Side by Side Realsee, Matterport, Pivo and Faro19519
Pages:
1
|
ron0987 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Compare 4 Platforms, Matterport, Realsee, Faro, Pivo I am sharing my ability to compare these four platforms. The context of the comparison of these systems are just my opinion. I included the Faro system to show what one receives from a Scanner that is focused on point cloud data and not walk thru tours, but may have some helpful use converting to other formats. I used the Pivo Tour software to find a more compact portable that can be carried with me anytime I travel, to eliminate the need to carry a larger camera system. Materport camera systems used; Pro 3 camera and Theta Z1. Realsee cameras systems used; Galios M2 and Theta Z1. Scene to be documented; All platforms were used to document the same space within two days of each other during the same time frames. I will explain some of the work flow that people may not be familiar with, but not go too in depth of the well know systems. I marked the space so camera location was the same for all cameras. Because the Faro system goal was not needed for side-by-side comparison, similar locations were not required. The data created by Faro would be a medium density point cloud for use at different locations and with fewer scans, approximately 1500 Square feet. My personal goal was to document and make a direct comparison of Matterport Pro 3 and Realsee Galios M2. This was done to help anyone considering the purchase of Matterport or Realsee. I will include some of my personal opinions and what I found during the tests. If anyone has questions, please post and if I can, will answer your questions. My second goal as posted in the Pivo post, I am looking for a portable system I can bring with me to document my travels. For the following comparisons I used the same space and similar times and lighting to create each model. The shoot times posted for Mattterport Pro 3 and Realsee Galios M2 are times to scan from setup to final scan. While comparing Matterport and Realsee using the Ricoh Theta Z1, I ran them concurrent to each other and switched from one capture app to the other, leaving the camera in same place for each use. I found both capture apps capture time was the same so the overall capture time was split in half, but would be a little faster because I waited for complete data transfer and alignment in each app to avoid alignment issues and will address them later in this post. This is not to knock any system or support the system but to allow users to make an informal side by side viewing and informational comparison. This is to show the same space similar lighting and used by just a basic user. I will include Faro point cloud link and requires you to zoom in to view 3D point cloud. Some information is commonly known by users so the basics will not be covered. Faro equipment and work flow S120 older Faro lidar scanner with the range of 120 meters; the complete diameter of the capture sphere at maximum capture settings. Faro scanners allow one to change settings from a minimum distance and density where the scan only takes about 1-2 minutes with its data and range sparse, to 60-70 minutes building an extremely dense point cloud. I used a medium setting for medium density point cloud taking 12-14 minutes per scan. For this project, I knew I did not need to scan the exact same points as the other equipment to achieve a good point cloud and with 12-14 minute scan times it would take some time to perform the exact same scan pattern.   Matterport Pro3 Newer technoligy that provides both virtual tours and point cloud data. A little smaller and lighter in comparison to Faro, about the same size as Realsee Galios M2.   Realsee Galios M2 New technoligy that is in direct competition with Matterport. Setup and use the same as Matterport, both use capture app, but the capture app on Realsee allows one to view the model in 3D, a mini 3D point cloud view, nice tool. Scanned the same points as Matterport the same day and during the same time frame to compare lighting on scene.   Matterport using Ricoh Theta Z1 Very portable nice option to have with you at all times, needs the newer plan to process without fees. Matterport capture app strait forward and easy to use. I had three alignment issues and was easily able to re-align them, just took time from the capture process. The times listed near the end of this post, are a little longer than usual because I waited to verify alignment and then the time to switch to Realsee app without moving the camera until both shoots were completed and aligned.   Realsee using Ricoh Theta Z1 Photo and setup same as above. The capture app straight forward and easy to use but the viewing was a little different, but had one visible re-alignment issue, but was easily corrected. Pivo Tour Using the Pivo rotator and iPhone 13 Pro and remote. A rotator that works with smart phones, but will build a 3D dollhouse model using an iPhone with lidar capabilities. Compact easy to use, when one buys the rotator models and hosting are free. In this model, I scanned from each scan point as I did all other test samples.  