Simple inexpensive 3d digitizer comments

[iLove3d]

A new camera that functions as a 3d digitizer is ready for
commercialization. We want to know if it is a good idea? What should
the file output be? How will people want to use the models? It's an
open discussion to shape the final specification.
The final product will allow users to users create 3d models of a
friend's faces or a real object as easily as taking a photograph, and
for about the same cost. In some cases the cost is much less as its
just a feature of a portable electronic device, like a smart phone.
Please join the group, get discussions going and invite as many
friends as you have who are interested in bringing 3d model creation
into the mainstream.

[dave.li...@gmail.com]

I'm assuming this is a laser rangefinder that scans in a raster
pattern.

Speaking as a probably-typical photography buff, I think it's really
interesting. I'd seriously consider buying one if it worked pretty
well and cost under $500. I'd buy it without much thought if it
worked pretty well and cost under $200.

It would be neat if it had a camera with the lens co-located with the
ranging sensor; then you could capture an image simultaniously with
the 3D model and map the image on top of the model.

I suppose you'd have to bundle this thing with some app (maybe
freeware?) that can do 3D modeling, editing, and viewing. The file
format ought to be some widely-supported standard (I've no idea what
is out there, but don't invent a new incompatible one if you can
possibly avoid it.)

It would also be nice if you offered some kind of inexpensive 3D
printer, too.

--Dave

[iLove3d]

thanks for posting. Actually it is not a laser rangefinder. It's
simpler than that without requiring dedicated laser type hardware. It
uses standard camera sensors. The entire scene is captured in a
fraction of a second, just like a normal photo. The image is captured
simultaneously and the image is mapped to the 3d geometry. This allows
the camera to function either as a standard 2d camera or as a 3d
digitizer. This permits integration into common devices such as
digital cameras for more intensive shape measurement, or even into
cell phones to take photos of friends to post on Facebook, etc.

I agree that a cheap 3d printer would be amazing. Generally it is a
question of volume with a device transforming from a specialized
engineering market, to push down to the consumer market level. An
abundance of easy to make 3d models might make that happen, after all
the 3d printers make their money from the supplies, not so much the
hardware. Increase the demand for supplies and you can decrease the
price of the hardware.

Thanks again for the response.

[Rich Feit]

I'm definitely interested -- it sounds exciting. Do you have any
examples of the output (e.g., screenshots of multiple views of a
generated model)?

[iLove3d]

Go to www.3dmobile.ca to see an example. Note you won't be able to go
past the home page, but at least you can see what kind of object we
can create.

[alpmeadow]

Please advise if this camera will work as a close in 3d digitizer, or
will it work in more distant, ie mountain landscape 3d form. As far
as software is concerned, what existing 3d software will it be
compatible with? It sounds impressive, keep us up to date with
progress.
Cheers

On Dec 20, 7:53 am, iLove3d <bradmo...@3dmobile.ca> wrote:

[iLove3d]

It will only work for close in 3d digitizing, within about 3 and 8
feet from the camera. The object you are digitizing, like a face or
sculpture can be isolated so you can use the object as a 3d model, or
you can incorporate the rest of the photograph into the scene, but
only the close up objects will appear in 3 dimension. The other
background objects or scene (mountains, buildings, etc) will be flat,
like a normal 2d photograph.
We can choose to export the object in a range of file formats. For
example the face on www.3dmobile.ca is a point cloud of measured
geometric points, as you can see as the video zooms in. Or that could
converted into a mesh, like obj, stl or wrml type. I'd like feedback
on what you would like to see for formats.
Thanks for replying!

[r]

How similar if any is this to "match moving"?

On Dec 22, 12:41 pm, iLove3d <bradmo...@3dmobile.ca> wrote:
> Go towww.3dmobile.cato see an example. Note you won't be able to go

[August]

I imagine it would be used by the same range of people who use
SketchUp: engineers, artists, architects, woodworkers, set designers,
interior designers, hobbyists, etc., etc., etc.

As a SketchUp hobbyist, I would prefer any file format that SketchUp
can import. If I can do that with it, without having to externally
convert the format before using the file in SU, that's all it would
take.

3DS or DXF are probably good choices. I suspect that formats like
obj, stl, or wrml are too esoteric (i.e. more limited range of
products that support them) for a mass market. Do a quick survey of
as many popular, free, 3D modeling programs as you can get your hands
on and see what formats they all will import, the "broadest common
denominator".

Bundle SU Free with the product to give users an instant way to
manipulate and assemble such models, or provide at least a link and a
tutorial for installing it and viewing your camera-generated models
with SU for the absolute newbies.

My wife is hooked on interior design shows on the Home and Garden
channel, etc. There are designers on TV who do 3D mockups of
alternate designs to show to clients. If instead of picking the
furniture from the library that is closest to the feeling they want to
convey, if they could just take 3D pictures in the showrooms and
clean them up and insert them in the models, the model vs. actual gulf
gets radically narrowed.

The possibilities are manifold, but file incompatibility could kill
you. Go for that "broadest common denominator".

And if this helps, send me one! Or hire me to write specs and user
manuals or ...
August