A question about 3D printers

[Packard]

Occasionally, I read about a wax museum commissioning a likeness that is so “off” that everyone complains.

Could a 3D printer be used instead?  Can it work from a photo?
https://people.com/celebrity/bad-celeb-statues-photos/

This one is particularly bad and I cannot pin the “badness” on any one aspect.  It just looks “wrong”.

 

[woodferret]

With the crop of 3D scanners, there's no reason you can't get close to 100% fidelity.  The only reason left is legal Right of Publicity.

The litmus for most statues is (a) you can be clearly recognized as the subject shown in the work.

Imposters can get away with it, because they're clearly 'imposters'.  I guess the same test goes for wax museums.  If you get to 100%, you're playing with fire.

 

[bobtskutter]

Can a 3D printer work from a photo?  No.

You need a 3D model drawn in CAD software.  3D printers use G-code, just like a CNC router.

If you can convert a photo into a 3D model you can print it.

Regards
Bob

 

[Packard]

With the crop of 3D scanners, there's no reason you can't get close to 100% fidelity.  The only reason left is legal Right of Publicity.

The litmus for most statues is (a) you can be clearly recognized as the subject shown in the work.

Imposters can get away with it, because they're clearly 'imposters'.  I guess the same test goes for wax museums.  If you get to 100%, you're playing with fire.

Which reminds me of my “invention” to thwart paparazzi.  The celebrity would wear a “necklace” which incorporated 3 or 4 low power strobes hooked up to a “slave” that would trigger the strobes when hit with the light from another flash. 

It would not take much lighting power to completely wash out the celebrity’s facial features rendering the image as worthless. The capacitors and batteries could be external and worn in a pocketbook or on a belt and tied to the strobes with a thin wire.

It would only work at night though.  So not complete protection from paparazzi.

 

[bruegf]

Can a 3D printer work from a photo?  No.
Regards
Bob

I worked on a project that took two (shifted 90 degrees) 2D xrays of a person's knee joint and converted them into a 3D cad model.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

Can a 3D printer work from a photo?  No.
Regards
Bob

I worked on a project that took two (shifted 90 degrees) 2D xrays of a person's knee joint and converted them into a 3D cad model.

I would guess that works because they start with a "known average" and just modify it to your particular  differences. Knees can't really be that different can they?

 

[woodferret]

Photogrammetry

 

[Joelm]

Photogrammetry

+1

Years ago I assisted someone set up a photogrammetry rig for a AAA video game. It was something like 20 cameras in a hemisphere that simultaneously took a photo of the subject.  The results were amazing, like down to individual hair follicles on a human face. It was a fun experience.

However it was tens of thousands of dollars to set up and needed a large empty studio space with absolute control of lighting.

Then the 3d printer needs to able to achieve the resolution needed for realistic prints. I got to play with large SLS printers that again cost tens of thousands of dollars. They also required the space and support staff to maintain them. They could print a model the size of a human head.

SLA 3d printers produce beautiful prints but the bed size is usually too small for a head. You'd have to split the model into parts before you print and glue them together after. Something like the Formlabs Form 3 would work here.

I bought a few FFF 3d printers years ago to do bronze casts of my 3d models. They again had small beds but could produce nice detail. However you do loose the fine texture you get with SLS or SLA printers.

All that said, it can be very expensive to do proper photogrammetry. It would be easier and cheaper to get a good 3d character artist that specializes in photorealism to sculpt a likeness. Check out www.zbrushcentral.com for examples of what a good 3d artist can produce.  (Definitely not all the artists there are at the same level).

From there you can find services that do have the big expensive 3d printers and the expertise to get the most out of them.

All of this is from my experience which is about 10 years out of date. Things may have gotten better since I worked in that field but it looks like it is incremental since around 2015.

 

[Packard]

“Tens of thousands of dollars” is a lot of money.  But in the world of life-size wax figures, an absolute bargain.

