I am pleased to report that I consider CR better than Photoscan.
However, I had to evaluate on someone else’s PC as CR does not run on a Mac under Windows since there is no Nvidia card
There are 3 things that could make it better for me:
- The UV space is wasted and suspect that it is much poorer than PhotoScan and I doubt that it could be painted on using Mudbox.
- A Close holes ability
- A Solid view
My work flow in PS creates a dense model and then moving unwanted points.
I can’t do this in CR since you cannot remove points once the model is created.
Otherwise its just great!
Well Done.
Hi Mark ruff
-
The UV space is wasted and suspect that it is much poorer than PhotoScan and I doubt that it could be painted on using Mudbox.
mean for same txtr resolution ? try play with the GUTTER in UNWRAP tool ??
best are custom UVs and import back and get textures on it…
-
A Close holes ability
yup not there now…
-
A Solid view
yup its planed feature
My work flow in PS creates a dense model and then moving unwanted points.
its because we not use pointclouds for model creation…
I can’t do this in CR since you cannot remove points once the model is created.
Hi Mark
I also suspect that the default texture size was much larger than the texture detail created which is why half of the image was empty. Found the texture map settings after we tested your images. 