Viewer for depthmaps

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by P_T »

Ah... Having dealth with this kind of map frequently, I sort of take the result for granted I guess. Even before rendering I could already tell roughly how it's going to look.

You're right, you'd have to be a stacking algorithm connoisseur to appreciate that. I just thought there's too much visual noise in that render to discern anything useful.
In computer animations, it's common to construct a smooth depthmap and then paint some detail on it. This greatly simplifies the process of constructing the model, it makes the animation run a lot faster, and it often looks pretty good. But all that just makes an expedient approximation, not an accurate depthmap.
I'm not sure what you mean by constructing a smooth depthmap and painting details on it and I'm afraid it's not common at all.

Depthmap is also rarely used in animation except when the depthmap is created procedurally and often for a very basic animation such as faking the moving surface of the sea where it is much faster than true simulation and still looks good.

Apart from engineering, architectural and medicinal visualisation, accuracy isn't really sought after in 3D, and where accuracy is a must, depthmap isn't really the first thing that comes to mind since it's still only an approximation created by a software as well as being 2D.

Funny enough, in 3D depthmap is often used only as a render pass to fake DoF in image editing software like Photoshop.

Well, anytime you want to check the accuracy of a depthmap, feel free to PM me. :D

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23603
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

P_T wrote:
In computer animations, it's common to construct a smooth depthmap and then paint some detail on it. This greatly simplifies the process of constructing the model, it makes the animation run a lot faster, and it often looks pretty good. But all that just makes an expedient approximation, not an accurate depthmap.
I'm not sure what you mean by constructing a smooth depthmap and painting details on it and I'm afraid it's not common at all.
It's true, I stretched the term "depthmap". I should have said simply "surface".

What I was really thinking of are processes like "texture mapping" in OpenGL, which paints complex patterns of color & brightness onto surfaces that are geometrically smooth. These processes are extremely common, so much so that modern graphics cards come equipped with hardware and firmware to do them for complex scenes at video refresh rates. It's one of the reasons that 3D video games look so good these days.

--Rik

P_T
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by P_T »

rjlittlefield wrote:It's true, I stretched the term "depthmap". I should have said simply "surface".

What I was really thinking of are processes like "texture mapping" in OpenGL, which paints complex patterns of color & brightness onto surfaces that are geometrically smooth. These processes are extremely common, so much so that modern graphics cards come equipped with hardware and firmware to do them for complex scenes at video refresh rates. It's one of the reasons that 3D video games look so good these days.

--Rik
Aah... now I get you. Well... it's not just a common process, it's an integral part of a complete 3D workflow.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic