Slashdot Mirror


Recreating Cities Using Online Photos

Roland Piquepaille writes "The billion of images available from a site like Flickr has stimulated the imagination of many researchers. After designing tools using Flickr to edit your photos, another team at the University of Washington (UW) is using our vacation photos to create 3D models of world landmarks. But recreating original scenes is challenging because all the photos we put on Flickr and similar sites don't exhibit the same quality. With such a large number of pictures available, the researchers have been able to reconstruct with great accuracy virtual 3D model of landmarks, including Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and the Statue of Liberty in New York City."

87 comments

  1. seen this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think i have seen this somewhere before, i just dont remember where

    1. Re:seen this by Sectrish · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep, it was Photosynth, a cool looking project from a company bought by microsoft. It's site is: http://labs.live.com/Photosynth.aspx

    2. Re:seen this by mambru · · Score: 1
    3. Re:seen this by ozphx · · Score: 1

      You mean a research project by some uni who's name I forgot which was funded by Microsoft?

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    4. Re:seen this by WalterGR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, it was Photosynth, a cool looking project from a company bought by microsoft.

      No. Photosynth is a collaboration between the University of Washington and Microsoft Research. See here.

    5. Re:seen this by Kaeluka · · Score: 1

      SU, grammar nazi! Did you consider that English isn't his/her mother tongue? If you want to correct him, do that in a polite way.

    6. Re:seen this by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Generally ESL people are usually the grammar nazi's as they actually spent time learning all the rules and it annoys them that native speakers just go commando.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    7. Re:seen this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally ESL people are usually the grammar nazi's as they actually spent time learning all the rules and it annoys them that native speakers just go commando. ITYM 'nazis'.
      HTH. HAND.
    8. Re:seen this by Kaeluka · · Score: 1

      They are grammar _nazis_, right?

      ^^

    9. Re:seen this by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I didn't even know there was a rule governing that/which usage until law school (when it matters re:contract drafting). My girlfriend, who is from Venezuela, was shocked to learn that I didn't know.

      And I still can't properly conjugate lay (to place one's body prone) and lie (to set an object down) into their various tenses and moods. But my foreigner girlfriend can. She's also the one constantly correcting my "my brother and me"-"no, no: 'my brother and I'" grammar. Just like my friggin mother. Sheesh.

  2. How about telling us what it's called? by BertieBaggio · · Score: 4, Informative

    This story is a bit old (well, it's from Roland after all). There was a demo of this tech by Blaise Aguera y Arcas at TED earlier this year. the two underlying components are Seadragon and Photosynth, both of which are mighty impressive. Also, despite the Mozilla-esque name 'Seadragon', both of these technologies are actually owned by Microsoft. There is a tech preview of Photosynth up for download, but I don't think Seadragon is available yet.

    There is a video of the TED demo, which shows off some of the things Seadragon and Photosynth can do, the including Notre Dame example mentioned in T(second)FA. The talk is also on YouTube.

    --
    If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    1. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by Aaron+England · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is Photosynth "owned" by Microsoft? I thought Microsoft only acquired Seadragon and that Photosynth was a joint project between UW and Microsoft.

    2. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by BertieBaggio · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mod parent up. I thought MS had bought both, but Photosynth is collaborative research by Noah Snavely (undergrad at UW), Steve Seitz (also UW), and Richard Szeliski (from Microsoft Research). Maybe in six months time I'll be retroactively correct when they do buy it...

      (from http://labs.live.com/photosynth/ and http://labs.live.com/photosynth/aboutus.html)

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    3. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by nwmann · · Score: 1

      thanks for clearing that up i remember seeing the demo video back when this was first news and the technology seems quite amazing.

    4. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by nomis80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are confusing two things. This new paper adds 3D modeling. Now you don't just know the relative pose of pictures, you can also use them to compute the 3-D shape of things in those pictures.

    5. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by WalterGR · · Score: 1

      This story is a bit old (well, it's from Roland after all).

      And, in fact, was discussed here in June.

      There was even a comment by one of thee engineers that worked on the first release Photosynth. He links to a couple videos about it.

    6. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up...this is post-Photosynth technology. Maybe Photosynth 2.0.

    7. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with Roland? Hell, even one of his stories has a lot more insight than all of the stories submitted by TwitterTheTroll.

