When I was using photo match I used to model rough representations of context and project the photos on them.
I don’t like the triangulated output from iPad Lidar apps as it’s very bad for Editing in SketchUp. However you can probably find an hybrid workflow for lidar context and photo match. If you don’t mind the triangles as you’ll only have minor editions on architecture, then Lidar is perfect.
Anyway, either Lidar or photo reconstruction from pointclouds would be what I recommend.
Trimble Scan Essentials is very good and included I. SketchUp Studio
Undet allows texture projection from the point cloud.
I know this is probably a daft question - but when we render in SketchUp - is it always the case that just the SketchUp Groups, Components & associated textures are rendered - i.e. do all SketchUp render plugins ignore Point Clouds and any photos used in Photo Match?
If I rendered this simple view in Vray the Point Cloud would disappear.
This is an interesting thread because it gels neatly with the kind of work I do (also UK based). There is generally an existing building to extend or alter.
I would split up your task into two elements: the survey/record drawings and the final output.
For the survey work, you do need accurate data for the part of the building you are connecting to. But I can’t see that you need much beyond that. So a costly and time consuming LIDAR (or other) survey might be overkill. A combination of local dimension taking (probably using conventional hand held tools) and recording plus photo matching for the rest would be sufficient.
If you want your extension to look anything like as good as the one in post 4, you are going to have to use a renderer outside of Sketchup. Whether you have the in house skills and are able to devote the time to getting that level of realism is a commercial decision.
The survey isn’t a problem because we own a Faro 3D laser scanner - its more about how we can produce the visuals efficiently.
The Photo Match method produces very fast results and I am grateful to have learned about it - but unfortunately the glass doesnt look very realistic without its reflections so I guess my question is how to get realstic looking glass in the visuals which presumably means rendering a model rather than simply using the photo Match method.
Reading through all the above I think I am being a bit slow for which I apologise…
It seems the Photo Match method is by far the quickest way to produce an accurate visual where all I have to do is model the new geometry - but then I am stuck with the limitations of SketchUps basic textures. But if I want to render the glass more realistically - I need to model everything and apply textures to very surface which can come from the photos, Vray or a mutitude of sources elsewhere.
I have worked on something very similar before but used Twilight Render instead of Vray. In addition to the SketchUp photo match tutorial, I used this Twilight tutorial.
Although it is a different tool, maybe it might give some insight as to how your chore can be accomplished.
Just fake and roughly model boxy stuff or some freehand billboards. No one will care much about it. As long as the house is ok you just have to think the rest is scenario.
When you finish modeling a match photo you can project the photo into the final faces, texturing them with the photo itself. It’s a push of button from the match photo panel.
Just be careful with dimensions and don’t assume the ground is leveled when creating the photo match.
I have also used MatchPhoto in combination with rendering software. The MatchPhoto is for the background of the original building etc. and the rendering software is for the rendering of the modeled elements–so you get reflections etc… You have to match the rendered environment to the photo’s reflections and lighting . I believe I had to combine images in some cases (haven’t worked on that lately).
I think what we have to remember is that (and yes, I am sorry in advanced architecture is not art. Oops
Architecture is the transfer of an idea from one person to another. SketchUp uses basic tools to transfer ideas. I have been and worked through this concept my whole 40 year career and now I focus on building things, not creating art on paper.
Remember, the art is the actual thing you build. It is not the rendering you frame and hang on the wall.
I gave up an opportunity to became a partner in an architecture firm to start my design-build company almost 20 years ago because the architecture firm I worked for thought the product was their role of drawings they sent out the door.
So has SkecthUp kept their tools simple? Yes. Is that a bad thing?
Keeping it simple has allowed people like me to keep a ow overhead but still have decent tools to work with and that i s what Layout has done for me.
Can it get better? Of course, but at what cost? Will fancy development mean now I have to pay as much for Layout as I would AutoCAD?
Sketch-up is certainly fast, but you probably wont get the results you can get from say 3DSMax and Vray, but you can get close. Sketch-up doesn’t like point clouds though, there is a plug-in called undet that allows reasonable point clouds imports, but the plug-in cost 4 times what sketch-up cost, so we tend to do work in AutoCAD with the point clouds and bring them in.
2k seems a lot of expenditure based on what your building, especially if the job doesn’t even come off.
My advice would be to use sketch-up with Enscape, give a little detail to the residence
but plough most of your energy into your structure and really make that pop… Your not selling the residence so why spend so much time making it look so real, it could potentially detract from your actual focus, which is your glass structure.
