Clarification about height maps in 1.152

[staang]

With regards to version 1.152 and importing grayscale height maps.

The email I got announcing 1.152 stated, "They are now a 16 bit format converted from the previous 8 bit format." Before this update the resolution was 128 DPI. Do I now create and import a height map picture with a resolution of 32,768 DPI?

Is the machine really capable of that carving resolution? If so, great but if not what resolution is the machine really capable of? This of course I would expect to translate into what max DPI I can really import.

On a related subject. Previously the gray scale used 256 shades of gray. Has that been increased to 32,768 shades also?

Lastly, I created a grayscale test carving to try and see how the shade of gray managed the depth of carving. I thought that each step in the gray shade would produce a cut in steps of 1/256 of the 1 inch max depth cut or about .0039 inch. It did not work out that way though. For example a gray value of 2 should have produced a cut of .0078 but it cut to .04 inch. The gray scale of 5 cut to .05 instead of.0195 inch. So, what is the step for each gray shade in 1.152? And, is the depth of cut influenced any by the Bit Optimization setting or Height number used?

Thanks
Terry

[mtylerfl]

With regards to version 1.152 and importing grayscale height maps.

The email I got announcing 1.152 stated, "They are now a 16 bit format converted from the previous 8 bit format." Before this update the resolution was 128 DPI. Do I now create and import a height map picture with a resolution of 32,768 DPI?

Is the machine really capable of that carving resolution? If so, great but if not what resolution is the machine really capable of? This of course I would expect to translate into what max DPI I can really import.

On a related subject. Previously the gray scale used 256 shades of gray. Has that been increased to 32,768 shades also?

Lastly, I created a grayscale test carving to try and see how the shade of gray managed the depth of carving. I thought that each step in the gray shade would produce a cut in steps of 1/256 of the 1 inch max depth cut or about .0039 inch. It did not work out that way though. For example a gray value of 2 should have produced a cut of .0078 but it cut to .04 inch. The gray scale of 5 cut to .05 instead of.0195 inch. So, what is the step for each gray shade in 1.152? And, is the depth of cut influenced any by the Bit Optimization setting or Height number used?

Thanks
Terry

Hi Terry,

Excellent questions. I needed some clarification on the 16-bit as well, so I asked one of the programmers about it.

I'll try to distill some of the info he shared with me, and hope that I am relaying this info correctly...here is what I was told...

Prior to the 1.15x versions, pattern data was 256 gray levels. The software now has the potential to recognize approx. 16,000 levels due to the changes introduced in 1.15x

At the machine, 256 levels gave us a resolution of approximately 0.001" on a 0.25" deep pattern. Currently however, the machine can respond to 4096 gray levels (not quite the same relationship as to regular graphics applications where you have over 65k levels in a 16-bit grayscale). It would take a 4" carving depth to use the full range of the machine and have 0.001" resolution, nevertheless, we do have an improvement even short of that full-range potential. Under the hood, the software is using 14-bits for actual pattern data.

Patterns carved at .25" or less will likely not have much visible benefit of the increased level support. Patterns carved deeper than .25" are more likely to have a noticeable improvement. The increased range can be particularly helpful in reducing visible "contour lines".

Scans done with the scanning probe should be cleaner as well, as far as the reduction of visible contour lines. NOTE: Because of the slight texture invoked by the physical nature of the touch-probe, sometimes contour lines were masked somewhat even at the lower 256 levels. In any case, our scans should be better than before. "The better resolution minimizes some of the numerical effects when generating surfaces mathematically."

That's a nutshell version of the info from the programmer.

Now, you mentioned you made patterns at 128 dpi. I understand the concept behind doing that, especially when designing specifically for the CW at the old 256 level support, but I make my patterns at much higher resolutions (NOT the 32,768dpi you mentioned though!!).

When I make a pattern in ArtCAM, it is usually on a blank area measuring 6" x 6" (if the pattern will fit within a square shape, that is). I set the resolution at 1700px x 1700px for the 6x6 square. This gives me nearly 3 million "points" of resolution and is normally plenty for any finer details to be rendered. Of course, this kind of resolution exceeds the capability of the CW system and most other systems as well. However, if the pattern is ENLARGED and cut DEEPER, this degree of resolution comes in very handy, assuring the pattern will still carve well at larger sizes, whether on a CW or a commercial CNC machine. More to it than that, but that's the general idea.

