Software Converts 2D Images To 3D

eldavojohn writes "Dr. David McKinnon from Queensland University of Technology, has recently launched a site that turns your sets of 2D images into 3D bump maps by way of 8 years of his research. The catch is that you need to have between five and fifteen photos of your object and they must overlap at least 80 to 90 percent. So with a video of an object, one might be able to extract every nth frame and use this site to generate a 3D model. Doctor McKinnon said, 'The full version of this software would be great for realistic learning simulators and training software, where you want everything to look like the real thing. This technology could also be great for museums wishing to turn their display objects into 3D images that can be viewed online. We are even looking into making 3D models of cows to save farmers spending thousands of dollars transporting their cattle vast distances to auction sites, allowing for an eBay style auction website for cattle. Films, animations and computer games could also benefit, since 3D film making is taking over from the traditional 2D method of filmmaking. Another application is allowing people to create 3D models of their own face to use on their avatar in computer games or 3D social networking sites such as Second Life or Sony's Home.' Physorg has more details."

Comments

Re:How much of the image is real?

[sys.stdout.write]

So the 3D object in question will only have a front side? That's nowhere near enough for all sides.

It creates a bump map, not a 3D model. Think of a brick wall in a video game. This is simply a texture image stamped on to a rectangle, but newer games use bump maps to make the bricks stick out. This generates that bump map for you.

Re:How much of the image is real?

[quadrox]

If you can generate this sort of bump map for each of the 6 sides (think a cube) you should be able to generate an actual mesh. At least you'll have the precise 3D location for each pixel, shouldn't be too difficult to create a mesh from that.

Why bother

[MrMr]

Cows are spherical, as every mathematician knows.

Re:Why bother

[nick_davison]

Any biologist will tell you: the digestive tract is external (there's never any form of membrane that has to be passed to get from one end to the other). I'd suggest that makes cows a torus.

Mmmm.... Having gone from cows' rectums to a torus, who's up for donuts this morning?

Re:Why bother

[DriedClexler]

Every mathematician knows you can't get a 3D view from a 2D one. Like the old joke says ...

Three long-time friends meet up in Scotland. One is a biologist, one's a physicist, and one's a mathematician. As they're driving away from the airport into the Scottish countryside, they see a brown cow off in the distance.

The biologist says, "Wow, that's amazing! All the cows in Scotland are brown!"

The physicist replies, "No, all we really know is that some cows in Scotland are brown."

The mathematician replies, "No, all we really know is: there is at least one cow in Scotland, and this side is brown."

Misleading title

[JobyOne]

Article title is misleading. A bump-map is less exciting than converting 2D to 3D. It's not like it's going to build a perfect model of your head from 15 photos.

Photosynth is far more interesting if you're excited by this concept.

Cows are fractal . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . http://www.mndl.hu/works/fractalcow

Re:VERY, VERY

[JoshuaZ]

It is impossible to in general extract a true 3D image from a single 2D image. There are ambiguous cases. In fact, there are even ambiguous cases for two images. When one uses CAD and such to make 3D out of 2D images one is making implicit choices (generally using heuristics about how the objects are likely shaped). One can however use multiple images from slightly different angles to extract a close to unambiguous result. However, doing that is not easy and that seems to be what they are doing here.

Mr Santax

[santax]

is uploading about 15000 pics of Halle Berry as we speak. Man I'm gonna have a blast tonight!

Re:VERY, VERY

[TerranFury]

Even better, they only require ONE image.

In other words, it's not the same problem.

This guy has wasted his life.

Ouch. So if it's not a huge discovery in an entirely new research area, it's worthless? Would you be willing to apply this criterion to your own accomplishments?

Re:VERY, VERY

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy has wasted his life. ... There are dozens of programs that do this for various prices. Even better, they only require ONE image.

Okay, smart-ass, here's your ONE image.

Re:They have this in DS9

[mistermocha]

That's nothing! CSI Miami takes crappy security cam shots from hundreds of feet away to turn a speck that covers eight pixels into a full 3D model of the killer every week, and that's in THIS century and planet!

Re:VERY, VERY

[fran6gagne]

Here is another one in Australia from multiple angles. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Perth_Impossible_Triangle.jpg

Re:Anyone care to explain

[clone53421]

Bump mapping is often used to add textures to otherwise flat surfaces. Basically, the bump map is a channel where the intensity of a pixel represents the height (rather than colour) of the pixel.

It's very similar to this toy, which I'm sure you've probably seen before. The bump map represents the 3D shape of the object being portrayed. (It does have certain limitations; since each pixel can only have one height, the bump map can't represent surfaces which fold over themselves... e.g. a bump map of your face would look like your face from the angle it was intended to be viewed from, but from other angles you'd notice that the nostrils were solid underneath.)

Once you've generated a bump map, you can use it to render a true 3D surface, calculating the shadows based on the bump map and the position of the light source.