Can you give us an example of 1 or 2 of the images?

---

[Link to www.3dprevis.com]

Sure. Here they are.

---

---

Is this the sort of thing you're after?

[Link to en.wikipedia.org]:HautFingerspitzeOCT.gif

---

[Link to www.3dprevis.com]

Obviously doing it by hand is one way, but i assume you're looking for a procedural method. I'll start reading around.

---

Yes, to reach a similar result to that would be just fantastic.

---

These shots are not from the X and Y axis of the object correct? from your example it seems that the two shots are of the same object but from a slightly different angle.

---

So:

The probe was a piece of mandible with two screws bolted in it. Now, as a laser walked over the surface shots were taken (about 250). Sadly I possess no information about the direction which the laser walked or the dimension of the probe. I only know that at 1024x512 resolution, the OY axis of a photo has 3 mm, so a pixel is equivalent to 5,8 microns.

In theory, by placing the photos one atop another I should get the 3D image of the probe (or at least that's what I have been told). Absolutely any method is welcome, since I'm an absolute begginer in the use of 3dsmax (I've been told it's possibile in autocad too, and i've been given a solution on another forum, but that way i lose all the information of the scan, retaining only the shape).

Also, I possess no shots of the actual probe. So all in all I have these somewhat ambiguous photos to work with.

---

Sorry, I wouldn't have a clue. I've never seen anything like that done before. Can you post a link to the other forum? I'd be interested to see what they suggested.

---

[Link to www.3dprevis.com]

Sure, here's the link, third reply on page:

[Link to www.cadtutor.net]

Unfortunetly by doing that I lose any information regarding tomography, and I'm left only with the shape.

As I have written on my last post in page 3, these photos are like slices of bread. if they're placed one next to the other, you get the loaf again.

---

I'm not sure if this will help, but this is what came to my mind.
I took the first image you posted and adjusted the contrast.
I used the image as an opacity map and applied it to a plane, then cloned 70 copies.
This would give you a ghostly 3D image if you used the different images in the proper sequence and spacing.
This may be far from what you need.

---

---

Chris

Good answer, I didn't think of that. It'd be pretty time consuming with 250 separate images.

---

[Link to www.3dprevis.com]

I like it!

---

I would like to see this with all the different images. I'm not sure how you would go about applying 250 images to 250 planes.

---

Chris

I say he should learn max script (the lame answer to every max problem)

---

I wish I knew max script, but I'm afraid to learn new things.

---

Chris

Thank you very much cdballew, it might help me quite a lot actually. I'm showing it to "the boss" right now and see if it works.

edit: if it works, could please present me the method in more detail, so i can work it out myself for all the images?

---

Tell him using max script will be a great improvement, but no one he knows knows it. *Imagining the Dilbert cartoon*

---

Hahaha.. good one!

---

Chris

I used Photoshop to adjust the brightness/contrast to clean up what I assume is "noise" in the scan. (first image)
In Max, I created a plane proportional to the image, one length and width segment.
In the material browser I applied the image to both the defuse and opacity slots, with 100% self illumination, then applied it to the plane. (second image)
In my case I simply cloned the plane X amount of times.
In your case you will have to repeat this +/- 250 times, plus assign material ID's to each plane. (third image)
As isaacg mentions, the use of max script could streamline this arduous task.

---

---

Chris