Funny how small everything was in the old days
Nice design and GUI, but unfortunately none of the popup images/windows worked (I suppose that's where the stunning videos were hiding?)
That Finnish site had a nice video, but not so much interactivity. A bit too linear?

Here's a couple of my oldies:
http://bknilssen.no/video/GolBygg_0000.MOV
How to build a stave church - 13 years old, made with trueSpace.
It was actually run interactively with IBM software on a site which I think may still be alive today, but hidden/passworded, because it was part of a course in art history at the University of Bergen. The first such online course in this country anyway, at that level. I made a lot of different buildings, art exhibitions etc for them, and had a great time.
http://sapmi.uit.no is newer - only 7 years old. This is the type of VR I think is what is possible today, only in Flash, and much larger, and with a lot more bells and whistles. And then make a very simplified version for those non-Flash users with iOS...
I'm currently working on a similar VR exhibition for that University/museum. And that's also the guys/gals who want those 4 archeological mini web exhibitions.

Looks like a relative of Zorro
Is it the UV mapping that messes up the texturing?
Strange trunk/model BTW.
Have you also tried other "3D scanners", like http://www.agisoft.ru/products/photoscan/
Or Photomodeler Scanner?

So far I really prefer the results that can be had from tgi3D Photoscan
I love the way it combines full control with "shrink-wrapping" meshes.

Being in the pockets of Autodesk (or should it be said the other way around?) isn't what I want the most
It is very sad how they have bought most of the 3D competition
Good to know that SketchUp is "safe" now;)

Ah, so that hole is not a hole in the mesh, but an actual hole then?

Is the trunk "free" from the background, or is there no "hole" behind it?
It is a bit hard to see on that first photo.
I guess those are screen dumps, as there are photo textures on it?

Interesting, but it looks like it shares the problems with automated solutions with other such "autoscanner" tools.
It looks like there is no holes in the mesh, which is surprising.
There is something strange going on with that trunk and tusks though?
I would have been very surprised if it managed to make a great, fully detailed/textured model of that sculpture though, without ears, trunk, tusks etc growing into the background, and with no branches/leaves in front, and leaves on the stone (bench?). Even with a lot of photos.
And what about precision/scale? Is it possible to set any scale/reference measurements?
Looking forward to see more

@mike lucey said:

Bjørn,

I also use Opera 11.61. To check out P3D, I downloaded Opera Next from here, http://www.opera.com/browser/next/ It does not overwrite Opera 11 and can be run separately. The WebGL images loaded / worked perfectly

Nice to know that it doesn't overwrite Opera 11. Maybe I should give it a try then, although it looks like I'll have to make object-movies for this project, to make it more widely viewable.

@solo said:

I believe the person to ask is Liam Keating (one of the users on SCF) he works for Wired magazine's iPad publication and he does interactive objects. I do know that he has in the past gotten me involved but that required 36 framed renders to achieve the desired rotation of an object, I'm not sure if this is the only way to do it or they just wanted the object to be rendered (active reflections, etc)

That sounds like an object-movie, like this chair I rendered a couple of years ago for a guy in Sweden who makes great plugins for panorama viewers (he scaled it way too small though). http://wirestam.com/panos/Flash/vr360/vrtest2.html
That one is Flash only, but such object-movies can be made with Javascript too, and probably html5? It is really just switching between a set of prerendered (or photographed) still frames, and doesn't need any 3D engine. It usually doesnt work well with bigger images though, and to get better views you really need to make multiple rows of images, which quickly adds up to a lot of frames.
That is probably the solution I have to go for now, as real 3D doesn't yet seem to be possible without plugins/Java, or they require special hardware or software (like Opera alpha versions). This has to be viewable on as many platforms as possible, as it will only be a fairly small part of a larger archeological web exhibitions.

@unknownuser said:

p3D?

