Photogrammetry - programs (Zephyr?)

SnowInChina

Hey folks, i've been wondering if anyone has tested zephyr for photogrammetry
http://www.3dflow.net/3df-zephyr-pro-3d-models-from-photos/
i've so far only tested the free version with the pictures they provided with it and it was looking pretty good
i'am also open to alternatives if they are somewhat affordable

gnoop

Suspiciously nothing  to looks at  beyond 3 low res models on the site. 

I still prefer Agisoft Photoscan .  
it's from around 200 mil poly model  baked into depth texture.  

People  love Reality Capture but I doubt it's capable to same level of details as Photoscan .

SnowInChina

i know what you mean, but the features in the standart edition from photoscan are really limited for scanning terrain
and the full version is a little bit too pricy for non comercial usage
i`ve already tried some free stuff, but the results were really messy and the software unstable to the point that i didn't even get a mesh out
at least zephyr worked, pretty easy i have to say. but i couldn't find any infos on how much polygons it can export.
the free version is capped at ~180k, thats pretty low.

gnoop

I actually have never ever tried their pro version. It's from standard one.   

AlecMoody

gnoop said:

People  love Reality Capture but I doubt it's capable to same level of details as Photoscan .

My experience is that I get much better results in reality capture. I think given comparable inputs they produce similar quality models. However, I can do something in reality capture in 8 hours that would take my machine a week in agisoft- As a result I am able to build higher quality meshes.

gnoop

AlecMoody said:

My experience is that I get much better results in reality capture. I think given comparable inputs they produce similar quality models. However, I can do something in reality capture in 8 hours that would take my machine a week in agisoft- As a result I am able to build higher quality meshes.

Looks like they don't allow to make a mesh in trial version.  And point cloud picture could be somehow deceptive.   So I wonder if it's really capable  to do same quality level?
it's a piece of worn asphalt  I did with my iphone se yesterday .        40 or so pictures (the actual fragment is twice bigger than on the screen)     Surprisingly I get better results  with iphone than my Oly micro4/3 16 mpx camera. 

From what I saw so far from other people scans, RC  does a bit more noisy result, with a bit more fake details.  But could be totally wrong. 
Would be interesting to do a precise comparison.   I could upload photos somewhere if you are willing to try.

AlecMoody

If you want to send me some photos, I can mesh them for you so that you can compare.

SnowInChina

or download zephyr free version, the tutorial has a set of photos
so we wouldnt need to upload them

gnoop

AlecMoody said:

If you want to send me some photos, I can mesh them for you so that you can compare.

Here is a link to 7zip archive  I put 13 photos in  for same piece of asphalt  seen in my screenshot.     The piece is actually much smaller than the whole chunk so those 13 photo should be enough for comparison.
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mnztzyu1f693m6p/asphphotos.7z?dl=0

I converted DNG raw images from iphone I fed to Photoscan originally  into 10mg jpg files but believe it shouldn't make any difference. 

gnoop

Re-built it myself with those 13 JPG and looks like initial DNG worked subtly better. JPGs make a few geometry artifacts I don't see on previous  reconstruction


Anybody is willing to beat it with Reality Capture?

Andrea3Dflow

Hello!

Andrea from 3Dflow here! I just wanted to point out a couple of things, sorry for the intrusion

- Zephyr free has no triangle limit. You are reaching that limit because the generated textured mesh has been made with that triangle count, so you should simply use other parameters (i.e. high details if using preset) to get a higher polycount. Zephyr free is limited in the sense that allows you to process only up 50 pictures.

- most of the models on our pages (those which we can redistribute either because we did the acquisitions or because our customers allowed us to do so www.3dflow.net/3df-zephyr-reconstruction-showcase/ ) have the corresponding dataset for download, so that you can try them yourselves. The 3D models are lowpoly for faster navigation purposes, everyone is welcome (and encouraged!) to try to reconstruct the datasets and do comparisons with our competitors, with our datasets, our competitor's datasets and obviously your own datasets!

- we encourage discussions and comparisons remember that zephyr lite can be downloaded for a free 14 days trial (no registration required) and that you can request a pro/aerial trial as well from our website. Actually, we are in the process to allow everybody to access pro/aerial trials (right now, you have to use a non-free email to ask for it. Management is finally convinced this is not a good policy ) so if you're interest in a pro/aerial trial, simply mention polycount in the trial request form.

- all feedback is very welcome! I'll gladly answer any question you may have, or i'll just shut up

Andrea

kurt_hectic

My comparison: RC >Agi

kurt_hectic

Another one, found on google:

gnoop

Here is a comparison   from  those 13 asphalt  jpgs  I posted earlier.  Both sides was baked into displacement textures 

 To be honest the difference is marginal .  Still  Photoscan side seems to me just a little bit crispier. Perhaps just a lighting mismatch although .

Does anyone know If RC could export really huge  mesh , big object with a same level of details?  I once managed to do 700 mil poly  mesh  in Photoscan for quite a big chunk of ground surface.

 That figure comparison from Google doesn't look hi res enough really.