Capture APP Screen shoots of all platforms. Realsee  Matterport Pro3  Matterport Theta Z1  Realsee with Theta Z1  Both capture app for the pro cameras straight forward no alignment issues from start to finish. Using the capture app on Matterport Capture APP using the Theta Z1 was easy and the view was not much different using either camera, but had three major alignment issues that forced me to stop and re-align the scans prior to moving forward. Using the Realsee Capture APP using the Theta Z1 camera, if one looks at the screen shot, it definitely is not as clear as Matterport APP, but the model processed fine. The difference in using the capture APP on the Galios Camera and Theta Z1 has no option to view 3D. Scan times. Matterport Pro3 camera 32 scans 30 minutes Realsee Galios M2 32 scans 40 minutes Matterport Theta camera 32 scans about 30 minutes* Realsee Theta camera 32 scans about 30 minutes* I ran both captures simultaneously, capture time and app alignment was similar so I feel good with the time listed. Total time using both apps together and toggling back and forth and waiting until I visually confirmed alignment was complete. Three alignment issues with Matterport and one in Realsee. Total time using both apps was 1 hour and 3 minutes. But in al fairness to Realsee I did not use the lower density scan which did add minimal time but some time. Now Matterport offers a denser scan which would add some time. Pivo Tour 32 scans 1 hour 15 minutes. Models Matterport Pro 3 Materport using Theta Z1 Realsee Galios M2 Realsee Theta Z1 Pivo Make your own decision on what will work for you. My opinion is Realsee is a one of the best contenders in it short time of release. I see Matterport scrambling to bring its system compatible with Realsee. After all the new releases from Matterport and some are not working, but were standards for Realsee. I have contacted Realsee customer service and have got responses for my questions. Matterport I still have open tickets with no answers for months. Only critiques with Realsee is looking at the two models the color is not as good as Mattterport but I think shortly the HDR from Matterport 5 brackets and Realsee has 3 brackets. If they increase that I think that would enhance Realsee. Having all this in mind I would go with Realsee. This is an unpaid basic user comparison, if you have questions ask. Pivo is good and compact, with dollhouse but could also benefit from integrated HDR, I used iPhone Pro 13 which has great HDR capabilities but they were not incorporate in the tour. Faro Point Cloud, this is an external point cloud viewer, you need to zoom in to the center of the model to see it. clickable text |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
ron0987 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| After using the Realsee Platform, I see lots of tools that we asked for from Matterport. I also see Matterport racing to now compete with Realsee, some of the tools that Matterport is attempting to release now and highlited in the last few months were already incorporated in Realsee app. Also I found customer service with Realsee very interactive and responsive. I still have open tickets with Matterport that I think are just ignored. I see lots of promise with Realsee. | ||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
selder76 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Realsee is the CLOSEST to Matterport for quality but not quite there. It's wonderful that someone is out there attempting to compete. Hopeful in another generation or two this is up to par for quality. Features are great, but quality wins to me so I'll stick with Matterport a bit longer. | ||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
 REALSEEMarketing Representative Beijing |
Luona_REALSEE private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi Ron, thank you for your detailed review! Regarding the HDR issue you mentioned, we anticipate implementing 5 brackets in May this year. We appreciate your valuable feedback, and we will continuously work towards optimizing our products and services based on such suggestions. Thank you for your input! |
||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
|
Eddi private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Thank you, Ron, for all the effort you've put in. You've done a wonderful job and have been a great help to all of us looking to migrate to other solutions like Matterport. Based on what we've seen and after analyzing the comparative costs of the two solutions, we would even consider moving to the solution offered by Realsee as early as tomorrow. The modern interface, a lot more useful features and tools, the 3D model, all look excellent. The only thing currently holding us back is the image quality. It seems very poor. Even with the Theta Z1, imo the image is better. Firstly, the white balance is not well-calibrated (white has magenta tint), HDR is not excellent due to the use of only 3 stops, and sharpness is almost non-existent. REALSEE - a lot more work needs to be done on the image calibration and its clarity. I've attached a comparison below. The difference is significant. Comparision Link |
