"Real camera Solve VS Mocha Camera Solve"

Thought this needed a new post:
I heard both Mary, Steve,& Martin say " the Solve is not a true 3D Camera tracking Solve"
So What are the major difference between them? Meaning, what should I NOT expect it to do?
For example, In a true 3D solve (ie boujou), the solver would have point clouds all around the scene.
The areas that the artist would want his …or hers… (sorry mary :D) 3Dmodels inserted, he would make sure that there were enough points in that area. (perhaps adding manual markers)
Now Mocha 3.0, seems the same. The Artist would “Track” all the areas that he orr SHE would want 3Dmodels inserted. Mochasolves with apoint cloud or Nulls in “that” area.
So I ask, What’s the main difference? What should I look out for?
Thanks again,
Lou

Hi Mary,
Ok, I think i get it now. (I think)
So, If I were to get a really acurate 3D solve from let’s say, Boujou, then I “should” be able to place a complete 3D model of the entire scene in 3D space. If the camera was accurate, then any where I place a model “should” work. (in the point cloud areas)
Now, with Mocha, You’re saying, it will be accurate ONLY on the surfaces I tracked. And if I were to place an object anywhere outside of those areas, it would most likely drift, etc…
Ah, Ok, I got it now. :smiley:

Thought this needed a new post:
I heard both Mary, Steve,& Martin say " the Solve is not a true 3D Camera tracking Solve"

So What are the major difference between them? Meaning, what should I NOT expect it to do?

For example, In a true 3D solve (ie boujou), the solver would have point clouds all around the scene.

The areas that the artist would want his …or hers… (sorry mary :D) 3Dmodels inserted, he would make sure that there were enough points in that area. (perhaps adding manual markers)

Now Mocha 3.0, seems the same. The Artist would “Track” all the areas that he orr SHE would want 3Dmodels inserted. Mochasolves with apoint cloud or Nulls in “that” area.

So I ask, What’s the main difference? What should I look out for?

Thanks again,
Lou

Hi Mary,
Ok, I think i get it now. (I think)

So, If I were to get a really acurate 3D solve from let’s say, Boujou, then I “should” be able to place a complete 3D model of the entire scene in 3D space. If the camera was accurate, then any where I place a model “should” work. (in the point cloud areas)

Now, with Mocha, You’re saying, it will be accurate ONLY on the surfaces I tracked. And if I were to place an object anywhere outside of those areas, it would most likely drift, etc…

Ah, Ok, I got it now. :smiley:

Yes, I think so. It doesn’t have to be “EXACTLY” on the wall that i would have tracked,it could be near or next to it as well.
Ok, I am getting a better understanding of it. I just need to do some real life examples to get the hang of it.
Are the videos that mocha used in the Demo available to the public to use?

Yes, I think so. It doesn’t have to be “EXACTLY” on the wall that i would have tracked,it could be near or next to it as well.
Ok, I am getting a better understanding of it. I just need to do some real life examples to get the hang of it.

Are the videos that mocha used in the Demo available to the public to use?

Hi Lou,
The difference is that our camera solver solves for the planes you track in mocha and builds a camera based off that. Just like we’re not a point or feature tracker, neither is our camera solver a camera tracker.
Our camera solver doesn’t solve a point cloud (but it will give you nulls that represent the planar surface that you can use as “a point cloud” in programs like nuke even though they just mark where your planar surface is). And it doesn’t solve for “the” camera like a camera tracker does, the ultimate goal being to put objects anywhere in the 3D scene or putting volumetrics in the scene. Our camera solver solves for a camera relative to the planes you have tracked.
With our camera solver, usually less is more. Fine two or three really good NON-co-planar planes to track and then hit solve. You will be able to put a 3d object into the scene relative to one of those planes.
The point being that you usually don’t need a huge camera solve to put a 3D object into a scene, as there are numerous solves you can get with a 3D camera tracker anyway. You just need a reference point and a camera that works for the element you want to drop into the shot.
We’re not trying to replace camera trackers. In fact, for blurry shots or other hard to track shots, mocha can even help camera trackers by putting in new, sharp planar information where bad information used to be. That is if you have a need for THE camera the shot was shot with and want to help your camera tracker.
Things to look out for are just the normal things you need to look out for with our planar tracker, avoid reflections, occlusions, slow moving shadows, etc. And understand that you don’t need tons of data for the solve, you just need to track one good plane for a Pan/Tilt/Zoom camera, and two non-co-planar planes for parallax cameras. As in, you can’t track two shapes on the same wall and expect to get a good parallax solve.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions.
Cheers,
Mary

Hi Lou,

The difference is that our camera solver solves for the planes you track in mocha and builds a camera based off that. Just like we’re not a point or feature tracker, neither is our camera solver a camera tracker.

Our camera solver doesn’t solve a point cloud (but it will give you nulls that represent the planar surface that you can use as “a point cloud” in programs like nuke even though they just mark where your planar surface is). And it doesn’t solve for “the” camera like a camera tracker does, the ultimate goal being to put objects anywhere in the 3D scene or putting volumetrics in the scene. Our camera solver solves for a camera relative to the planes you have tracked.

With our camera solver, usually less is more. Fine two or three really good NON-co-planar planes to track and then hit solve. You will be able to put a 3d object into the scene relative to one of those planes.

The point being that you usually don’t need a huge camera solve to put a 3D object into a scene, as there are numerous solves you can get with a 3D camera tracker anyway. You just need a reference point and a camera that works for the element you want to drop into the shot.

We’re not trying to replace camera trackers. In fact, for blurry shots or other hard to track shots, mocha can even help camera trackers by putting in new, sharp planar information where bad information used to be. That is if you have a need for THE camera the shot was shot with and want to help your camera tracker.

Things to look out for are just the normal things you need to look out for with our planar tracker, avoid reflections, occlusions, slow moving shadows, etc. And understand that you don’t need tons of data for the solve, you just need to track one good plane for a Pan/Tilt/Zoom camera, and two non-co-planar planes for parallax cameras. As in, you can’t track two shapes on the same wall and expect to get a good parallax solve.

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers,
Mary

Right. But say you tracked a wall and put a 3D object in based on the wall, no, it wouldn’t drift. Or if you just tracked the ground and had the object on the ground it would be fine. Do you see what I mean?
Cheers,
Mary

Right. But say you tracked a wall and put a 3D object in based on the wall, no, it wouldn’t drift. Or if you just tracked the ground and had the object on the ground it would be fine. Do you see what I mean?

Cheers,
Mary