 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Facebook you can create 3D posts using an image and a depth map.
Described here:
https://www.facebook.com/help/414295416095269
A couple of questions.
Has anyone created a script to generate these?
Does depth increase linearly? How deep are white and black supposed to
be? Do these follow geometric rules?
Thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/17/2021 11:30 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Do these follow geometric rules?
I mean, does depth follow inverse square law or something?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/17/2021 11:30 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On Facebook you can create 3D posts using an image and a depth map.
>
> Described here:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/help/414295416095269
>
> A couple of questions.
>
> Has anyone created a script to generate these?
>
> Does depth increase linearly? How deep are white and black supposed to
> be? Do these follow geometric rules?
>
> Thanks.
Thinking about it, blackness should be the inverse tangent of the
distance of an object from the camera. But what about the scale? How
much is 1 unit? I'm guessing the scale should be somehow related to the
distance between the viewer's eyes. It's also possible that the Facebook
plugin fudges all these numbers somehow in completely arbitrary ways.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 11:30 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> > Do these follow geometric rules?
>
> I mean, does depth follow inverse square law or something?
>
>
> Mike
Hi Mike,
I recommend you to have a look at this article:
http://paulbourke.net/reconstruction/depthmap2/
Hope it will help.
Pascal
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/18/2021 12:16 AM, BayashiPascal wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 11:30 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> Do these follow geometric rules?
>>
>> I mean, does depth follow inverse square law or something?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I recommend you to have a look at this article:
>
> http://paulbourke.net/reconstruction/depthmap2/
>
> Hope it will help.
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
Interesting. The pigment in that example is clipped and normalized,
however. Wouldn't it make more sense geometrically to extend the pigment
to infinity?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 6/18/2021 12:16 AM, BayashiPascal wrote:
> > Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2021 11:30 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> >>> Do these follow geometric rules?
> >>
> >> I mean, does depth follow inverse square law or something?
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I recommend you to have a look at this article:
> >
> > http://paulbourke.net/reconstruction/depthmap2/
> >
> > Hope it will help.
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >
> >
>
> Interesting. The pigment in that example is clipped and normalized,
> however. Wouldn't it make more sense geometrically to extend the pigment
> to infinity?
>
>
> Mike
Do you mean the *gradient* is clipped and normalized ? If so, it is done in
order to use it as an entry of the color_map (which afaik only takes value in
[0, 1]). If not, I don't understand your comment.
Pascal
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/18/2021 1:19 AM, BayashiPascal wrote:
>> Interesting. The pigment in that example is clipped and normalized,
>> however. Wouldn't it make more sense geometrically to extend the pigment
>> to infinity?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Do you mean the *gradient* is clipped and normalized ? If so, it is done in
> order to use it as an entry of the color_map (which afaik only takes value in
> [0, 1]). If not, I don't understand your comment.
>
> Pascal
>
>
I mean the gradient function has a minimum and maximum range versus. It
should more realistically start at the camera and extend into infinity.
(But also be scaled somehow to the scale of the scene.)
Here is my attempt, though I don't think it is working.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#declare CAMERAPOS = <3,3,3>;
#declare CAMERALOOKAT = <0,0,0>;
#declare CAMERAFRONT = vnormalize(CAMERALOOKAT - CAMERAPOS);
#declare CAMERAFRONTX = CAMERAFRONT.x;
#declare CAMERAFRONTY = CAMERAFRONT.y;
#declare CAMERAFRONTZ = CAMERAFRONT.z;
#declare my_gradient = function(x, y, z, gradx, grady, gradz)
{
atan(x * gradx + y * grady + z * gradz)/(pi/2)
}
#declare Muns_depth_pigment = pigment
{
function
{
// clipped_scaled_gradient(x, y, z, CAMERAFRONTX, CAMERAFRONTY,
CAMERAFRONTZ, DEPTHMIN, DEPTHMAX)
my_gradient(x, y, z, CAMERAFRONTX, CAMERAFRONTY, CAMERAFRONTZ)
}
color_map
{
[0 color rgb <1,1,1>]
[1 color rgb <0,0,0>]
}
translate CAMERAPOS
}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 6/18/2021 1:19 AM, BayashiPascal wrote:
> >> Interesting. The pigment in that example is clipped and normalized,
> >> however. Wouldn't it make more sense geometrically to extend the pigment
> >> to infinity?
