CUPIX Versus Matterport in AEC Space6816
Pages:
1
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
WGAN-TV CUPIX Split Screen - Compare 3D Tour to BIM Model to Time Frames with Scott Anderson and Paul Collart from CUPIX WGAN-TV CUPIX Update-Videogrammetry, Animation, and Much More WGAN-TV - CUPIX for Newbies AND CUPIX Versus Matterport with CUPIX Director of Sales Scott Anderson -- Hi All, Above is one of the examples demoed on WGAN-TV Thursday (19 April 2018). [The 3D Tour was captured on 6 April 2018 with panoramic still images taken with a Xiaomi Mi Sphere 360 Camera. 37,000 SF across the 13th and 14th floor - captured in about 2 hours.)] As WGAN Forum Member @leonvanzweel described what he saw, it was like watching Neil Armstrong take his first step on the moon. (I describe it as, magic.) Check-out the interactive CUPIX model to see: ✓ interactive floor plan ✓ side-by-side (split screen) compare 3D Tour to 3D Tour took on a different date ✓ side-by-side (split screen) compare 3D Tour to BIM Takeaways from this WGAN-TV Show with the CUPIX Team 1. CUPIX is disrupting the tools needed to create a 3D Tour (any 360º camera) 2. CUPIX is disrupting capture time: hours instead of days to shoot 100,000 SQ FT 3. CUPIX is disrupting the viewing experience: split-screen for side-by-side comparison with a 3D Tour shot on a different day (progress) and split-screen for side-by-side comparison with a 3D Tour to the BIM model (architect's 3D CAD model) 4. CUPIX is disrupting long term hosting. (Not necessary: download all assets with CUPIX player 5. CUPIX is disrupting privacy. Model never needs to be made public for viewing or sharing. And, CUPIX team an NOT see the model without your invitation to view 6. CUPIX is disrupting outdoor scanning 7. CUPIX is disrupting Photogrammetry with videogrammetry (to enable insanely fast capture CUPIX is still in Beta. And, it is still free while in Beta. While CUPIX does not display a dollhouse view, it DOES display an interactive map so that you can easily jump from scan-to-scan and see the orientation of the view. Buy an under $500 360º camera (that also shoots video) and take CUPIX for a spin. If you are a Matterport Pro, you'll also want to know how to shoot large commercial spaces at affordable pricing. If you haven't bought a Matterport Camera - and are interested in large commercial spaces (particularly AEC) - CUPIX may save you thousands of dollars in upfront Camera gear. How will you leverage CUPIX to enter to new markets? Best, Dan P.S. If I was Matterport, I'd be thinking about how to acquire CUPIX ... |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
3dvirtualview private msg quote post Address this user | |
| What is the link to CUPIX? This is great! |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @3dvirtualview www.CUPIX.com app.CUPIX.com Best, Dan |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
3dvirtualview private msg quote post Address this user | |
| We could use MP 360 view photos with CUPIX as a trial too, right? | ||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
Frisco, Texas |
Metroplex360 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I've said this many times. I love Cupix. I think it's awesome. I think that right now, Matterport is a better solution as it generates a proper point cloud and is a much more mature platform, especially now with BLK integration. Cupix has immensive potential and all signs point to the innovation continuing in rapid fashion as it already has. AEC demands accurate results, and that's just not what we're yet seeing from Cupix. -- My Cupix Shortlist: #1) The minimap is cool, but if you roll your mouse wheel and drag a few times, you'll lose that map. It needs a little bit of TLC to make it feel a bit more solid and usable. #2) 3D Transitions... not simulated. -- I'm quite impressed at this example above -- the A/B comparison feature is incredible. I will say that offering this with a true 3D space would potentially be problematic due to WebGL limitations - but I see Cupix as the 'why not?' platform ... so ... why not try?  |
||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
 Cupix Head of Product Strategy
|
pcollart private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Metroplex360 This is not always the case for AEC and really depends on the use of reality capture. The 4D construction example listed in this thread is a perfect example that does not require accuracy. The goal is to bring the job site to all project stakeholders, not provide mission-critical dimensions. Trying to provide a 3D Tour with dimensional accuracy every 1 or 2 weeks would be cost prohibitive ... correct me if I'm wrong to think Matterport could NOT support this construction site. We have architects including a Cupix 3D Tour with every project proposal. They use the visual 3D Tour to avoid trips on site to check design conditions, which is especially beneficial when working with project teams dispersed across different areas. The tour also becomes the centerpiece for design meetings, which typically includes, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc. Quote: Originally Posted by Metroplex360 Many would argue that Matterport doesn't generate a proper (or accurate) point cloud. Matterport's accuracy of +/- 1% could be off as much as 6" over 50' ... 1' over 100' ... etc. This again comes down to the use case for the point cloud and level of accuracy required. When contractors, for example, require accuracy (i.e. +/- 1mm to 3mm) for prefabrication, they will most likely stick with their repeatable and reliable HD (high-definition) laser scanning via Faro, Leica, Trimble, etc. Quote: Originally Posted by Metroplex360 No doubt Matterport is a more mature platform and their solution is amazing! |
||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
Frisco, Texas |