[HighTechOkie]

dpi (dots per inch) is the number of dots (or pixels) that make up the 2D area of the image. Designer still uses 128dpi for patterns. If I draw a line 2" long in Corel, save it as a .png at 128dpi, that line will import into Designer as 2". Save that same 2" line at 256dpi, that line will import into Designer as 4".

The bit depth (# of shades of grey) used for greyscale height is a bit more tricky. It is not a simple 0=.25", 128=.13", 255=0"(assuming you set the import depth at 0.25") relationship, unless the full greyscale range is present. Otherwise it does some type of proportionality according to the min and max grey values in the image. I am still investigation how this proportionality works though.

Rob

[staang]

Howdy Michael,

I thank you for the information but I am left a little wondering why the carvewright people didn't respond.

So, if I understand you correctly the machine can still do no better than a resolution of .001 inch regardless of the newly increased resolution of the grayscale image imported. I guess this means that the increased graphic resolution only helps if carving something greater than 1/4 inch deep. That could be helpful.

I can also see why you create grayscale at a much higher resolution because of the ability of scaling up while still maintaining the .001 cutting resolution. I, however, prefer to produce a grayscale at a 1 to 1 scale. I like to use 256 DPI native resolution (I presume the machine also does .001 inch in the X and Y directions) and just make the drawing sized to fit the size I want carved. I can see that increasing the grayscale levels will help with deeper carved object though. I'll increase that right away.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards
Terry

[TIMCOSBY]

Howdy Michael,

I thank you for the information but I am left a little wondering why the carvewright people didn't respond.

So, if I understand you correctly the machine can still do no better than a resolution of .001 inch regardless of the newly increased resolution of the grayscale image imported. I guess this means that the increased graphic resolution only helps if carving something greater than 1/4 inch deep. That could be helpful.

I can also see why you create grayscale at a much higher resolution because of the ability of scaling up while still maintaining the .001 cutting resolution. I, however, prefer to produce a grayscale at a 1 to 1 scale. I like to use 256 DPI native resolution (I presume the machine also does .001 inch in the X and Y directions) and just make the drawing sized to fit the size I want carved. I can see that increasing the grayscale levels will help with deeper carved object though. I'll increase that right away.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards
Terry

4 weeks to get an email back from marketing. they are like the rest of us just tryin to survive this downturn in the economy.

[mtylerfl]

Howdy Michael,

I thank you for the information but I am left a little wondering why the carvewright people didn't respond...

Thanks again for your help.

Regards
Terry

Hi Terry,

Glad that was helpful. Helped me too, when I got the clarification.

As far as CarveWright not responding, I think that was primarily due because I saw the forum message before they did, and that I mentioned I was going to relay the info.;)

[mtylerfl]

...

I can also see why you create grayscale at a much higher resolution because of the ability of scaling up while still maintaining the .001 cutting resolution. I, however, prefer to produce a grayscale at a 1 to 1 scale. I like to use 256 DPI native resolution (I presume the machine also does .001 inch in the X and Y directions) and just make the drawing sized to fit the size I want carved...

Regards
Terry

Hi Terry,

I understand your methodology and desire for the 1:1 ratio.

You know I do a lot of projects that are "fit critical" so making sure the size is correct for each component is very important. When I import a heightmap into Designer, I just type in the dimensions of the original heightmap graphic in the import window before finalizing the ptn. That way I'm reasonably sure it will be the correct size when used in a project layout. There have been times where I still needed to "tweak" a component's size anyway in the layout itself, but that's the exception.

I tend to work at the actual finished size during the entire procedure, and usually draw the component outlines in CorelDRAW, then import the vectors as AI or EPS into ArtCAM where the modeling takes place. After creating the heightmap, then I import it into Designer where I can specify the dimensions to match my full-size original drawing/models. (I'll often have CorelDRAW and/or ArtCAM open just so I can refer to the original dimensions for that purpose.)

[Steven Alford]

Hey Michael,
I know this is probably a lot to ask, but I have been working with ArtCAM Demo and I also have Corel Draw. Do you have a tutorial on how you do what you talked about above?

[mtylerfl]

Hey Michael,
I know this is probably a lot to ask, but I have been working with ArtCAM Demo and I also have Corel Draw. Do you have a tutorial on how you do what you talked about above?

Hi Steven,

I do not have a tutorial on the procedure. The tutorials that come with ArtCAM plus the attendance of the two or three day training seminar offered by every ArtCAM dealer should be enough for most folks already familiar with graphic design software to become productive. (BTW - CorelDRAW is just for drawing the vectors and is totally not necessary for modeling in ArtCAM because you can create your drawings in ArtCAM itself using its own vector drawing tools. I use Corel most times just because I am a tad faster in it, that's all.)

