[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

[Advertise on 4chan]

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

File: DSLR-Camera-Lenses.jpg (60 KB, 400x223)
60 KB
Who here rolls their own textures from photos?

What gear are you using. What tips can you share?

I've made my own textures from interesting surfaces I've spotted in my day to day travels that I captured with my cellphone camera, which is okay for background stuff and other non-important assets but the limitations really show up on primary focus assets. I've bought a DSLR to be able to capture better, higher resolution images but I'm wondering what lenses I should invest in. What's the best focal length for capturing images to use as tiled texture maps?
/p/ can probably give you more help

Yeah but they're more photo art fags and not /3/ art fags. Street/landscape photography is pretty different I would think from photography that focuses solely on producing texture maps.
Yeah but I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find someone here that doesn't either paint textures, uses free ones or just uses their phone.

I don't know much about cameras but maybe you would want a macro lens if you want to get something very close or detailed. But like I said I'm not really sure
I've done this sort of thing before.
Used to be kind of a /p/ fag. Now I'm more of a /3/ /gd/ and /wg/ kind of guy.

It kind of depends on what you want to use it on. When I went out looking for things, I usually had in mind what I'd use it with and what resolution it would be at.

Something that has a lot of fine detail you can just move a bit closer. Macro lenses have a very short focal length, and they might blur out a lot of the information that's not directly in front of the camera.
If I need something that's I wont have super detailed, like a brick wall, I try to stand a good bit away.

It doesn't really matter about focal length, more image size.
Save in raw format so you can keep all that extra information to use in 3d. A lot of information is stored in that format, more light and color. It's just a direct output of the camera sensor, rather than compressed into a jpg.
I haven't tried it, but I think you can make hdri images from just the raw files. Might want to look into it.

Far as lenses go, maybe just a regular 35mm could do pretty well.
Telephoto lenses won't do you much good if you're just going to walk closer.
And something like a 50mm is alright, but it's better for portraits.

Hopefully this helps out.
File: image_789.jpg (125 KB, 900x450)
125 KB
125 KB JPG
>that I captured with my cellphone camera

That sounds like a good idea. Call phone cameras have come far, right?
You can make tileable maps in MINUTES in a program like bitmap2material that spots out albedo, normal, metall and roughness with sliders to remove lighting info, randomize the tiling etc.
I may try that myself actually. ..

I invested in a DSLR only to realize I like being a loner introvert. But I fell in love with creating her panoramas for image based lighting.
HDR panoramas*
THIS THREAD is exactly what i was looking for.

What Lenses do you guys use ?

Most importantly, anyone have any work to post with textures or Hdri's done by yourselves ?

Don't worry about it. Shoot lowest ISO possible and in RAW format, in flat angles and with flat light. That's pretty much it.

Regarding the lens angle, the longer the better. It's not that important really, but wide lenses distort the image. Default lenses usually give you 118 I think, wich is fine.
A 50mm on a full frame camera would do the job. I would avoid using a wide angle lens, as they tend to have a bit more distortion.
Get a camera with enough dynamic range. Get a sharp semi-wide lens. Shoot RAW. Bump up shadows, lower highlights. Don't sharpen and denoise too much. Monopods help. Shoot when it's cloudy and there are no harsh shadows.

I'm using OM-D E-M10 mark II with Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. It works pretty good. The IBIS is a great help.

All in all, shooting your own textures is pretty pointless as there is so much free stuff out there. I also do photogrammetry and HRDI spherical panoramas, which are much more limited what is available for free.

Using photogrammetry to extract heightmap from the texture, and then creating normals from that, is an interesting approach that I'm going to try next after I'm finished with the current project.
So what's your process for the HDR panoramas? Tripod with panorama attachment and a camera with a 180 degree fisheye lens? How do you shoot nadir?

There's specific camera rigs for shooting spherical environments, but you can do it handheld as well if you can't afford a rig. A wide-angle lens would be best, but you can make do with less, just need to take more photos.
I have a rig and a 180 fisheye. I'm just wondering what you do to get a clean nadir.

I guess one of the main things is to be quick, especially outdoors. Changes in lighting can already ruin your image if your shots don't match up anymore.

Read this as well:
I am
Both my PC and laptop were busted for a week, so I could not reply sooner.

I have a $300 samyang 180 fisheye (cheap compared to other 180 degree fisheyes)

This is what I use for Nadir and zenith shots:

Setup camera on tripod with panoramic head (Oh yeah, you NEED that too, if you want full 360 panos)
Camera is set up in portrait orientation
Find good middle exposure
Set camera up for -2/0/+2 exposures (my Nikon camera can only shoot brackets up to 3 max. Really wish I knew that, but I didn't even know I would be getting into HDR photography AT ALL :(
Shoot 360 shots
Shoot zenith shot
Shoot Nadir
Import and stitch in PTGUI pro version, which also stitches the backeted shots an exports a realistc HDR file (it doesn't look post processed to hell)
Remove dust spots, lens flares, and do little touch ups in photoshop

Oh, and you have to mask out the legs of the tripod in PTGUI. Once you get the hang of it, not a long process.
>not a long process.
I should add it's not long, but it is expensive.
You can't pirate hardware.

>Fisheye lens
>Pano head
>Nadir Adapter
>Normal lens for back plates (oh yeah, for compositing into background images/video)
>Case/Bag to carry everything
>sensor cleaning kit
>You can't pirate hardware.