    8. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      Noah Snavely (undergrad at UW)

      Just for the record, he's actually a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate, according to his personal page. Though I'm sure he's flattered.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    9. Re:How about telling us what it's called? by ALoopingIcon · · Score: 1

      Another 5cent;
      not only the story is a bit old, but there exist free/open source tools that provide the same services, i.e. reconstruction of 3D models from your uncalibrated photos. Look at http://www.arc3d.be/ and to http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/;

      The first one (arc3d) is a free-to-use service that allow people to upload photos and get back a set of 3D depth maps well as the relative vantage points from where the uploaded images were taken and the settings of the cameras.

      The second one (MeshLab) is an open source tool that allow to load, inspect, process and integrate the data produced with the arc3D service, so that you can obtain a 'clean' 3D model and export it in a variety of common 3D formats.

      So if someone wish to try by himself this kind of technologies, the tools are there.

  3. dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Microsoft Photosynth; covered on /. multiple times already.

  4. Great accuracy? by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It looks like an incredible idea with a lot of promise, but the shots they've shown so far look like some lumpy rejects from a plastic vacuum forming machine. There is some great potential here to involve people to generate better models by asking them to contribute pics of certain monuments with certain characteristics such as resolution, position and so on.

    1. Re:Great accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine a 3D recreation of Goatse. The traditional Goatse photograph is one in a set, of course. Maybe they could even locate the hidden turds that aren't visible in the traditional photo.

    2. Re:Great accuracy? by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      This looks like a perfect system for making chocolate-bunny-style molds of famous attractions! :)

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    3. Re:Great accuracy? by reason · · Score: 1

      To me, that rather misses the point. There is existing technology (photosynth) that can construct highly accurate models of specific monuments given photos with location information. This is something new and different: it can be used to construct a model of any widely photographed site or monument at short notice from existing photo collections available for free on the web, with no need to gather or commission additional data. Even if the results are not picture-perfect, to me, this is much more exciting.

  5. Terrorists by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only a terrorist would want a 3d map of a city. This must be stopped.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you Bush? Your time is running out.

    2. Re:Terrorists by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was actually trying to be sarcastic, but i got modded insightful??

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to America, where at least a third of the population* would be alarmed that you have actually raised a major concern.

      *current Presidential approval rating

    4. Re:Terrorists by Jupix · · Score: 1

      I was actually trying to be sarcastic, but i got modded insightful??

      You must be new here :-)

    5. Re:Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're misapplying the meaning of the word "approval". Especially when considering the alternatives.

    6. Re:Terrorists by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Well, there's Sony. I think that after the Manchester Cathedral incident they promised not to use Anglican buildings, but Notre Dame is a Catholic cathedral...

    7. Re:Terrorists by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      insightful = funny, but with karma bonus. Apparently, just being funny isn't enough.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  6. This just in... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Online photos of any physical location on any planet in the local galactic group are now forbidden due to the possibility that the photos might be used by terrorists or those who may be helping terrorists to plan terrorist attacks on said locations.

    By order of Ultra Super Secret Chief Intelligence Officer, Department of Homeland Security

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  7. Can we re-create the World Trade Center? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or pre-invasion Fallujah, or New Orleans 1999?

  8. Home use by Cillian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how many photos it needs of an object to produce a decent model and if the software will ever be released to the public - it would be amazing to be able to produce a 3d model of an object just by snapping a bunch of photos from different angles and bunging them into a piece of software. (I know there are things to create a model using a video camera and a turntable, but that's not quite as easy as being able to grab your camera anywhere and make a model.)

    --
    -- All your booze are belong to us.
    1. Re:Home use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not easy (there's a lot of work involved), but with a calibrated camera, you can, in fact, take lots of pictures of an object and turn them into a 3D model with existing software. So that part of the problem is already solved; it's really just a (very big) linear algebra problem.

      In fact, if you have a stereoscopic setup, it's quite easy, in computer vision terms, to perform the necessary calculations and correlations to do this automatically. It's a little harder with a single camera, positioned at free-form positions in space; to make it easy, you'd need to figure out a way for an AI to automatically figure out what points correlated between two pictures. Not a trivial task.

    2. Re:Home use by ashooner · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is a version of this available for home, use, but this has definitely been done. As sib. points out, the problem that needed to be solved was determining the position of the camera in space relative to the subject. Generally speaking, this is the field of Photogrammetry. One researcher I know of doing fascinating stuff with this is here:

      Marc Pollefeys at Chapel Hill NC. Scroll down to see his 3d from video demo, pretty amazing stuff. Somewhere on this site is also a 3d model of a Chapel Hill street constructed from 2 cameras mounted to the roof of a car.

