Mocha 3.0 3D tracker a pain in the A--

Hi all,
I tried doing 3d tracking with 3 different types of footage, and all three failed.
My last attempt was using the video from hollywood camera works. (markers on the lawn)
I tracked the barn on the right, the house window, and the grass. I even tracked the 2 markers that go by in the foreground…
I get all kinds of errors. “layer 1 & 3 can’t be used” or the solve takes about 20 minis.Then when I finally get a solve, when I click EXPORT CAMERA DATA and use the Nuke 6.37 fbx, I get an error as I press SAVE. “No 3dCamera data was created” or something like that.
I find it hard to believe that I am the only one with this issue.
Am I ?
Thanks,
Lou

—Quote (Originally by lou4uandme)—

I found that using “AUTO” made the solve EXTREMELY slow. Also when it finished, it gave a small Percentage in sucess.

:slight_smile:
—End Quote—
I’d rather agree with that, as far as I’ve experienced the same…

—Quote (Originally by lou4uandme)—

I found that using “AUTO” made the solve EXTREMELY slow. Also when it finished, it gave a small Percentage in sucess.


:slight_smile:
—End Quote—
I’d rather agree with that, as far as I’ve experienced the same…

wow,you even got a 99 % solve out of it too?
Maybe it was the barn on the right and the 2 markers that was too much to solve

I guess I was thinking that the more Info I give mocha, the better the camera solve.

Never thought of trying “Less”

In fact, Because of the ERROR, I was thinking, maybe mocha needed even more than what i started out with.

Ok, Ill give it another shot.

One final note, though I think this should be in another Post
Please check Top of forum

Thanks for the link!
Very nice…Although (not to be a pain)…but Steve doesn’t show any way to select a point cloud and get any XYZ values from it. You know what I mean…Right? I think the Foundry’s Camera Tracker has the ability to right click on a point cloud and actually attach a Plane to it and get XYZ Data.
So far both tutorials always show the 3D object already in 3D space. It must be a little time consuming to keep pushing around the 3D object to line up with the point cloud, No?
Oh well, I guess thanks what 3.1 will be for :slight_smile:

never mind…ineeded to update nuke from 6.3.4 to 7 for it to work.
but hey, thanks

Wow, you would think someone from Imagineers would be reading the forums.
Is this the same kind of speedy support I can expect when I purchase/upgrade?
I also tried exporting FBX into maya and nothing but the camera shows up.
I was thinking it might have been a problem in Nuke, but I can’t see any data in a 3D app either.
So It has to be on the Mocha 3 side of things.
Can anyone throw some feed back before my trial expires?
At this point I am not exactly jumping for joy at 3.0.
Thanks again,
lou

I’m not too creative with Nuke. I think I tried adding a TRANSFORM GEO node to it but all that did was move it around. I think what i’m look for, is just not available in Mocha.
I mean let’s face it. Mocha just took a Huge jump from a planar tracker to a 3D Camera solver, so i’m sure Imagineers will be improving on it in future Versions.
I guess it’s not the end of the world if I have to manually locate the XYZ coordinates of a point cloud.

Hi Again,
It’s great to read a reply. For a minute there, I though I was the only one on it. :slight_smile:
Thanks for the Info. The “time” I spent waiting to hear from tech sup, was just enough to figure out the problems.
I found that using “AUTO” made the solve EXTREMELY slow. Also when it finished, it gave a small Percentage in sucess. Using PTZ, or others gave me the results I needed.
“go figure” why Auto bogged down the system, I’ll never know.
The 2nd Issue was that none of the point clouds were showing up in Nuke.
I again discovered that I was using nuke 6.3.4 which did NOT show any point cloulds.
Once I upgraded, all worked.
One final note:
I can NOT select any of the point clouds that Mocha made in Nuke.
How can I get an XYZ value without knowing were they are in 3Dspace or to attach a card to them?
I kind of gave up since I didn’t get any replies from ANY forum. I’m not sure what to do there.
And NO mary, I don’t need my trial extended, thank you anyway but I will most likely upgrade anyway. :slight_smile:

Hey Mary,
Did you make Steve Wright create a video just because of me ? :smiley:
Ah,…it’s wishful thinking…anyway thanks for the info, I’ll check it out tonight when I get home.
Thanks,
Lou

Hi Martin,
Yes I do have an example. I used the footage from Hollywood camera works. I think its called 'Marker stick" (the same footage you used for the “remove markers” tutorial)
I tracked the Barn on the right. the house windows in the background , Grass in the foreground and finally, the 2 markers in the close foreground. Ithen used AUTO
. It failed or gave an error
And when I used Large parallax, and (I think) it solved with a 50% rate.
Again, it was my first try at mocha 3.0. So I’m sure I must have been doing something wrong.
It would be interesting to see what results you get. :smiley:

Hi Martin,

Yes I do have an example. I used the footage from Hollywood camera works. I think its called 'Marker stick" (the same footage you used for the “remove markers” tutorial)

I tracked the Barn on the right. the house windows in the background , Grass in the foreground and finally, the 2 markers in the close foreground. Ithen used AUTO
. It failed or gave an error

And when I used Large parallax, and (I think) it solved with a 50% rate.