Metroplex360 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by pcollart Remind me of that when people are saying that AEC demands Lidar over IR too Quote: Originally Posted by pcollart Is this where the videogrammetry solution shines? My admission, and I mentioned it before -- Matterport does not have a side-by-side mode, and if they did create one, I would imagine that WebGL would crash from two concurrent instances. However, neither of these two potential advantages rule out Matterport as a tool that could provide the same benefits. Cost prohibitive really depends on who is scanning I suppose. Quote: Originally Posted by pcollart I agree that it -is- all relative. Quote: Originally Posted by pcollart And I will close by saying what I always say about Cupix --- I am a HUGE fan of what Cupix is doing. I am blown away by it and enthusiastically cheering for it from the sidelines. It's not what I would use today, but I imagine it growing and maturing and doing things that Matterport is not interested in doing and having very specific use-cases where it is the defacto choice. Don't stop innovating |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
 Cupix Directorof Sales San Francisco |
scott_cupix private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Great thread here. Here's some thoughts. Quote: Originally Posted by Metroplex360 Anyone who's used a floor plan before will have no issue with this. Most RE and CRE users won't notice the difference. These are good suggestions but also very micro details and not very relevant in this context of AEC or FM. This accuracy point is central. Paul was being polite about the accuracy: Quote: Originally Posted by pcollart I believe this should be restated as: Very few would argue that Matterport makes a proper or accurate point cloud. Matterport mesh is limited in the same way Cupix mesh is limited, it's never going to be something you'll create a design or fabricate from. Actual BLK Matterport Mesh from BLK:   In no way will this data will be used to build from or would someone trust as being dimensionally accurate. But like Cupix, the Matterport 360 imagery is very useful and arguably the only thing that is useful in an AEC setting unless you have a true 3D device like a laser scanner. You are not going to pull a radius, or a dimension from this 3D mesh. Metrology devices like Northern Digital, Leica, FARO, Surphasor allow builders and engineers to start leverage the 3D mesh for prefabrication, retrofit and to make quality, dimensional and engineering decisions from the data. Matterport accuracy is not this grade, and even with the BLK, once the data is ported into Matterport you've got serious decimation issues. It's easy to see in the spaces in Matterport's new BLK Category or in particular this industrial example Fabrik Example shown above. But, the 360 imagery is quite useful:    Quote: Originally Posted by pcollart This is the point . It's about visualization. Neither Matterport nor Cupix can provide accurate dimensions. Both in this Fabrik example and many other examples for both Cupix and Matterport use case is to bring visualization of the space so stakeholders don't need to drive/fly/train/bus to the site. They can walk the floor and see what's going on in the site. With both Matterport and Cupix the accuracy of the camera location is more than sufficient to make decisions from whether comparing to CAD, or to another time point.    Quote: Originally Posted by metroplex Why would you scan in the first place? The benefit of scanning becomes moot if it's not dimensinally accurate or reliable. But the 360's are still useful if they can be used for visualization. Accurately located 360's camera positions requires a lot less expensive hardware than a metrology grade scanner. Cupix and Matterport can both locate the 360 camera location down to an accuracy of <1% which as shown above is plenty good for virtually visiting the site. Scanners are slow, bulk, heavy.  Quote: Originally Posted by metroplex I would rephrase this around and say, why would you use Matterport? Scanners are slow, bulky and heavy. And if the 3D mesh isn't accurate dimensionally so the 3D surface data isn't useful, why spend time scanning in the first place? The benefit of Matterport and Cupix in AEC is visualizing spaces. Someone who is naive to reality capture and scanning may be willing to 20x more expensive labor costs, not to mention more expensive hardware costs to use Matterport but anyone stumbling upon this thread will understand that the time spent scanning with a Matterport (incl. the BLK into Matterport) offers no reward in AEC. It's wasteful. Unless you have a need for a metrology device, it's all about the 360's and visualization. Using an inexpensive 360 camera and Cupix is literally 20x faster and scores cheaper. Not to mention Cupix at this very moment today provides AEC BIM Compare, Progress Compare, can use GPS data, can Outdoor Capture, and can be used in a dank dim basement, outdoors or in harsh or dim lighting environments, and suffers no distortion parallax in tight spaces, all of which Matterport comes up short. |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
|
DavidHothersall private msg quote post Address this user | |
Very interesting, I've signed up and I'm going to have a good look at this, it looks a potentially good option for some of my 'cheaper' clients  However there seems to be some confusion between point clouds and mesh here. Point clouds are the basis of the Matterport mesh and the mesh shown above is like the majority of Matterport spaces and looks like a tornado has just been through. These mesh models are heavily decimated for speed and as their intended usage is merely as anchors for the tour and the overlaid imagery that is fine.. However, if you use the point cloud data as supplied in the .xyz file now found in the Matterpak it is much more densely populated and as such is a much better starting point for offline meshing, especially of the capture is done with that in mind. I captured my car as an experiment with the intention of creating a digital model and captured from much tighter positions and at different heights. The point cloud created perfectly described the curves of the car and from that experience I know I can create the data I require using the Matterport. Using that experience I'd capture slightly differently with even more positions and attempt to find a location with fewer reflections. Even so the capture would be less than an hour. Here are some pictures of both the point cloud and the meshed model.   I can also report that the capture was almost mm accurate. I appreciate this isn't a typical use case but equally I can confirm from other much larger models that the accuracy of the raw pointcloud from the Matterport is very accurate. The mesh is a bit of a red herring when were talking about visual results. I'm assuming there is no point cloud generated from the images in Cupix? |