Even though I am currently using ArtCAM for most modeling I do at present, I think that the Aspire software is a much better value and will be easier to learn for most people (no need for training seminars - you can learn on your own). To get an idea of Aspire's capabilities, there are several great video overviews and tutorials for Aspire at the company website http://www.vectric.com/WebSite/Vectric/support/aspire/aspire_tutorials.htm I believe that most, if not all, the videos are produced by James Booth of VectorArt 3D. Very professionally done and easy to follow along with.

Aspire has its own vector drawing tools and a full suite of relief modeling tools as well. If someone were to ask me today which relief modeling program to buy, I would definitely have to say Aspire is the best value overall.

[Steven Alford]

Thanks Michael, I will check that out.
By the way, how much do they charge for these two day seminars?

[mtylerfl]

Thanks Michael, I will check that out.
By the way, how much do they charge for these two day seminars?

Hi Steven,

I'm not sure if it is the same price for all dealers, but mine (DM Solutions in Derry, NH) charged $700 for two days. I also had to pay for my own plane ticket, hotel and meals of course. I think it ended up being about $1200 altogether - maybe a little more.

[liquidguitars]

Steven,

I think its only fair to point out that Aspire at any price is not a 3D modeling program it's a 2D / "2.5 D" program like Designer but way slower and clucky " sorry UK."
go USA!

Your better off using a program with real 3D tools like Lightwave 3D or Modo for STL work if you have the cash to burn..


the software is using 14-bits for actual pattern data.

no surprise to hear, running in 256 color space and merging is impossible.

LG

[Steven Alford]

At the moment the STL thing does not interest me, not my thing!! Personally, I don't think the CW can handle doing that much work.

From what I have seen with Aspire, it seems to do things that Designer cannot. I will check it out more and report back. I know what you say about 3D versus 2D, but is 3D not length, width and depth? 2D is only length and width. So Aspire and Designer do more than 2D, they do 3D.

[liquidguitars]

At the moment the STL thing does not interest me, not my thing!! Personally, I don't think the CW can handle doing that much work.

From what I have seen with Aspire, it seems to do things that Designer cannot. I will check it out more and report back. I know what you say about 3D versus 2D, but is 3D not length, width and depth? 2D is only length and width. So Aspire and Designer do more than 2D, they do 3D.

Aspire is not a standered 3D program at best a 2.5 D and slower than molasses. in the demo videos Aspire states it has 3D modeling ??? ok if you say so.
we work with models that have over 1 million polygons thats 3D. Designer is fast and clean even in the high end world of VFX. could be why Shop bot would like a cut of the pie.

Basically your using a 2D image that stamps on a voxel base making a point cloud on a box. yes Designer is 3D but not a 3D object per say like a STL thats been modeled with
cad cam 3D tools, no real need for Designer to be fully 3D unless it can do something that other software lacks.

I see no real word advantage to using Aspire over Designer just the opposite. i did import one of my hi res guitar bitmap shapes into Aspire for a test so i have a idea what its like.

just giving you a heads up...;)



LG

[Steven Alford]

Thanks LG.
I have a feeling with all the looking A LOT of us have done for software that will make height maps (unless you want to spend a few thousand) we might as well stick with Designer and do our best.

[mtylerfl]

Hello,

Aspire and ArtCAM are relief modeling programs, often referred to as 2½D programs. These programs are very specifically designed for the relief modeling industry and do not work quite the same way as 3D programs or CAD programs do.

Software such as LG mentioned will do models "in the round" so to speak, and are typically referred to as 3D programs.

One way to visualize the difference is look at the face of a coin - the design on the coin is a so-called "2½D" relief model. Look at baseball - you could call that a "3D" model (it's not "flat" like the coin).

The terminology (2½D and 3D) is not exactly correct, but that's generally what is bantered about throughout the industry to differentiate between the two types of programs. (At this time Designer cannot do any real modeling such as creating a detailed wildlife figure or realistic fish with scales for example, so for now, it really doesn't fit in either category as far as a "modeling" program.)

If you want to make relief models (patterns), then Aspire or ArtCAM can do the job, and so could some/most/all? full-blown 3D programs. Most 3D programs don't have the artist tools that are optimized for creating a relief, which is one reason I choose to use software that is specifically designed for relief modeling when creating patterns.

