I know there was a thread posted a year ago about this, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents. This would be uber helpful. Right now I’m modeling some landscape, and having a real tough time telling what part of the landscape I’m seeing in mudbox in relation to my camera in maya. I know mudbox is sorta geared towards character work, but landscapes can benefit too from the software and for specific landscape tweaks, actually seeing through the camera when making changes would save hours of time.

- Neil

Rather than importing cameras, perhaps Skymatter could add a Camera Matching feature. This way you they wont have to bother with trying to work with all the different 3d packages camera systems. This would also be a HUGE help with having the reference image over your model. If you could match the camera in the reference image when trying to capture likenesses you would be sure to be comparing “apples to apples”.

Rather than importing cameras, perhaps Skymatter could add a Camera Matching feature. This way you they wont have to bother with trying to work with all the different 3d packages camera systems. This would also be a HUGE help with having the reference image over your model. If you could match the camera in the reference image when trying to capture likenesses you would be sure to be comparing “apples to apples”.

I’m not sure how this would work if you don’t have a reference image. Not to mention match moving can be a difficult task, and seems sort of redundant when you have all the camera data already in your 3d package. Although I do sympathize with the problem of importing cameras from so many different incompatible camera formats.

- Neil

"I’m not sure how this would work if you don’t have a reference image. “

If you have a camera in the other 3d package all you would have to do is render the scene to have your reference.

If you have a camera in the other 3d package all you would have to do is render the scene to have your reference.

Well, in general the scene would be very simple animatic type stuff, which I don’t think would make for a good tracking candidate. I could always add a few grids in there to help the tracking software, but at that point I’m now doing a lot of boring manual labor, which is something more appropriate for the computer to handle, so I can focus on the creative part :)

- Neil

Im not suggesting camera tracking in the sense of having it track camera movements. Only a still image. Only to match where the camera was in space and at what focal length and FOV