CG-Source 3D Models.

[suurland]

Hi guys,

I've just added 3D models to CG-Source.com

They are all photoscanned so there is no lack of details.

There is much more on the website, Home Decor models here And Food here









Hope you like them!

/Thomas

[Syclone1]

Hey Thomas, its been a long time
great work on the models!

[Dariusz Makowski (Dadal)]

Cool ! Nice one! :- )

[ior=0]

That is some stunning work right there, I love the way the bottom of the bread is just as good as the top, awesome ATD!!
If you don't mind me asking what is the scanning equipment are you using, I'm guessing it isn't 123D Catch anymore?
Meshes do look pretty dense, not that is a big issue nowadays - for that level of detail. Did you have to do a lot of decimation and manual optimization?
UV mapping looks flawless!!

[Neilg]

I'd put money on it being agisoft photoscan. nice results!

[glorybound]

Yes, pretty awesome!

[tricky]

I expect to see a lot of close-up bread in renders from this point forward. The models make me hungry.

[suurland]

NeilG Wins!! Shame you forgot to say how much money you put up.

"Did you have to do a lot of decimation and manual optimization? UV mapping looks flawless!! "

Yes the model is decimated, else it's millions of faces!

There is a tons of optimization, when then model comes out of photoscan there is actually hundreds of small errors that I've wrote a scripts to fix, and several errors that require fixing by hand, also the UV's are remade as the ones from Photoscan is pretty bad. (Autodesk PLEASE make the uvw editor faster with highpoly objects, it comes to a crawl with 300k faces) And the textures also has tons of errors as it's impossible to have every little nooks and cranny covered by the photos, so that needs to be painted away afterwards.. so several hours of work for every single object.

[Neilg]

NeilG Wins!! Shame you forgot to say how much money you put up.

all of it..? i'll take what I can get.

photoscans auto uv layout is awful, i've had it spit out uv maps where it cant have been using more than 10% of available space. if you could edit them I could have spent 5 minutes pushing them closer by hand and got way more resolution out of it.
I've been looking at headus (https://www.uvlayout.com/) - want to try using that to unwrap the decimated version and re-project the diffuse/normals/displace back onto it but haven't had the time to test.

[AJ Jefferies]

Fantastic models Thomas. Did you use a static camera and a turntable or multiple cameras?

[cecofuli]

Amazing! Can I suggest you to offer a quad retopologized mesh? You can use tool like, for example, Qremesh (Zbrush)

[suurland]

Amazing! Can I suggest you to offer a quad retopologized mesh? You can use tool like, for example, Qremesh (Zbrush)

I have been testing that, but when you do a lower poly version with a normal map the quality does drop, especially the edges of the object, and I really try my hardest to only put out the highest possible quality. But you do get a model that look just as good from a distance, but you only save some polys and you add highres normal maps so I'm not really sure a lot is saved. Only simpler objects like the boxes a lower poly version will work just fine though.

Also making the low poly mesh, unwrapping it, baking the texture and normal map, doing and alternative version, maybe some renderings to showcase it for the site all takes time and I'm not sure it economical feasible to add a lower poly version for all the models.

A friend said I should spend my time making more models and not do several versions of the same thing, especially since more polys isn't really a problem these days, it might make your max file bigger and take a little extra ram, but maybe a normal maps takes even more ram.

/Thomas

[suurland]

Fantastic models Thomas. Did you use a static camera and a turntable or multiple cameras?

Just one camera, and a motorized turntable.

[jacksc02]

Very nice Thomas!
More food items please e.g - Salads and other organic items