The "What Are You Working On?" Thread

[Amir Vodokotlic]

@A3DR

are you using some addon program to match like fSPy.

or is there some plugin for 3ds max that calculates correct camera angle from photo.

 

[garyjpaterson]

@A3DR

are you using some addon program to match like fSPy.

or is there some plugin for 3ds max that calculates correct camera angle from photo.

3ds has a utility, its really easy to use

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/supp...2C52CD7A-8FBF-4135-B677-2B49D21BC868-htm.html

 

[A3DR]

@A3DR

are you using some addon program to match like fSPy.

or is there some plugin for 3ds max that calculates correct camera angle from photo.

3ds has a utility, its really easy to use

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/supp...2C52CD7A-8FBF-4135-B677-2B49D21BC868-htm.html

Neither, I place the picture as background on a perspective viewport, adjust the view to match it as close as possible, and then create a camera from that view for the final adjusments.

 

[stingray_SIX_TWO]

Like I've mentioned before, I wasn't 100% sure of the shape for the huge rear wing, so here's an example of how camera matching helps to fix these kind of issues

The vents and side fins needed a bit of adjustment, as you can see the vents extended further back
View attachment 328370

This is the result after some tweaks:
View attachment 328369

Most of it lines up so now I can say I'm happy with it. Side view looks better too (still no UV or AO)
View attachment 328371

So I guess that's done and ready to move on to the rest of the body
View attachment 328372

Good God. 993 turbo - nuff said.

That matching on the rear spoiler is very well done especially with so many straight lines to get aligned.

 

[stingray_SIX_TWO]

@A3DR

are you using some addon program to match like fSPy.

or is there some plugin for 3ds max that calculates correct camera angle from photo.

The trick is estimating the camera focal length.

A3DRs approach works well as long as you mange to position your geometry on top of your picture and then add a camera to the current viewport view. Depending on the program and default camera settings it might then distort the position ever so slightly.

In most cases using blender if you do not have any info on the camera and focal length used for your reference image the best way for me is to add a camera into the position you think the real camera was when taking the picture and go from there.

It gets more difficult the closer and more perspective-ish the referemce image is. At the end its lots of trial and error and knowing you'll never fully align it to 100% even if your model is accurate. That 993 turbo spoiler shot is close to 100%.

 

[Amir Vodokotlic]

The trick is estimating the camera focal length.

A3DRs approach works well as long as you mange to position your geometry on top of your picture and then add a camera to the current viewport view. Depending on the program and default camera settings it might then distort the position ever so slightly.

In most cases using blender if you do not have any info on the camera and focal length used for your reference image the best way for me is to add a camera into the position you think the real camera was when taking the picture and go from there.

It gets more difficult the closer and more perspective-ish the referemce image is. At the end its lots of trial and error and knowing you'll never fully align it to 100% even if your model is accurate. That 993 turbo spoiler shot is close to 100%.

I was thinking they were using something like this.
It can produce very precise results.
But good knowledge from all 3 of you.
Thanks.

 

[Stereo]

Unfortunately that kinda tool depends on parallel straight lines so it doesn't apply to majority of cars, you have to sorta freehand things into place.

 

[Ghoults]

I think it helps massively if the image comes with exif info so you can use the lens value to set up your camera. Although sometimes this doesn't line up either. I have no interest in photography or cameras so I don't know much about them but I'd imagine the lenses have some electronics in them so the camera knows what are the actual parameters of the objectives. Sometimes this doesn't seem to happen though and the exif lens info is flatout wrong.

But if you get your lens info from the exif after that it is maybe 5-15 minutes to get the image to line up if you have good quality photos. In blender you can lock your view to the camera and use the 3d cursor to rotate the view around any part of the car using the transform tools (move, scale, rotate). If your camera has really low or high focal length (don't remember which) the camera movement in blender becomes super jerky and annoying tho (adjustable dpi in your mouse is only counter attack for this I think). Any images which are cropped from larger images are pretty much useless especially if they are cropped off center.