I just googled the cost and the range given is “between $150,000.00 and $300,000.00”. [That is U.S. Dollars.]
https://wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-are-wax-figures-made#:~:text=If%20you're%20going%20to,you'll%20need%2C%20though.

 

[woodferret]

10 years has been a long time

Einscan Pro HD is about $8k.  Goes down to 0.2mm point distance.

 

[bobtskutter]

A 3d printer doesn't work from a photo, it works from a file which contains G-Code.

You can use a photo (or lots of photos) to create a model and then convert that model into G-Code, but the 3D printer itself is just a robot that follows the tool path in the G-Code file.

Regards
Bob

 

[Joelm]

Yep 10 short years. Before leaving I was heavily into 3d printing and scanning at work. I would attend any 3d printing shows on the west coast. I had built relationships with other groups at work including our 3d prototyping shop, the 3d printing lab and photogrammetry studio. The shop had the really expensive machines for hardware prototypes and the lab had every available 3d printer on the market at the time.

On top of the 3d printer itself, you would also need the cleaning station, proper ventilation in your space and then the material itself isn't cheap. A full sized head would cost over $1000 for just the material. Then you also need the computers and software to run it. We went through this with our group and the cost benefit didn't add up once you factor in all costs. Much cheaper to find a service.

The Einscan definitely looks nice. However, for this application a handheld scanner would not be as useful as photogrammetry. Subjects shift and move (you can't help it) so a handheld scanner is better for scanning objects. Photogrammetry on the other hand captures all of the data at once. So if someone blinks a second after you hit the button, you don't catch that. But if they blink while you scan with a handheld device it will mess up.

Anyway, in this case I doubt you'd want to use photogrammetry anyway. That would mean involving the subject. EI reaching out, getting permission, scheduling a time, paying for said time and I'm sure a fee for their likeness.

If you get an artist to produce a sculpture, be it digital or in clay, then it is a work of art and you don't have to pay a licensing fee.

 

[woodwise]

With the advancements in AI, there are now services that take a single image and create a 3d model in the likeness. I have seen a couple of statues that looked very similar to the original. Clearly there are lots of assumptions made during the creation of the model and they are not in any way dimensionally identical to the original.
For those of you who have access to a Bambu Labs 3d printer, or an account on Makerworld they have included a feature to create a file from a single image.

Here are a few examples of other hosted applications:https://hyper3d.ai/chatavatarhttps://www.3daistudio.com/https://www.meshy.ai

 

[Joelm]

That is pretty cool stuff woodwise!

As of right now, AI generated models fall into the Uncanny Valley which is what the original problem Packard had with the wax models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Basic idea. The closer to a human something appears, the more creepy they look to us. Unless is it absolutely spot on, something that is close will look wrong to our brains as humans are experts in recognizing faces.

One thing I notice in the original example from Packard is how smooth the wax statue is. Years ago I bought some lifecasts of some famous actors to see what the details of human skin (especially on faces) look like. Here is a photo showing just how textured a real face is. Can anyone guess who it is?

[attachimg=2]

Another thought on AI generated 3d models. Using for home use is one thing. Commercial use could land someone in legal trouble. One of the examples on your links looks like "Groot" from guardians of the galaxy. I'm pretty sure Disney would not be too happy with AI generating a likeness of one of their properties if you tried to sell it.

 

[smorgasbord]

BTW, on the subject of 3D printers, is anyone following the Bambu Labs mis-steps?
I was planning on getting a 3D printer this year, and kinda waiting for their new one coming out in Feb/Mar, but now I have to reset what I'm likely to buy.

 

[woodferret]

There's some hilarity with Bamboo Connect but aside from having the same private key in the app for all, the hoopla is overblown.  I'll give them the allowance that beta Bamboo Connect still doesn't have the proper backend in place hence the shared key usage for testing.  Having a separate app to do auth and key grab is the right way to go about it.  As for the over-reaction, it's the internet.  The MQTT lockdown is required if you're doing enterprise... which I'm surprised (but also not) that X1E got this far.