Mount

3D model on p3d.in

p3d.in (p3d.in)

Only got:
"Sorry, but your browser is not supported" (WebGL) (My Opera is not v12alpha)

Promising

@roger said:

@jga said:

Sorry, never installed it, but it could be a newer version of AutoCAD DWG that SKUP can handle.

Installed it and it is amazingly simple. I was even able to export as object file and import that into SU via TIG's OBJ to SU plugin. Also made an animation but I don't have the right codecs to get the animation working. I dont know as much about UVs as I should so proper texturing is a hang up. Biggest problem is lack of proper documentation.

Does it export to obj without materials/UVs then?
Any example images?

@gaieus said:

I don't know. Also, it is very much up to the person. I know architects here who still do not use computer for designing (although they employ draftsmen to do this). My archaeology professor has got to the point that he understands that digitizing data is important. So he now scans his site drawings. But when I try to explain him what the difference between raster and vector is, he is hopeless. But he regards himself as a modern person because he can send an email (true that he has not been able to update my contact details in his list for ages).

So whet do we expect? Sooner or later, when decision makers in this industry are already from a next generation, things like this will slowly infiltrate.

It is strange that archeologists seems to jump directly from the "stone age" (tape measures etc) to the space age (very high-tech/cost lasers, ground radars, sonars etc) directly, without absorbing the "landscape" between? Architects went from paper/pen to 2D computer drafting and then 3D.

However, I have now got the dates for that stone ring survey (with magnetometers apparently), and "permission" to come and "look" at them working. Guess I'll bring my cameras and fisheye for 360s, and then we'll see what happens.
11-13 april it is

@utiler said:

I tried that but the problem is exporting a high enough image from SU.... When I exported and got rid of the background the edges were way too pixelated....

Did you use anti-alias in SU?
Or didn't you use any feather selection in PS?
Or did you perhaps export as a compressed jpg? Not a good idea if you want to do any masking afterwards.

Often it is better to export a big image without AA from SU and then scale it down smoothly in PS.
What exactly are we talking about here when you say "highres"?
BTW, there's no point in importing any highres images into SU, as they will be scaled down anyway, to what OpenGL can handle on your machine (max 2048px?)

@gaieus said:

Very true and also somewhat sad. We have a 4th century chapel here on which we had a lot of arguments (how it may have looked like when not in ruins) and actually SU (and 3d) was the way to prove one of the theories. Yet it is still not taken for a way of "research" (or reasoning/proving) but just a "toy" to ply with after the "professionals" have finished their roles.
That was actually what I was afraid of - that it would be regarded as toys - maybe because it doesn't cost thousands or millions of dollars? I believe SketchUp has managed to get that "toy" tag (almost) removed after many years in the architectural business, although there's probably still a lot of skepticism from those who don't believe a program without an Autodesk logo (and a $10000+ tag) on it can be useful.
Too bad those archeologists invovled in this current projects lives 1200kms away

This summer the local (county) archeological authorities will conduct a ground radar survey near a farm where a lot of my family comes from (back to the 1500s though..) There are some stone circles there (neolithic?), and they want to see if there is also something in the ground.
Do you think they would just be annoyed if I offered them to do some photogrammetry 3D "survey" there at the same time?

I think I would've tried with Shape bender, with a slightly scaled curve (up or down). And then use Joint Push Pull to extrude those windows through the windshield/front wall. An Intersect-with-model would then stamp the windows nicely into the windshield?

@utiler said:

Well it should seeing each photo is generally taken with a different FOV.... Believe me, when i try to match the photo with the model it becomes severely distorted!!
That's because when using zoomm in Su it isn't really zoom, but moving the camera, which changes the perspective. Change the FOV to "scale" it, and the zoom to change perspective/position.

Edit: That technique posted by @daredevil is a very good one I often use a similar one, but haven't actually drawn those lines. Next time I will

Using the Walk tool (or Look-Around) you can type in the eye altitude, or use the mouse+shift to change it.