@kevin58 I’m not so clued up regarding Faro 3D, so no comment there. I feel that a combination of Photo Match and Twinmotion will do the job for you super efficiently and achieve all the nuisances you have mentioned throughout this thread. Twinmotion is not a traditional ray-traced renderer but achieves almost identical results. The added bonus is that there is no rendering time required. It is live rendered. Import model and the render is instant. With a modicum of prep work in SketchUp, a direct link to Twinmotion, some initial once-off effort in Twinmotion and you’ll have what you’re looking for instantly.
Foreseeable issues to resolve in this workflow are:-
Create a plane with your photo added as a texture to it in SketchUp. Twinmotion will then accept it.
Sun angles - you could try geo-locating your model in SketchUp and matching with the time the photo was taken. Then play with the sunlight intensity and fog in Twinmotion to get a “matched by eye” similarity. Not sure that Twinmotion bothers with the geo-location of SketchUp actually, so you may have to play with the sun angle and time in Twinmotion as well to match any shading that exists in the photo.
Use a single glass material in SKetchUp, then swap it out in Twinmotion using their glass library. You only need to do this once per project. All updates in SketchUp, refreshed in Twinmotion, will then maintain the Twinmotion materials that have already been assigned.
Throw in some Twinmotion filters and effects (fire pits and outdoor lights) - as you see fit and as your creativity stirs you. I sincerely doubt that you find much else with this sort of efficiency. (Lumion perhaps but I’ve never used it) or go straight to gaming engines, if you have time for a steep learning curve.
I actually think that for such simple models using realtime engines is a bit over the top as any engine will be fast and realtime are more expensive. Twinmotion has direct link but you do have to export the model and open an outside software. I use Thea and Twinmotion and Thea allows rendering inside SketchUp window as you model. It also allows having a background photo and fine-tuning sun position either by SketchUp sun or manually. I’d recommend something like that. For such simple models is as fast, output is way better, integration with SketchUp is simpler.
Enscape also allows working inside the model.
If you have a SketchUp Studio subscription VRay is also an option but it’s not as well integrated as Thea imho.
For such simple photomatch models, the best is not the fastest as all will be fast, but the one which is more tightly connected with SketchUp.
Who are you speaking to? If you are responding to me, no it is not off topic. Just because you may not understand the point, does not mean my post is off topic. More people would participate in forums if not for this type of snobbery
I was honestly thinking you might have posted in the wrong thread. It happens to me a lot: I’m posting something, then read another thread for reference and then post in the wrong thread when I hit the button and misread. In the case of your post it was really fitting for this thread:
I still don’t see the immediate connection to the current thread, but I do recognize it must be my flaw.
Thanks for pointing me to the right path. Written language is always difficult to understand. I wasn’t being snob while you now seem to be agressive though you are probably not.
I am revisiting this thread after a few months hoping to pick your brains again
I now use Photo Match & the Vray Plugin to create quick visuals, and on the whole I am pleased with the results and the speed, however the quality of the projected textures is a constant disapointment.
In the visual below you can see the difference between the projected textures and the Vray textures where the quality of the original house is awful compared to the photo.
Does anybody know if there is a way to improve the projected textures?
By default SketchUp limits texture image sizes to 1024 x 1024 pixels. Depending on your graphics card, this can be upped to 2048 x 2048 or 4096 x 4096 by selecting the “Use maximum texture size” box in the Window menu>Preferences>OpenGL dialog and restarting SketchUp.
Yes. There are a few points, and I don’t know the details or your process.
Using SketchUp to produce the composited model and photo together can be done for quick and dirty but doesn’t produce the best results. It’s better to composite the SketchUp or rendered results into the photo in Photoshop. Many of my Matchphoto scenes have two actual saved scenes: one with a style with the background turned on and another with a style with no background for export. When using a renderer it’s more complicated. You need to render the whole model and then create a mask for use in photoshop that helps composite just the new part into the untouched photo part. The scene with no background can help make that mask in Photoshop.
Using “Project Photo” from the matched photo doesn’t give you the best textures. I generally shoot two kinds of photos on site: some are 2 or 3 point perspectives that are intended for use as Matchphoto material, and some that are looking straight on to the building or specific surfaces that are intended to be imported as textures only.
With rendering and especially with glass, the reflections are key, so you need stuff in the model that will be seen reflected in the glass. That gets very case by case specific and may or may not turn out to be a bit of work.
I will load the original photo and the render into Photoshop with the original photo as the bottom layer then erase the rendered projected textures so the original photo shows through.
I think that will be a great solution and shouldn’t take too long
architecture is not art. Oops 
