Matterport Pro2 vs Matterport Pro1 3D Camera

1. If image quality is important to you–both showcase and stills–the 2 is for you.

2. If time in the field is important to you, get the 2.

3. If overall turn-around time is important to you, you'd better hang on to your old camera. Processing time has not quite doubled (this is not a scientific observation - it is significantly longer however.)

For me, I happily sacrifice speed to image quality and am therefore delighted with the new machine. I was slack yesterday so I did an experiment: I had done a nice house last Thursday, both MP and Nikon. Yesterday, I extracted stills from the MP model and downloaded in hi-res. Then I edited them in Photoshop to fine tune contrast, fix saturation, tweak colors which you cannot do in Workshop [redacted], local exposure, etc. "Not bad, not bad at all," is my conclusion.

819	819 mori private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	I asked the MP support about the 360 panor download pixel dimensions for the Pro2 which was advertised with 134 Megapixel. What I can download is 4096 x 2048 (= 8.39 Megapixels). Not comparable of course, but my 150 Eur Insta360air can capture 3008 x 1504 (Megapixels = 4.52 Megapixels). What I suggested to get is: Size = 16400 x 8200 = 134480000 pixels Megapixels = 134 Megapixels Aspect ratio = 2.00 Will make an extensive test with my Pixel and other gear in august. Of course maybe not a so fast workflow like with the MP2, but we will see what can be automated with a custom rig, some special software and if it´s possible to create a 3D model out of the images alone or with a combined 3D scanner. Maybe also interesting info from facebook: The largest full 360 photo you should upload is 6000 x 3000 pixels (18 megapixels). You can upload larger photos, but there are diminishing returns past that size, and you will probably not see an appreciable difference in output.
	7 years ago	Post 3 • IP flag post

2.13K	2.13K HarlanHambright private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 5
	1. If image quality is important to you–both showcase and stills–the 2 is for you. 2. If time in the field is important to you, get the 2. 3. If overall turn-around time is important to you, you'd better hang on to your old camera. Processing time has not quite doubled (this is not a scientific observation - it is significantly longer however.) For me, I happily sacrifice speed to image quality and am therefore delighted with the new machine. I was slack yesterday so I did an experiment: I had done a nice house last Thursday, both MP and Nikon. Yesterday, I extracted stills from the MP model and downloaded in hi-res. Then I edited them in Photoshop to fine tune contrast, fix saturation, tweak colors which you cannot do in Workshop [redacted], local exposure, etc. "Not bad, not bad at all," is my conclusion.
	7 years ago	Post 1 • IP flag post

2.13K	2.13K HarlanHambright private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	MPs are the top ones. Nikons are HDRs in Photomatix. You can't compare well in the forum as the image size is degraded, but the MP images are quite sharp and unpixelated. MPs lack the shadow detail and the overall contrast is higher. After Photoshop, color differences are probably my fault to some extent.
	7 years ago	Post 2 • IP flag post

Matterport Pro2 vs Matterport Pro1 3D Camera4913