No video
3DF Zephyr VS Agisoft Metashape - INTRICATE Scans
This is my approach on a more difficult object to be scanned, a plant. I was going to do a video on this but then i wondered if i was going with 3DF Zephyr or Agisoft Metashape.. so i've used both and tried to make a small comparison between both of them.
Equipment used to capture this:
Canon 77D
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8
2x Yongnuo Air 300 Lights
1x Godox 60w
Software used:
Lightroom
3DF Zephyr
Agisoft Metashape
Meshmixer
Thank you for your time, hope you liked this ;)
#photogrammetry #3dcomparison #3dscanning
Пікірлер: 20
Good video! On this object I like the crispier result from metashape.
@CarlosFaustino
3 жыл бұрын
thank you for your reply, yes... it looks nice no doubt :D
To me will always be 3D Zephyr because it faster than Metashape and it has built in masking tool (you do not need other software for masking).
@CarlosFaustino
3 жыл бұрын
Those are good points as well :)
@Cloakfiend
2 жыл бұрын
I think metashape gives better results and far sharper. But for ease of use and speed and the lovely masking tool i now only use zephyr. I touch up my scans anyway so prefer the low poly exports anyways! I get great results with even 35 photos. I find too many photos isnt always a bonus.
Hi, i watched a few videos of you also the one where you compare to meshroom which did not work at all, and i wanted to point you to getting rid of the turntable for making the Imagesets. Those Softwares also rely on things in the background to reference to which they simply cannot do on a turntable, give it a try you will get better results.
@CarlosFaustino
2 жыл бұрын
Well, since most of my turntable objects are masked out, then the software only relies on the object itself. And that has some disadvantages of course but also gets you amazing results... Check my cgtrader profile, 80+ objects done with turntable 😉
I love 3df Zephyr free edition....so much
Which do you feel had a better “process” and flow despite the output quality?
@CarlosFaustino
3 жыл бұрын
It was almost the same... The parameters and the process itself are very identical on both. Honestly one little thing that i like in zephyr over Metashape is the ability of easily control the orientation of the object using a ground plane as reference which i dont have on Metashape (for what i know at least) then its just a matter of personal option 😊
Why process the RAW files? I use Zephyr, and I throw the RAW files directly into it. It always comes out nice, even if the RAW files look very dark (because I generally expose for highlights). Normally, the more data the better.
Nice comparison!
@CarlosFaustino
2 жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it
Nice comparison.
@CarlosFaustino
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you ☺️
But which one was faster? :)
You don't need make dense cloud in Metashape
@CarlosFaustino
2 жыл бұрын
yeah, it was discussed on my other video 😉
Привет. могу я поставить контрольные точки на плохих фото в 3DF Zephyr, чтобы они включились в модель?
@gidpo...guideto...
3 жыл бұрын
в Agisoft Metashape это я могу сделать, когда программа не понимает расположение некоторых фото. Ставлю контрольные точки и все получается хорошо!