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike
> >
> > Do you mean the *gradient* is clipped and normalized ? If so, it is done in
> > order to use it as an entry of the color_map (which afaik only takes value in
> > [0, 1]). If not, I don't understand your comment.
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >
>
> I mean the gradient function has a minimum and maximum range versus. It
> should more realistically start at the camera and extend into infinity.
> (But also be scaled somehow to the scale of the scene.)
>
> Here is my attempt, though I don't think it is working.
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> #declare CAMERAPOS = <3,3,3>;
> #declare CAMERALOOKAT = <0,0,0>;
> #declare CAMERAFRONT = vnormalize(CAMERALOOKAT - CAMERAPOS);
> #declare CAMERAFRONTX = CAMERAFRONT.x;
> #declare CAMERAFRONTY = CAMERAFRONT.y;
> #declare CAMERAFRONTZ = CAMERAFRONT.z;
>
> #declare my_gradient = function(x, y, z, gradx, grady, gradz)
> {
> atan(x * gradx + y * grady + z * gradz)/(pi/2)
> }
>
> #declare Muns_depth_pigment = pigment
> {
> function
> {
> // clipped_scaled_gradient(x, y, z, CAMERAFRONTX, CAMERAFRONTY,
> CAMERAFRONTZ, DEPTHMIN, DEPTHMAX)
> my_gradient(x, y, z, CAMERAFRONTX, CAMERAFRONTY, CAMERAFRONTZ)
> }
> color_map
> {
> [0 color rgb <1,1,1>]
> [1 color rgb <0,0,0>]
> }
> translate CAMERAPOS
> }
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Mike
I don't see any problem with your solution. It really just depends on how you
(or the tool you use) interpret the generated depth values.
I've never made such images for Facebook, and have no idea how their plugin
works. Googling a little about it brought me to this article:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/07/how-facebooks-new-3d-photos-work/
containing a link to the research paper behind the plugin:
http://visual.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pubs/instant3d/
I had a quick look at it but had neither the courage nor motivation to read it
entirely. However I've noticed page 5 they said "However, this
did not achieve good results, because, as we learned, many depth
maps are normalized using unknown curves. We tried a variety of
other classes of global transformations, ...". Which makes me think they're
reconstructing an approximate 3D mesh, pleasant for the eye but not realistic,
to manage any kind of input, noise, and extrapolation from even a single image.
After all, their goal was probably to make an user-friendly plugin, rather than
accurate.
Conclusion, it probably doesn't really matter what kind of depth encoding you
use if you plan to use it on Facebook ! Maybe the best is to experiment...
I've wrote the script on the site of Paul Bourke while working with 3D scanners
where depth was encoding linearly either planar or spherical distance from the
camera within a range. You can also set DEPTHMIN to 0.0 and DEPTHMAX to an
arbitrarily big value to get a depth map from the camera to (kind of) infinity.
That's why they are variables and not hard coded in my script.
Pascal
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/18/2021 2:51 AM, BayashiPascal wrote:
> Conclusion, it probably doesn't really matter what kind of depth encoding you
> use if you plan to use it on Facebook ! Maybe the best is to experiment...
Interesting.
I wonder if there is a tool that works with stereo images that is less
ambiguous?
But it might not matter.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 6/18/2021 2:51 AM, BayashiPascal wrote:
> > Conclusion, it probably doesn't really matter what kind of depth encoding you
> > use if you plan to use it on Facebook ! Maybe the best is to experiment...
>
> Interesting.
>
> I wonder if there is a tool that works with stereo images that is less
> ambiguous?
>
> But it might not matter.
>
>
> Mike
This field is called 'photogrammetry' ... and it's a rabbit hole, I warn you (I
work on it every day) !!
Maybe you can have look at the wikipedia page first if you don't know about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry
There are tons of techniques and tools, each with its particular advantage,
inconvenient and use case...
Pascal
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
