←back to thread

771 points abetusk | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.019s | source
Show context
JofArnold ◴[] No.41879717[source]
I love this and applaud it.

It's also very timely: next week I have arriving a portable 3D scanner (an Einstar Vega) precisely because as a hobbyist sculptor the only way I can analyze these works to inform my practice is to go to galleries and scan the works myself (sometimes very surreptitiously!). It's crazy that I need to buy a £2000 piece of equipment and produce have a tonne of CO2 just to be able to look at a piece of art from x00 years ago on my computer.

Bravo.

replies(1): >>41879742 #
AyyEye ◴[] No.41879742[source]
Photogrammetry is well established and you can do that with any camera and a few hours of cpu time.
replies(1): >>41880209 #
mapt ◴[] No.41880209[source]
Photogrammetry is great with textured, consistently lit, opaque objects.

Blank white plaster, less so. You really want some kind of microtexture to grab on to for it to be anywhere close to a structured light scanner. That may mean you want a macro lens and a thousand exposures because you're grabbing on to microscopic surface roughness or dust. Not necessarily easy to do surreptitiously.

replies(1): >>41880497 #
1. AyyEye ◴[] No.41880497[source]
Yes they are different things and photogrammetry isn't a replacement for a "real" 3d scanner. But this is about museums which largely aren't unlit plain white surfaces. Getting models of museum objects is generally doable by anyone without thousands in specialised equipment. Taking a video or pictures is a lot less weird than pulling out any scanner.
replies(1): >>41883842 #
2. dr_kiszonka ◴[] No.41883842[source]
Do you have any software recommendations? I tried a few photogrammetry apps to capture small items (e.g., keycaps) and bigger ones (e.g., my face) but the results were never good enough. Ideally, I would like to open such models in Fusion, make a few edits, and 3D print them.