||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
 Matterport versus REALSEE Image Slider courtesy of @Eddi @Eddi Thank you for your Matterport versus REALSEE Image Slider (above) (link). REALSEE lets you color correct all panoramas. (You can do this with Matterport with a 3rd Party platform.) Have you looked at this REALSEE feature to see if that addresses your concerns?  Screen Grab: Realsee Galois M2 Review - The 360 Lidar Camera to FINALLY beat Matterport? | Video courtesy of Nick Powell Photography YouTube Channel | 5 November 2023 At 43:44 of 55:08 in this REALSEE review by Nick Powell (screen grab above) (video below), you can see that REALSEE enables the following color correction: Adjust Filters for All Points (panos) --Original -- Bright -- Warm -- Custom Color Adjustment -- Saturation -- Color Temperature -- Tone Light Effect Adjustment -- Brightness -- Contrast Ratio -- Highlight -- Shadow Detail Adjustment -- Sharpening @ron0987 Can you do a video screen recording show how you can adjust REALSEE colors? Best, Dan Video: Realsee Galois M2 Review - The 360 Lidar Camera to FINALLY beat Matterport? | Video courtesy of Nick Powell Photography YouTube Channel | 5 November 2023 | (See 43:44 of 55:08 to see how REALSEE enables color correction) |
||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
 WGANStandard Member Los Angeles |
Home3D private msg quote post Address this user | |
| A huge THANK YOU to @ron0987 for the time and effort to create this side-by-side comparison of MP and RS. Immensely useful. I have not yet used Realsee but am watching. The responsiveness of their team to requests for improvements is a BIG PLUS with Realsee. This is what we've always wanted from MP but traditionally they have invested 90% in sales and 10% in expanded features. I concur with @selder76 that Matterport still delivers a superior image. One look at these comparisons and it's clear.  Both systems capture the view outside the windows with similar clarity and exposure. While the relative darkness of the interior rooms on the Realsee tour is probably more true to reality, most any RE agent would prefer the brighter MP interiors, especially if the assignment includes use of stills pulled from the virtual tour. @Luona_REALSEE wrote: "Regarding the HDR issue you mentioned, we anticipate implementing 5 brackets in May this year." If Realsee incorporates bracketing 5s in May, along with a well crafted tone mapping algorithm, this MP edge could disappear. One must also remember that even today Realsee permits creators to download the 360 panos from the model AT FULL 16K RESOLUTION, which Matterport does not (only low-res 8K panos can be exported) so the photographer can run these through Lightroom, make them look much like the current MP panos and reinstall them into a tour. Matterport? Are you listening? Just as Matterport has recently added the option to set the scan density on the Pro 3 to low, medium and high, I would love for MP and Galois to offer the option of various levels of HDR. The Insta360 RS 1-inch can be set to record HDR bracketing at 3, 5, 7, or 9 brackets. Using 9 provided me with the best "one-shot camera" images in a dark mausoleum with blazing stain-glass windows. If Galois would offer and option like this (fine with me if each "spin" takes longer) that could be a fantastic feature. The Realsee Galois is outstanding for another reason less talked about. Since you can export 16K panos from it, the Galois can also be used as a high-res "one shot" 360 camera for any non-moving subject. It could be used, for example, just to shoot 16K panos for use in any 360 |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Home3D Thank you for adding additional insight, building on @ron0987 side-by-side comparison. About: Quote: Originally Posted by @Home3D In addition to the REALSEE GALOIS LiDAR Camera and REALSEE G1 smartphone rotator, REALSEE supports the most popular under $1,000 360 cameras for real estate, including the one that you use: Insta360 RS 1-Inch Perhaps you could do a test shoot using the Insta360 RS 1-Inch paired with the REALSEE app (iOS, Android) and REALSEE platform? REALSEE plans include a free tier (so you could do this test at no charge) Plus, REALSEE enables you to upload 360s from any source. Perhaps you have an existing Matterport tour that you want to download all the 360s and upload to the REALSEE platform? (Granted that this is not a fair comparison of Matterport to REALSEE because Matterport does not enable you to (affordably) download all your 360s at highest resolution.) That said, that might an interesting side-by-side comparison. Additionally, you might want to play with the REALSEE color correction tools (as I have described above). Your thoughts? Dan P.S. You might also try the REALSEE camera removal feature. I noticed that in your (awesome) GeoCV tour, you can see the GeoCV rotator. |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