      For home use, PhotoModeler is the best you'll do, and from my experience it doesn't quite do the trick.

      --
      They Are Night Zombies!! They Are Neighbors!! They Have Come Back from the Dead!! Ahhhh!
    3. Re:Home use by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The SIFT algorithm created by David Lowe, might work for that; it's commonly used in panorama stitching software to automatically determine the common points between two overlapping photos. Provided you had only a small amount of rotation between photos, it could probably give you some good results.

    4. Re:Home use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually have a tool that does this with just 2 photos, which is up on my website at www.thaines.net/cyclops for anyone to use. Problem is I created it and use it for research purposes - its a total bitch. I someday hope to find the time to make an open source version 2, that is easy to use and makes use of more than 2 photos. But for the moment you can give it a try, but expect a lot of frustration:-) I've stuck up some videos of its output though, so you can at least get an idea of what is possible with just 2 photos. (i.e. not much.)

  9. Nope, not photosynth... by tommyhj · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has nothing to do with the Photosynth/seadragon project, other than the fact that both teams use a whole bunch of different photos of the same object/setting.

    This approach tries to make the actual 3D objects from a bunch of 2D photos of varying quality. Photosynth just tried to MAP the photos in a rough 3D space. Making the actual 3D model to any degree of accuracy is really a challenge when you can't control the input images.

    The goal is different in the two cases, but they should definitely get together and exchange technologies and algorithms, because I SO much want this tech built into Google Earth!!

    1. Re:Nope, not photosynth... by ozphx · · Score: 1

      You silly little man. Both Seadragon and whatever the fuck they are calling this perform a technique called "feature extraction", where they identify small features common to several images. Then they map these to a relative 3D location.

      Seadragon then displays images at the appropriate angle. This "new" stuff does a bit of micro-feature mapping between the points to make a more detailed model. Its cool, but not new. You can see it in action by getting the Seadragon preview and looking at the feature point cloud which is clearly enough to make a polygonal model of the scene.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    2. Re:Nope, not photosynth... by supersat · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's based in part on Photosynth. Photosynth is the commercial version of Photo Tourism, which was a joint project between UW CSE and Microsoft Research. From what I understand, this new technology uses the camera pose (location, orientation, etc.) estimator from Photo Tourism and combines it with some multiview stereo algorithms (PDF) to generate a 3D model.

    3. Re:Nope, not photosynth... by loki1978 · · Score: 0

      Yup it is. Same people working on it from the UW side.
      One is the university research project
      One is the commercial product to come
      Features can vary greatly until any of both is "finished developing"

      --
      According to prophecy
  10. Does it work with people? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Funny

    If so, I think it's time to rent a few Jessica Alba movies.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    1. Re:Does it work with people? by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      If so, I think it's time to rent a few Jessica Alba movies.


      You may also want some of the CSI image analysis software which support zooming beyond the image resolution. ; )
    2. Re:Does it work with people? by tommyhj · · Score: 1

      If so, I think it's time to rent a few Jessica Alba movies. actually, yes - that would be entirely possible! Altough you'd have to choose scenes with her in the same stance, wearing the same clothes, not moving a muscle. Wether ot not that is possible, is pretty much up to your opinion of her acting abilities :-D
    3. Re:Does it work with people? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      You can start with Paris Hilton

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:Does it work with people? by Squalish · · Score: 5, Informative

      We certainly have software that can take a video of static objects and turn it into a 3d scene.

      We have, in TFA, software that can take frames of static objects, remove the dynamic objects among them, and leave us with a 3d scene.

      We probably have software that can interpolate a static object which is bounding a nonstatic/elastic layer (the shape of a statue under a swaying tarp, the dimensions of a box inside a grocery bag someone is swinging).

      We probably do not, however, have software that can efficiently calculate the at-rest dimensions of an elastic, mobile object(Jessica Alba) beneath a nonstatic/elastic layer (clothes). We've just barely reached the point where we can depict the behavior of the squishy, bony, muscular, hairy human body accurately, much less interpolate a hidden body.

      One wonders what it would cost to develop such software to the satisfaction of a pervert, compared to what it would cost to simply fund a movie where the pervert gets to do this.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    5. Re:Does it work with people? by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 2, Funny

      We probably do not, however, have software that can efficiently calculate the at-rest dimensions of an elastic, mobile object(Jessica Alba) beneath a nonstatic/elastic layer (clothes). We've just barely reached the point where we can depict the behavior of the squishy, bony, muscular, hairy human body accurately, much less interpolate a hidden body.

