, but it returns to the background photos a couple of times. Doors open, fold back, close. I projected texture on rectangles on the deck by the posts here so there'd be shadow. The stone wall is projected texture from the existing--the deck is the photo background.
Any way I have tried eyeballing in other programs and found it frustratingly nearly impossible in exterior shots. This worked as advertised and got my clients excited, to say the least. (OK the design isn't exciting, really just conceptual here, based on the main house, and I could use some plants.)
You cannot use the textures you project from the photos in rendering.
-
Yeah, that's nice. And just what the client needs; an idea of what is happening....
-
I just got a program from here
http://www.kissmyimage.com/en/download/
It will keep the pixel size of an image the same but reduce the file size to one you input. I am using it for panoramas on virtual tours and it is amazing. I am dropping files from 3mb to 900kb without any noticable difference. There is a free version with a very small water mark. Full version is cheap.
I highly recommend this, the people on the panorama forums say it is way better than what PS can do.
Advertisement