Is there a better perspective match tool for 3Ds Max?

[joconnell]

Very handy that you have a reference object to take on set for this!

[piotrus3333]

heh, fancy. I remember using old cardboard box once..

[AbeTJH]

This script is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than the 3ds Max built in perspective match. I've had nothing but problems with the built in tool.

http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/sc...11-cameramatch

Let me know how it goes.

[kosso_olli]

heh, fancy. I remember using old cardboard box once..

A cardboard box can also work, as long as it's dimensions are known.

I do not know why people have so many problems with the perspective match tool and it's vanishing lines. It is working quite well on our end, too.

[Pixelcon]

well you're matching with known dimensions and presumably quality photography. Matching a model from who-knows-where with a photo of dubious quality from a not-so-common mobile phone is perhaps the reason I'm not getting working results.

[fixeighted]

well you're matching with known dimensions and presumably quality photography. Matching a model from who-knows-where with a photo of dubious quality from a not-so-common mobile phone is perhaps the reason I'm not getting working results.

Case in point....this remeinded me of a years old project that I never go to work...I must have found a workaround as I completed the work it appears...no idea how now.
Match this, if you can...I'll be intrigued if anyone can do it without it being a massive headache
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iemp75jry0...GINAL.jpg?dl=0

I actually just tried again and had to quit due to trauma

[Pixelcon]

Case in point....this remeinded me of a years old project that I never go to work...I must have found a workaround as I completed the work it appears...no idea how now.
Match this, if you can...I'll be intrigued if anyone can do it without it being a massive headache
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iemp75jry0...GINAL.jpg?dl=0

I actually just tried again and had to quit due to trauma

quite the invitation...I have some other painful tasks to attend to if you don't mind :P

[fixeighted]

Hehe well tbh I'm not sure it's worth the mental stress this one induces

[kosso_olli]

well you're matching with known dimensions and presumably quality photography. Matching a model from who-knows-where with a photo of dubious quality from a not-so-common mobile phone is perhaps the reason I'm not getting working results.

Well, that is the way it should be. It would be foolish to expect the perpective match tool to work in the cases you described.

fixeighted You're totally sure that this image was not altered in any way, right?

[fixeighted]

Yeah, that's the original I was given - I just double checked. It's horrible isn't it? Nothing seems to work and I wish I could remember how I managed to finish the project. I have a version that I did alter and correct, so maybe I just eyeballed that to get it done.

[Pixelcon]

Well, that is the way it should be. It would be foolish to expect the perpective match tool to work in the cases you described.

fixeighted You're totally sure that this image was not altered in any way, right?

Gimme a break.

[kosso_olli]

Yeah, that's the original I was given - I just double checked. It's horrible isn't it? Nothing seems to work and I wish I could remember how I managed to finish the project. I have a version that I did alter and correct, so maybe I just eyeballed that to get it done.

Well, I just checked the image. To me it does not look like an unaltered image at all. The Exif data tells us it is 24mm. At that focal length and the distance to the building, you would expect to get massively skewed vertical lines. Yet, in the image they are all nearly straight. Take a look at the first screenshot.

A second hint is the resolution: The Exif data says it was taken with a Nikon D810. The format factor of the D810 would imply that the image aspect would be 3071x4601, based on the height of the image you sent. However, the dimensions of the image are 3071x3906. So it was either cropped after manipulation, or worse: compressed in height.

There are only two options here:

1: The image was corrected in post-production (which it likely was, judging by the hints above)
2: The image was taken with a tilt-shift lens on location (which is unlikely, because the Exif data does not say so)

However, perspective match is not able to reconstruct the perspective correctly in these two cases. It is going to fail, and it does fail indeed.

Attached two screenshots. First shows the correction for the skewed lines, second shows what is expected of a 24mm lens in this distance without altering

[fixeighted]

Excellent detective work!. I wouldn't have expected them to alter it at the time they sent it to me but your explanation seems valid.
The resolution being different to that of a raw Nikon shot isn't something that occurred to me at all. I so wish I had known that at the time....would have saved me such anguish
Thanks for figuring it out; it'll make me check in the future, or at least remind me to tell the client not to fuck up the data so badly LOL

The attached is what I managed to shoehorn into place after all the hassle and I was very glad when that was off my desk

[kosso_olli]

Well, the result is great! But I can imagine it took more work than usual...

[fixeighted]

Thanks. It has errors but I was fed up with it by the end and called it finished. Probably lost money on it but at least got it done. I refuse to be beaten