      So what you're saying is we need naked pictures of Jessica Alba... for science.

    6. Re:Does it work with people? by Floritard · · Score: 1

      Screw that. Get the Blade Runner image analysis software that supports rotating within the image to views not even visible in the original photo!

  11. Warsaw by flyingfsck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After the 2nd war, Warsaw was rebuilt from photos. If you visit Warsaw today, you'd think that it is an old city. In fact, it is all new, the Poles just like it that way.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Warsaw by Kjella · · Score: 1

      They're like most historic cities - there's an "old city" and a "new city", since inevitably the cramped roads, building restrictions and whatnot means that corporations, shopping malls and so on abandon it for a place where they can build a modern city, which is of course as bland and uninteresting as the rest. The only difference is that the "old city" is also rebuilt, but it's probably primarily for identity, culture and tourism. I haven't got the impression Poles in general are clinging more to the past than the rest of us.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Warsaw by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you say this is the case for most "old cities?" The old parts deteriorate over time, and need to be renovated or rebuilt, but the government requires that they be renovated or rebuilt in the "classic" style for purpose of culture, tourism, history, etc.?

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

  12. Yes, butt... by jo42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What will this software do with all the goatse images on the World Wide Wibble?

    1. Re:Yes, butt... by RLiegh · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't know, but I imagine it will look a little like this

    2. Re:Yes, butt... by lukesky321 · · Score: 1

      I swear if that is another goatse pic, I will give you a distended anus, for all the pain and suffering that you people have caused.
      That image is still burned into my mind from the last time I saw it.

    3. Re:Yes, butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks.. got a good laugh from that

  13. standing on the shoulders of giants by m2943 · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that Microsoft didn't single-handedly come up with these technologies; their work is based on decades of work in user interfaces and image processing at many institutions.

    1. Re:standing on the shoulders of giants by Columcille · · Score: 1

      ...which could be said of any and every advance in technology. But we must point it out this time because it is Microsoft and how dare anyone even hint that they might have done something cool!

      --
      I love my sig.
    2. Re:standing on the shoulders of giants by m2943 · · Score: 1

      ...which could be said of any and every advance in technology. But we must point it out this time because it is Microsoft and how dare anyone even hint that they might have done something cool!

      The reason we must point this out is because there is completely inadequate mention of prior work or work by others in Microsoft's press releases or talks about this software.

      And, yes, this is just as wrong when Apple does it, and Apple does it too.

  14. How much labor compared to 2002? by heroine · · Score: 1

    Photogrametry still seems extremely labor intensive. U can't just throw a bunch of photos at the computer and get 3D worlds out. The difference seems to be much cheaper labor than 2002. U can throw a bunch of photos at a legion of Indian artists and get 3D worlds for free.

  15. Interesting problem, and harder than I thought. by argent · · Score: 1

    It's a little harder with a single camera, positioned at free-form positions in space; to make it easy, you'd need to figure out a way for an AI to automatically figure out what points correlated between two pictures. Not a trivial task.

    I was thinking that Steve Mann had solved that, but on looking up his paper it seems that he's only addressed a couple of special cases.

  16. I'll see your 3D city and raise you a D. by gt384u · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a professor in my building who works on constructing spatio-temporal representations of information from 2D images that allow you to see a city evolve through time. Not sure if all their demos are on the website, but the ones I've seen are pretty ridiculous. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/4d-cities/dhtml/index.html

  17. Re:I'll see your vocabulary and raise you a word. by gt384u · · Score: 1

    I'm so ashamed. Please pardon the vernacular. I meant "novel" and "interesting" and "brilliant" and "amazing" and "cool" and "neat" and "awesome"... Ass.

  18. Terrorists? I'm much more worried about Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the newly sentient Google, will have a 3D understanding of the world it will soon control! It already has access tol the world's data, now it will gain a new "perspective" with all the images at its disposal.

    If it's reading this I'm sure it'll keep it from being modded up.

  19. Re:I'll see your vocabulary and raise you a word. by fractoid · · Score: 1

    I meant "novel" and "interesting" and "brilliant" and "amazing" and "cool" and "neat" and "awesome"... Ass. I must see this ass. It sounds impressive. :)
    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  20. How many photos of the rear and sides? by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Funny

    You'll notice the Notre Dame model was of the endlessly photographed front aspect.

    I wonder how much detail such a technique can pull on the rear of the building? Or the back of Rodin's Kiss? How about the top surfaces of the Statue of Liberty?