ron0987 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Here is one photo, I was playing around with 7 brackets on my iPhone. If Realsee, Matterport or Pivo would allow fully bracketed photos that also might be a game changer. They might already do this not sure because the capabilities are there. Only downside would be more time to complete a full panorama with large bracket number of each shot. I am talking about using an iPhone on the rotator. I do think I would like to see a comparison of these rotators and like Dan pointed out Insta 360 1 RS, Realsee phone rotator and MP phone rotator.  |
||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
ron0987 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Home3D I just saw the link and went thru that tour. That is amazing and to think that was a possibility at one time. I would also rate it very high even for today | ||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Eddi private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Very insightful points raised by Kevin @Home3D. I still remember that tour made a few years ago with GeoCV's solution. I'm glad it's still around and remains an example for 3D tours and how they could have evolved. The quality achieved with a simple smartphone camera from 2019 is impressive. Think about how much smartphone cameras have evolved since then. GeoCV had a real good tone-mapping algorithm. It's clear that there's room for improvement at Realsee. But if they are open to embracing and adopting at least some of these suggestions, then they will have many of us (who have contributed to what Matterport is today and who don't see themselves in the vision of this company anymore) on their side. I believe that a Rotator + a high-performance smartphone would be a good combo for a start and to get familiar with the solution proposed by Realsee. And because we've brought up a service that no longer exists today precisely due to legal issues and patents, a simple question arises... Why wouldn't Realsee have the same fate in the future if there was a conflict with Matterport? Cause it's an operator from China? What guarantees do we have that this won't happen? Thank you! |
||
| Post 11 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Standard Member Los Angeles |
Home3D private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Pure speculation, but I | ||
| Post 12 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Eddi @Home3D REALSEE is owned by a very large company (Beike) that trades on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and is much, much bigger than Matterport. REALSEE has nearly three times as many 3D tours under management as Matterport. Beike owns and operates Lianjia, China |
||
| Post 13 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
ron0987 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I appreciate all the feedback and for Dan to host the comparison. What I like about the forum is the input from everybody and it is not BRAND specific. Plus, the collaboration of ideas and the willingness of people to post and comment on things to help others. Back on topic is I have been a long-term critic of Matterport, but that being said one of the best tour providers on the market. I have been using it from 2013 with the original camera and capture app, back when you had to plan the scans in order of the floors. Since there was no floor tool if you scanned the upper floor, it would overlay on the lower floors and you could not see what you |
||
| Post 14 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Standard Member Los Angeles |
Home3D private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @ron0987 - Years back, Matterport would have been smart to simply buy out GeoCV. Better yet, MP could have done that and hired some of the key GeoCV people on board. However, I don | ||
| Post 15 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
michaelr private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Home3D - agreed they had a much better interface and features, to bad matterport went the legal way and GeoCV backed away. I believe some of their team is at canvas.io now. I saw them at the IBS convention last week and met with one of GeoCV's cofounders. | ||
| Post 16 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @ron0987 Any additional REALSEE tours that you would like to share? Feel free to add here or start a new WGAN Forum discussion. Best, Dan |
||
| Post 17 • IP flag post | ||
|
Aerial_Perspective private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @ron0987 Great comparison! Thanks for this effort! I wonder how this comparison would do with all the recent Realsee updates. Any chance to get access to the file of the Faro? The link you added doesn't give access to it. |
||
| Post 18 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1