You wouldn't download a car.

For textures if you have a 35mm DSLR would a lens with a 35mm focal point be the best for making tileable textures since I'd imagine you'd get a 1:1 representation with no lens curvature.
File: cross-polar.jpg (371 KB, 969x1200)
371 KB
371 KB JPG
>Telephoto lenses won't do you much good if you're just going to walk closer.

There are a few reasons why you would want to use a tele.
Depending on the type of surface you intend to shoot, the more reflective it is, the easier it is to control the reflections with a long lens. The angle of view of the lens continues to extend in reflection space, so if say you take a pic of sheet metal with a wide lens up close, more objects behind you will show up in the reflection than a tele.
If the surface has a lot of depth relief, then details near the edges may appear to bow outwards, since with a wide-angle you're looking at them at an increasing angle as you approach the edge of the frame. This may make it difficult to cleanly make the texture seamless.
Telephoto lenses are also generally sharper edge-to-edge, and tend to lack field curvature, which may make flat surfaces appear out of focus, even if the lens is technically sharp in the corners. If distance-to-subject is not a problem, you should always use a long lens where possible.

Also, here's a trick some of you may find useful, if using artificial lighting: it's possible to eliminate most reflections from a subject and retain only diffuse color by using a technique called cross-polarization.
You do it by putting a polarizing filter on the lens, and also one on each light source, such as a flash, making sure they are all oriented in the same phase. This eats up a lot of light, but the lights can be positioned almost directly in front of the subject and it won't give reflections.
Pic related is a quick photo I took to illustrate. The face-side appears practically flat with this method, but there is a limit to the angle at which this works (especially when it comes to metal), so there are still white reflections going down the far left and right side. For objects that are already mostly flat, this isn't an issue.
File: marfa.jpg (479 KB, 1026x797)
479 KB
479 KB JPG
Oh man that's neat. Going to try it later. I guess it requires either a tripod and a non-moving subject or some really expensive camera gear?
File: 20160703_162324.jpg (3.2 MB, 2048x2048)
3.2 MB
3.2 MB JPG
just use your fucking smartphone...
Look at this: This is a perfectly usable texture.
why is there a person getting tentacled on that wood?
Not that guy,
but all it'd need is a polarizing filter on the camera and light source at the same angle.
Like, you turn the filter till they match up and make the reflections fuck off.
Flashes are fucking bright, so you'd theoretically be able to get away with non static objects provided you're close enough.
If anything you can hand hold the camera.
Yeah, if I want the reflections b-gone, I can use cross polarization. I was just wondering how I can extract the specular layer, which would be really neat, as the non-reflective picture is basically the diffuse.
i think you'd take a photo with soft diffused light, and one with hard light, and subtract them in photoshop after matching exposure.
oh no i just tried something, you do that polarizer and subtract the polarized no reflection one from the reflection one. literally just the blending mode subtract. or difference.

should have pieced it together from context since i did read the conversation, i'm just spent.
File: DSC_8998.jpg (447 KB, 1500x500)
447 KB
447 KB JPG
haha that's neat
File: maxresdefault.jpg (71 KB, 1280x720)
71 KB
It requires only a polarizing gel on the camera and flash, that's it, but I see you've already figured it out

You lose some 2.5+ stops of light from the filters, however flash still fires off instantly, so you still have stopping ability for moving subjects. The problem is having a flash powerful enough for larger subjects/distances. In my example I used 500W studio strobes, and that is barely enough for big objects, I really wish I had sprung for 1000W units now.

The filters I use are Rosco-brand sheets from B&H, getting them in large sizes lets you place them over light sources of nearly any size. It's important the the polarizing filter goes last over any modifiers like softboxes, because once light starts bouncing around it changes polarization.

Dang, I forgot to write about the specular map trick earlier even though I had done it myself later that day, but yes, you just subtract and get a perfect specular map to use.
Wonder when I can download an app for this. Doesn't look half bad. https://mediatech.aalto.fi/publications/graphics/TwoShotSVBRDF/
Doesn't seem to be one. Found a conversation with one of the developers back in 2010, said he'd been working on making a user interface for it but since it's such an involved and complicated process it's been two years and he hasn't finished it.

Very unfortunate.
>For textures if you have a 35mm DSLR would a lens with a 35mm focal point be the best for making tileable textures since I'd imagine you'd get a 1:1 representation with no lens curvature.

Why not just use cg textures? Or google?
There are many programs and photoshop filters/plugins to flatten lighting and make them tile.

I use a combination of bitmap2material and photoshop.

Doesn't seem worth it to go out and shoot and post process my own textures. And substance designer is fantastic at making metal textures from scratch.
someone has to take those photos my man
the shorter the focal length the more distortion there tends to be, really depends on the lens. you ever see fujifilm's latest wide-angles without the embedded software correction? it's super embarrassing. higher focal lengths will flatten it out more in terms of fisheye / barrel and also perspective distortion since you'll have to back up to use it and fill the frame.
Makes sense if you work for a texturing company, or have your own texturing site and are trying to make money, but as a 3D artist with a DSLR, I just go to cgtextures, google, whatever.
because most of the time a smart phone pales in comparison to a professional camera, especially in most applications, so the advantages far outweigh the use of a smart phone, and that's not limited to image quality and utility.

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.