Aspire definitely should not run "slow"! It is very snappy on my system. I don't know why it's not running well for LG?? I've not heard of any other users of Aspire mention anything like that or complain of "slow" running. As far as that goes, neither ArtCAM 2008 nor Aspire present any sluggishness at all on my system - the workflow is fast and responsive.

NOTE: This has nothing to do with Aspire, but I'll mention that the newest ArtCAM 2009 version does run a bit slower than the ArtCAM 2008 version, especially when in the sculpting mode. Primarily this is due to the fact that ArtCAM 2009 added a lot more features and is more demanding of a computer system. In addition, the new ArtCAM 2009 is optimized for use with a video card that has complete OpenGL2 support. My dual monitor video card supports OpenGL1 which is what the ArtCAM 2008 version uses.

My next couple of computers will certainly have the OpenGL2 support (or possibly OpenGL3 by that time!), so I have no immediate plans to upgrade my video card on my current main system.

[Steven Alford]

Very good information Michael, thanks. That makes it a lot easier to understand.

I am just wondering, why do they make it so hard to use ArtCAM. I mean besides the user interface, you can't get instructions on how to use it to save your soul!! There are no books written, very few tutorials, very little of anything.

[mtylerfl]

Very good information Michael, thanks. That makes it a lot easier to understand.

I am just wondering, why do they make it so hard to use ArtCAM. I mean besides the user interface, you can't get instructions on how to use it to save your soul!! There are no books written, very few tutorials, very little of anything.

Hi Steven,

The 500-page manual that comes with the ArtCAM software is very, very thorough and there are plenty of tutorials that are included. If you become an ArtCAM Advantage Member (about $1000 annually which entitles you to the new version each year plus one-on-one Tech Support from your dealer), you can also access the monthly tips and free models, plus a DVD from the annual ArtCAM User Group conferences, files, models, and tutorials.

I agree there seems to be a kind of "cloak of mystery" about ArtCAM before you actually make the purchase, but after becoming a registered owner, you are privy to all kinds of resources. When you become an ArtCAM owner, it's almost like you become a member of a "club" of sorts. I'm sure your dealer could clue you in to all that, if you ask them.

However, as I mentioned before, I think Aspire has a lower learning curve, and I think many of the tools and modeling methodology are superior in many cases. With Aspire, you'll be able to make high-quality relief models just as well as you can with ArtCAM. Not to mention, Aspire is about 1/5 the price!

Gee whiz, I'm starting to sound like I'm a salesman for Aspire or something! I'm not - but you can probably tell I really have a lot of respect for the software!

[Steven Alford]

Boy, they sure want their share of the money, don't they??

I think it is sad when software companies think their software is so special that they need to ask such high prices that the common man cannot afford it. What usually happens is that a competitor (Aspire?) comes along and develops better software for a fraction of the cost and nobody buys the other stuff any more. The same thing happened with AutoCAD. Over $4,000 for the software and most people buy TurboCAD for what, $200 ??

It seems to me that if you offered your software for a price that most could afford, you would sell more software and make more money.

[HighTechOkie]

The problem is, those software packages have never been intended for the common man. They are meant for business. Those businesses can justify the cost based on labor savings and increased revenue from using those tools.

The other thing is some of those software companies have been (and continue to be) pioneers in their field. It takes considerable more effort to create a 3d modeling program vs a 2D drawing program. There is also a smaller group of programmers that are capable which by simple supply and demand means they get paid more money. They do more testing to ensure they work with the latest hardware. There is also more coding done to use that hardware, such as gpu acceleration, that you won't find in the budget software arena.

Those software packages typically have a completely different level of support than you see with consumer and lower priced software. On-site training, faster response to support calls, custom software patches, etc.

You should see the prices on some of the REALLY high end 3D CAD packages like ProEnginner or IDEAS that the automakers use. Then you are talking $20,000 to $25,000 plus $5,000 to $6,000 /yr for support. Tack on another $10k+ for the computer system to run it.

Someone has to be the first to do any of this. It always costs more to be a leader and innovator. Thankfully the big companies have paid those bills for those software companies to improve their products. Now that within the last 5-10yrs the computer hardware has advanced, and a new generation of programmers have come along that can copy what the leaders have done.

Keep in mind also, that alot of the technology we use today came from NASA projects in the '80s and '90s that has now filtered into the commercial and consumer market. Thanks to guys like Chris Lovchik whom have taken their experience from working at NASA and found a way to adapt it for a consumer product.

Rob