But even then I've found that it is sort of moving target as you keep refining your model you may need to tweak the cameras as you go. The more you have great photos the better but cars are pretty complex shapes and the reflective surfaces can sometimes really make things look totally different than what is really there. Sometimes it helps if you uvmap the car and take a real world livery which has certain style of stripe and see if you can create the same kind of stripe on your car. Does it go from front fender to rear fender over certain parts or not for example. It doesn't even need a good uvmap if you know how to draw lines with texture painting for example.

 

[Stereo]

EXIF data's usually got the nearest millimetre of focal length, it's fine for long shots (200mm) but at the short range (10-15 like every iphone with a 6mm sensor) it's a pretty big margin of error.

Usually the EXIF data doesn't contain the camera's sensor size so you either use the 35mm equivalent (if it lists it) or google camera info to find out. In Blender I leave my cameras set to 16:9 (cause it takes this from the render settings and has the same one on every camera), set images to 'fit' and use vertical sensor size.

 

[stingray_SIX_TWO]

EXIF data's usually got the nearest millimetre of focal length, it's fine for long shots (200mm) but at the short range (10-15 like every iphone with a 6mm sensor) it's a pretty big margin of error.

Usually the EXIF data doesn't contain the camera's sensor size so you either use the 35mm equivalent (if it lists it) or google camera info to find out. In Blender I leave my cameras set to 16:9 (cause it takes this from the render settings and has the same one on every camera), set images to 'fit' and use vertical sensor size.

True, though I've always had the easiest time with aligning iphone photos .

 

[Pessio]

Yesterday was a sad day. I tried all day to use photomatching, but, as my car was created without, everything, in all perspectives but sides, was slightly off. I even thought of closing the project, then i stopped using matching and fixed all the fixable by hand, looking at a good amount of photos. The result isn't and never be perfect matching sadly, still is really really better than 1st and 2nd versions. At least all the curves are in place and now is looking as a proper Pantera. Another lesson for the next time Pessio!

 

[Ryno917]

Lessons learned all always valuable. For the Pantera, even if it's not mm accurate it still looks damn fine and I can't wait to thrash it around. Absolutely adore this beauty.

 

[A3DR]

Yesterday was a sad day. I tried all day to use photomatching, but, as my car was created without, everything, in all perspectives but sides, was slightly off. I even thought of closing the project, then i stopped using matching and fixed all the fixable by hand, looking at a good amount of photos. The result isn't and never be perfect matching sadly, still is really really better than 1st and 2nd versions. At least all the curves are in place and now is looking as a proper Pantera. Another lesson for the next time Pessio!
View attachment 328590 View attachment 328589

Still looks great, but the best part is to learn something new and improve your skills, so it's a win-win situation anyway (you learned something, we get to drive this beauty!)

Been busy too. Who said euro spec?

I think I'm missing a small orange blinker on the sides, and last need to add the small rear window spoiler with the third brake light and rear wiper.

 

[aphidgod]

Is it bad that I accidentally made a tuned version?

 

[Dave_6]

So sexy. One of my favorite looking Porsches of all time!

 

[movo.]

Is it bad that I accidentally made a tuned version?

Turbo S?

 

[aphidgod]

Turbo S?

No, a custom build... which, turns out, is pretty close to the SE30 Jota's pace.

 

[Incar956]

No, a custom build... which, turns out, is pretty close to the SE30 Jota's pace.

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match798-6771-4026-2100-2101.htm

Note: 1st 993 Turbo had 408bhp, 2nd 430, 3rd 450

Hmm... wonder which 993 you did?

p.s

 

[stingray_SIX_TWO]

No, a custom build... which, turns out, is pretty close to the SE30 Jota's pace.

There's also at least 25% of all turbo/turbo S were delivered with 'WLS' so the factory tuning option which increases power anywhere from 15hp - over 100hp so most RL models may actually have a wide spread of power between 400-600hp.

 

[stingray_SIX_TWO]

O M G

View attachment 328724

I think I'm missing a small orange blinker on the sides, and last need to add the small rear window spoiler with the third brake light and rear wiper.

Funny fact that little blinker:

Was always orange from factory even though front and rear were all white/red. Never understood that choice.