||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
 StandardMember Windsor, UK |
leonvanzweel private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @DavidHothersall Awesome and Interesting use case for MP. How many scans to create the image? How far away from the vehicle did you place the MP camera? | ||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
DavidHothersall private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @leonvanzweel Cheers. I think about 26 scans 13 at vehicle roof height and the 13 at the lowest my tripod goes to, filling in the spaces between the previous scans. Distance was between around 2 to 3 feet away from the car. Next time I'd work out a way of going both lower and higher and possibly scanning a bit tighter to just fill more gaps and get more detail. |
||
| Post 11 • IP flag post | ||
|
Frisco, Texas |
Metroplex360 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DavidHothersall One thing that always excites me is when a company positions itself for the future. Matterport is retaining higher quality data than it needs for the Showcase MESH, which means that in the future, it would be possible to re-render a higher quality MESH if computing power reaches a norm that would accept it. At that point, we might be offered the opportunity to pay for a higher quality product -- or even still, perhaps Matterport would develop a product that uses a different quality MESH. The Showcase MESH is extremely optimized for display only as it's intended to work fast on mobile platforms and desktop alike -- where even slower computers can appreciate it. I'm glad you shared some XYZ examples... those were impressive! |
||
| Post 12 • IP flag post | ||
|
Dana Point, CA |
RPOceanic private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Metroplex360 I understand needing to "throttle down" the amount of data to prevent Showcase from bogging down, but... I'm not sure I at all understand the logic in not offering a higher quality mesh as part of the Matter Pak right now if they have it? If they want to make strides outside of real estate virtual tours and into AEC, this would certainly be a huge advantage. |
||
| Post 13 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
DavidHothersall private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @RPOceanic @Metroplex360 Thanks Chris. It would be interesting to know if that is actually the raw output point cloud as well as I imagine it could be even denser. I've often wondered if there is a higher quality mesh but it may be that they decimate the raw data before they mesh it and reduce it further once processed. In the main this is all automated and it is that part of the process that most Matterport users don't realise is so impressive about this system. While I understand we're all looking for perfection it must be frustrating for the Matterport programmers to see criticism about minor errors when 99% of the model is perfect. I suspect if there is the capability to produce a much cleaner high density mesh Matterport won't want to release it for the same reason they don't allow the full resolution images to be downloaded. So assuming it was possible (probably is to be honest) and everyone had access to the full resolution images and mesh it would be a reasonably straightforward workflow to drop these into UE4 or Unity and produce standalone full resolution VR walkthroughs, which obviously cuts out Matterport's recurring hosting revenues. This would be even easier using the new Datasmith/Unreal Studio CAD importer module. Exciting stuff but while its frustrating for us end users its completely understandable from Matterport's perspective and bottom line. Maybe they need to have some sort of 'Power User' tier with higher monthly payments or larger one off payments for the enhanced data, I'm thinking hundreds of dollars here as the time saving would be immense for guys who really use the data like Daniel Holm, Paolo Tosolini and others. |
||
| Post 14 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi All, New since the above discussion ... ✓ 6 Months Free Use of CUPIX Small Plan + Studio Add On Pack (Publish to GSV) Best, Dan P.S. @DavidHothersall All great questions ... that I don't know the answer too. Was hoping someone that did would comment ... |
||
| Post 15 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
DavidHothersall private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @DanSmigrod As I suggested I doubt Matterport would be interested in releasing the higher level data assuming it exists. I wonder if Chris @Metroplex360 has done a comparison with a Matterport and a Leica BLK pointcloud of similar spaces to ascertain if there is more data in the BLK? I did a couple of quick tests with Cupix using some previously acquired data from a Matterport scan of what I considered a simple space but it was apparent from the failure of my model to generate anything decent ( 3 attempts over a couple of days)and the eventually very helpful Support at Cupix indicated that the density of imagery required to get a successful result is much higher than that normally captured for a Matterport scan. So that's something to take into account when visiting a site. I need to find time to capture a space specifically for the Cupix solution. |
||
| Post 16 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?