Again, it was my first try at mocha 3.0. So I’m sure I must have been doing something wrong.

It would be interesting to see what results you get. :smiley:

wow,you even got a 99 % solve out of it too?
Maybe it was the barn on the right and the 2 markers that was too much to solve
I guess I was thinking that the more Info I give mocha, the better the camera solve.
Never thought of trying “Less”
In fact, Because of the ERROR, I was thinking, maybe mocha needed even more than what i started out with.
Ok, Ill give it another shot.
One final note, though I think this should be in another Post
Please check Top of forum

Hi all,
Apologies for the late replies, we’ve all been busy at NAB 2012 this past week.
Lou4uandme, if you’re having trouble with a solve it is normally because the planar tracks have not been solid enough or the solve doesn’t have enough information to work with. If you can send us an example to take a look at we can look over the footage/project and advise.
In general the main rules for a good solve are:

  1. For PTZ at least one good planar track of the camera. If your pan goes further than about 60 degrees, we recommend setting up a new layer to track the rest, which overlaps the previous layer in time by a few frames (the more frames the better)
  2. For small and large parallax, you need at least 2 non-coplanar (ie. not on the same plane) tracks. You may need more than one if you can’t do a full-timeline track on one of the planes. Large parallax shots can do better if you planes are defining the actual parallax (ie. tracking the foreground motion and the background motion independently)
  3. To make sure your planar tracks are solid, it is advisable to turn the grid on, as just watching the shape may not give a good indication of the planar track. A good track will result in a better solve.

Hi Lou,

With that shot, you can do a couple of layers on the ground (it’s a large surface, so spacing out the layers will help the solver) and one for the back wall. I also made a mask to stop the foreground stick cutting into my tracks, but I did not use that as part of the solve.

I used Small Parallax here as there is not much parallax between the ground and the back wall. If I had tracked the foreground sticks, the motion is pretty rapid, so large parallax would work.

Large parallax also does work, but I got better results with Small.

See the attached image as to how I set up my layers.

—Quote (Originally by Lidia)—
I’d rather agree with that, as far as I’ve experienced the same…
—End Quote—
Auto tries to make a best-guess, so it does take longer, as it is trying out different solutions, often based on variable focus. We recommend using Auto when you are not sure of the solve type. Auto will not always guess correctly, so you can get a bad solve.
If you know the type of solve it is, we recommend picking a type instead as it will be faster.
PTZ solves the quickest, and Parallax solves slower due to the amount of extra calculation is has to do to convert the planar data of multiple layers. The more planes you have, the longer it will take.
If you have specific examples you’d like to share we can take a look to help.

—Quote (Originally by Lidia)—
I’d rather agree with that, as far as I’ve experienced the same…
—End Quote—
Auto tries to make a best-guess, so it does take longer, as it is trying out different solutions, often based on variable focus. We recommend using Auto when you are not sure of the solve type. Auto will not always guess correctly, so you can get a bad solve.

If you know the type of solve it is, we recommend picking a type instead as it will be faster.

PTZ solves the quickest, and Parallax solves slower due to the amount of extra calculation is has to do to convert the planar data of multiple layers. The more planes you have, the longer it will take.

If you have specific examples you’d like to share we can take a look to help.

Hi Lou,
With that shot, you can do a couple of layers on the ground (it’s a large surface, so spacing out the layers will help the solver) and one for the back wall. I also made a mask to stop the foreground stick cutting into my tracks, but I did not use that as part of the solve.
I used Small Parallax here as there is not much parallax between the ground and the back wall. If I had tracked the foreground sticks, the motion is pretty rapid, so large parallax would work.
Large parallax also does work, but I got better results with Small.
See the attached image as to how I set up my layers.

Also, if you go through the support channel submission form, your support question tends to get responded to sooner. Just a heads up.
Though if you feel you were wasting time on your demo because most of our staff was at NAB we are more than happy to extend your trial for those missing days.
Also, Ribel, can you send me an email so we can figure out why your v3 is not installing? That’s not normal.
Cheers,
Mary

Wouldn’t that just be some sort of read node in nuke? I’m not super versed in nuke, but it seems to me if you have a point could you should be able to have a node in nuke that gives you that information, or it would be in the menus. I’ll have to do some research, nuke isn’t my first language.
:\