@pbacot said:

It seems just as valuable to use 3d to record current ruins like this architect has been doing: http://www.dennisrhollowayarchitect.com/VirtualRealityArchaeology.html

--both for subsequent study and CG reconstruction. Also seems a good tool for preservation. Many sites have seen damage since their discovery and recording in their best state can help researchers in the future.

Nice link
Although it is always interesting to read about new hightech (and probably very expensive) tools for scanning the earth surface and below it is really a bit out of scope for this "survey", where I'm trying to find good uses for (and arguments for using) lowcost tools like SketchUp and tgi3D Photoscan. Most of what is found with Google appears to be very hightech/highcost.
Not that SU/Photoscan isn't hightech, but it isn't highcost in this context.

Looks like it is easier to find good arguments for using 3D for presenting archeological material to the general public than to find good arguments for using it as a tool for the professionals?

I'm sure such techniques as aerial photogrammetry, LIDAR, aerial ir scanning (like that linked to above) etc will be very costly. What I was thinking would be a very good tool, and a fairly cheap one, would be "low-altidue aerial" photogrammetry. IOW using a pole with a camera, and then make a textured 3D terrain model from the excavation site, which I would think would be very useful for comparing different layers, measuring anywhere on the site etc.
And then that terrain could also be used as a base for reconstructing any ruins/buildings there.
In Norway most buildings were built from wood, so there are usually very little left of them if buried in the ground. They usually only find the remains/holes where the corner poles were dug into the ground.

The fov doesn't really matter when it comes to matching the model to the image.
What matters, and what changes the perspective, is the position of the camera relative to the model.
You could always zoom in/out to make it fit once you have the camera positioned/rotated correctly.

@gaieus said:

We use quite a lot of measuring tools here (from ground penetrating radar - whose result would be something similar to those sonar measurements) to laser surveyor tools - not photogrammetry however. It could probably be useful but (currently, at least here) extremely expensive. And with cheap labour force in this part of the world, it is easier to employ a bunch of surveyors and draftsmen (most of the times just self made ones who have been working on excavations enough to know the tricks)
Thanks Csaba I don't know what is considered expensive, but I would think that a combo with SketchUp and tgi3Ds PhotoScan wouldn't break any budgets? Or wouldn't it be considered serious/professional enough, because it is too cheap? In this country most archeological sites are closed after a while, and then there are no more measurements to be taken. With a 3D model you could keep on working measuring even after the excavation is finished. Wouldn't that be desirable?

@unknownuser said:

As for 3D models in general: it is mostly for the same purpose arch-viz people are making these models all around here. To allow the "client" (in our case more the general public) to be able to visualize something that otherwise does not (yet / or in our case any longer) exist. So it is not too much for the "research" part of the job but the "exhibition" part.
Most arch-viz is made before the building is built, to "sell" it in advance.
Would you say that the most useful aspect of 3D in archeology is to show things before they were ruined? For reconstructing buildings, pottery etc? Rather than making 3D models of how they look today?

I'm currently planning 4 small web exhibitions with archeological material.
Most of it will be photos, but they also want some 3D objects there, either as object-movies or interactive 3D objects.

In this process I'd like to evangelize a little vs those archeologists, about using 3D and photogrammetry in their work. I need to be prepared for that
I know Gaieus is an archeologist here, but as there might be others too I'd like to put these questions in public.
I'd like to have some good arguments for using 3D

1. What are archeologists using 3D (and photogrammetry) for today?
2. What tools in use today could be replaced by 3D/photogrammetry? (like tape measure?)
3. Are there any forums where archeologists discuss 3D and other tools?
4. Is it useful/desirable to make 3D models of objects?
5. Is it useful/desirable to make 3D models of excavation sites?

I saw on TV a little while ago where a group of marine archeologists here in Norway had found a solution to their biggest problem - measuring everything under water. They had started using some sort of ultrasound scannning (?)
Probably very expensive tool too?
But I can't help wondering why on earth don't they use photogrammetry? Don't they know about it? Or don't they think that it will be precise enough?