    Of course that won't stop CSI, next season, from pulling a bunch of pictures from Flickr of the front exterior of a building, reconstructing a complete 3D model, open accurately hinging doors, travelling inside, going down in to the basement and looking at the reflection in someone's eye to identify the killer.

  21. Do they have free Wifi @ Guantanamo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause they're gonna need it to finish their work.

  22. 3D? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    "...another team at the University of Washington (UW) is using our vacation photos to create 3D models of world landmarks" More like make a 2D image of something you are likely to find in a gift shop on the grounds of these sites. Really... Take a look.
    --
    The game.
  23. Differences with Photosynth by snavely · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was a co-author on this work -- it's great to see it on Slashdot =)

    I also worked on the Photo Tourism project (which is related to Photosynth). There's a big difference between Photosynth and this new 3D reconstruction work, in that Photosynth takes a photo collection and reconstructs camera positions and a sparse point cloud (a set of disconnected 3D points floating in space), while in this new work we build *dense* 3D models of scenes (in the form of polygon meshes). Dense models are usually much better for use in applications like computer graphics, since they can be used to render scenes with much more photo-realism.

    These two problems require different algorithms to solve---for this dense problem we use a technique called multi-view stereo, but we made it work with images taken by many different people under different conditions.

    - Noah

    1. Re:Differences with Photosynth by stephenpeters · · Score: 1

      I have a copy of Multiple view geometry in computer vision 2nd edition by Hartley and Zisserman, which I intend to read in my copious spare time. I find this area of computing fascinating and think it will have a huge impact on mapping. I would be grateful if you would recommend any other good references in this area? Thanks

    2. Re:Differences with Photosynth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  24. Software? by Frans+Faase · · Score: 1

    Where can I download the software? Is there a open source project on this?

    Over the years I have seen many different attempts from reconstructing scenes from digital pictures, some of them being very impressive, but for some reason I have never been able to find a working piece of software or a open source project dealing with this. Yes, there are several nice frame works available. Or I am I just looking in the wrong places? I did find some commercial packages, but these are beyond my budget.

    Is there some reason why researchers in this direction are not willing to donate their results to the public? Or is it just coincidence.

  25. Google SketchUp by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    This method of modelling has actually been around for some time in the consumer arena, going back to the mid-to-late 90's. The earliest one I can think of was from a company called MetaCreations (formerly Specular, the makers of Carrara Studio's older cousin, Infini-D). However, I can't recall the name of the software that did the photo-to-model stuff. I do know it functioned very similar to Google's SketchUp, which does the exact same thing.

    Google's setup is a bit more grandiose in scale though. They're hoping SketchUp users will create models of landmarks, businesses and homes in their communities using various photos, then share the resulting models for inclusion on a geographically accurate version of Google Earth.

    Once finished, Google Earth may be able to provide a time accurate, browseable 3D version of any location on the planet.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  26. seen this-Turn signals and blind spots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Interesting how ingrained the "MS bought it" mindset is. Looks like a blind spot that's going to catch some people unawares in the future.

  27. It's not 3D - it's Panaramic by HomeLights · · Score: 0

    I checked this out last week - supposed 3D of Nasa in Florida - it's not 3D it's panaramic. Nothing groundbreaking whatsoever. In fact, why waste tiem with this? Google Earth/Maps has been working on this and it' much better - you can 'drive' down the street and check out locations.

    --
    Stop by and watch a Christmas movie, commercial or cartoon! -->http://www.XmasDVD.com
  28. Why wait? by neile · · Score: 1

    Why wait for it to be built into Google Earth when it is already built into Live Maps?

    Neil

  29. Neat, but.... by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    Like, looking at the model of Notre Damn, I was thinking, surely someone has taken pictures of the sculptures over the door. The model looks like a blob. And you are not really plotting entire 3D landscapes, but, from what it looks like, creating 3D models of single structures, and you are not even adding color. I mean, at least the Microsoft project creates 3D landscapes. I think the two projects should merge, then you could have 3D models with actual picture overlays.

    I don't know, I have just seen so many similar projects lately, this just does not wow me.

  30. Automation is the word by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The key point is that the software can sort the photos and then use them to create the model with minimal intervention.

    Where it can help a lot, is for system such as google maps, where only a few 3D models have been made. With such a system, a couple of machine could pull photographs out of a free photo database like picasa (which is already linked from Google Earth) and use the pictures to create preliminary gross "3D" models that can be subsequently put back into google earth. (until some artist design nice refined models).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]