[R&D] A comparison of GeoCV and Matterport 3D OBJ files9971
Pages:
1
 TosoliniProductions Bellevue, Washington |
Tosolini private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Our VR designer Michael Gelon has done a quick analysis of the 3D models resulting from both the GeoCV and Matterport (MP) cameras. As a refresher, the cameras combine 3D depth data with 2D visual data to create a textured 3D model. Both MP and GeoCV make use of the models internally, incorporating them into their “dollhouse” navigation views. Creators can choose to download the models for their own use, which are presented in the widely compatible .obj (OBJ) file format and come with related .jpg texture sheets. For MP, the OBJ is something you purchase as part of the Matterpak ($49). It is included at no additional charge in certain GeoCV plans. We have found many uses for these models in AR/VR mashups.We own both cameras, so we scanned a few rooms of my house to make a fair comparison. Here are the findings:  GeoCV on the left, Matterport on the right Green box- these are the “materials.” The fewer there are, the better it will perform in a real-time program like Unity3d . MP uses a significant amount of materials because it displays much higher texture resolutions, boosting the file size and visual quality of the result. Orange box- polygon info. It looks like GeoCV is using about 1/10th of what MP does. This means that GeoCV models can perform decently without any extra optimization, which is a must do for MP models if you plan to use them on mobile VR/AR. The MP models have more detail when closely zoomed and represent complex shapes better. Interestingly, the GeoCV models have more polygons for the flat surfaces like the floor and walls- it seems the MP algorithm has some optimization going on for flat areas. In use, a lot of these differences will not be noticed once the model is small enough in the experience. Overall: MP delivers .obj files with more polygons and more texture data. GeoCV files have a similar spatial accuracy, but a lower resolution across the board. For virtual and augmented reality experiences (especially where the space is presented as a small model in front of the user), GeoCV scans will be easier to work with. If the user will be standing inside a to-scale version of the model, MP is a much better choice. Here is a link to additional comparison shots: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ai-LwC59tqA8iq4fhg4UaXHUue_AHw?e=uConYr |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Tosolini Thank you for taking the time to document - and share - Matterport versus GeoCV 3D Object Files. Much, much appreciated. Best, Dan P.S. Always  seeing your mashups! |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
MeshImages private msg quote post Address this user | |
Wow, super interesting post. Thank you, Tosolini!  |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
gnuiorc_mda private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It would be interesting to see if there is any difference in MP between a model created using MP Pro 2 and BLK360! Ciao, Gio P.S. Maybe it's time to get the MP Pro 2 :-) |
||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
|
Tosolini Productions Bellevue, Washington |
Tosolini private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Thanks for the positive feedback. @gnuiorc_mda Agree that it'd be interesting to see if the BLK offers better OBJ resolution. My guess is that the MP cloud downsamples the raw data to a certain usable level in Showcase, which means the OBJ from the BLK or the Pro2 might not be that different. Mine is an assumption, based on the fact that the point cloud bundled with the Matterpak is lower quality than the original raw files. |
||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
 WGANStandard Member Los Angeles |
Home3D private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Were you shooting the GeoCV test using standard or HD resolution images? I don't suppose this makes any difference in the mesh / point cloud data, but at one point you say "MP models have more detail when closely zoomed". I've been shooting GeoCV entirely in the HD mode and find the photographic detail to be very good. Would love to hear your comments on GeoCV "HD" vs MP Pro 2 detail. Thanks! | ||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
Tosolini Productions Bellevue, Washington |
Tosolini private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Home3D I haven't tried yet HD mode in GeoCV. That setting though is about the photo quality, and I think it doesn't affect the quality of the mesh, which depends on the 3D sensor. Now, if / when GeoCV will adopt the newly announced Structure Mark II sensor by Occpital, that will make for sure a difference. I like your idea of comparing photo quality between MP Pro2 and GeoCV. |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
Convrts private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Home3D Home3D - we just used the OBJ from a HD GeoCV tour to create a model and it was much the same. Compared to creating the model from Matterport tours as he's done previously my mate (the one who's better at this stuff than me!) said he found it so much easier to work with. Thanks for the comparison Tossolini, really great! |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?