Photoscan Tests

These are some very preliminary tests with photogrammetry from open-source images, using tourist photos to reconstruct 3D models of some of the world’s most photographed sites (just for ease with initial tests). I don’t know how useful this technique will be for the future of the project, I just thought I’d start getting to grips with its limitations and potentials – the software I’m using is Agisoft’s Photoscan.

161013_st-pauls_postSt Paul’s Cathedral – Sampled via 100 Flickr images

It seems to demonstrate the effect I was talking about last tutorial with the most photographed elements being the most clearly defined. The distortions in the image seem to be caused where the software fails to properly align cameras/guess lens lengths.

161013_statue-of-liberty_postThe Statue of Liberty – Sampled via 200 Google Images

161013_tower-bridge_postTower Bridge – Sampled via 100 Google Images

161013_room_postMy Flat – Sampled via 60 photos taken on DSLR (Fixed lens length & lighting)

Obviously a Photoscan done with images intended to help build a 3D model results in a scene with considerably more detail and accuracy, although having done these experiments I think it is potentially more interesting to investigate the strange anomalies produced where the algorithm gets it wrong.

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Photoscan Tests

  1. Natasha Sandmeier says:

    They’re interesting tests, but I suppose in spatial/urban terms, you’re actually modeling spikes versus averages (i.e. the MOST photographed spaces). I understand that the model is built from the collected mass of images – i.e., the average tourist’s landmark photograph, but what it doesn’t record is, in a sense, the average-ness of either the tourist, or more usefully, the tourist’s trip. When the landmark becomes the hallmark of every average tourist’s journey (what ‘average’ tourist to London would skip a double decker, tower bridge, harrods, shard, B’ham Palace, etc etc), what is then a possible contemporary landmark in today’s average world? Landmark’s the wrong word as it’s tied inextricably to land/place, and the ‘icon’ is a word trap….but it’s around there somewhere.

    Will this declare and define the average world as we know and capture it (on camera) today, or find space for new kinds of spikes in the grainy in between?

  2. Emma Fraser says:

    They look so surreal!