Argus: photographs into reusable materials and 3D you can check

A good-looking turntable gets your attention. Then you turn the model a little farther and find the filled-in recess, the piece of background that survived, or the shadow pretending to be part of the texture.

We built Argus around following those problems back to the photograph. It brings photo-to-3D reconstruction and material extraction into an experimental Blender workflow, with the source images and diagnostic evidence kept beside the asset. An expert can inspect it directly. A beginner can bring the same report to an LLM for help. The reporting belongs with the model.

Try the interactive demo · Watch the 2:27 video · Code and documentation

Start with the fox

Our first study reconstructs a small stone fox from twelve photographs. You can choose any source camera, slide the matched render over its photograph, inspect where the pixels disagree, and rotate the textured model. The 3D view keeps both sides aligned while you compare material states or the original and cleaned splat point previews. A separate showroom turns the same mesh through neutral clay, base color, and normal detail under warm and cool display lights.

The difficult bits were the paw clefts, the space under the chest, the rear legs, and the transitions into the base. A dark patch can be pigment, a recess, or captured light. We used masks, cameras, depth, normals, and render differences together to work through those possibilities. It is a buffet of techniques, but each has a job.

The source photograph beside two renders from its saved camera

Pull the material out of the photograph

The other main part is making reusable texture candidates from real photos. Select a material zone, preserve its useful detail, and try offset, quilt, adaptive quilt, or an optional mirrored repeat. The normal and height channels give an editable starting point for surface detail.

Licensed paint and wood examples with repeat methods and inferred detail maps

We have also started applying that same procedure inside scenes. For the national park cabin, the useful material is the wooden siding: keep the doors, windows, sign, and trim out of it. Unwrap the selected area, reduce the captured lighting, then quilt clean patches while preserving the horizontal board spacing.

The regional material lab now shows eight regions across the cabin and office studies. Each has a source mask, regional UV, before/after lighting comparison, repeat texture, lit orb and cube, and a downloadable material package. The regions are guided selections; the next step is making those preparation and correction controls easier to use.

What ran on Nebius

NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Super through Nebius Token Factory reviewed measured results and recommended the next material-validation test. That recorded call used 779 input and 911 output tokens. Deterministic checks keep the final say on qualification.

Nebius AI Cloud ran the twelve-view image audit on an NVIDIA H100. It compared the source photos with their saved renders and returned 24 heatmaps plus a report. Every output was downloaded and hash-checked. Provider execution was 5.845 seconds, with 3.114 seconds of audit processing; provisioning and startup brought the creation-to-finish window to 162.751 seconds. The demonstrated mesh and textures were built locally, and this diagnostic stage ran in the cloud.

The evidence and cost ledger keeps measured usage beside dated price calculations. Actual billed costs have not been verified.

Where it stands

We have an inspectable prototype. The browser demo presents saved studies; the repository includes a reusable regional material extractor and the CUDA diagnostic stage. The fox material candidate improved six of twelve views in the full-resolution comparison, but its average color error was slightly worse than the neutralized-color baseline. It stays in review. Lighting recovery and physical PBR qualification also remain open; the texture maps are useful candidates, with inferred relief and assumed roughness clearly identified.

What is working is the loop: inspect the source, make a correction, render through the same camera, and check the other views. A failed check still leaves you with an asset and a report you can use.

We are finishing the user experience, quick cropping, symmetry controls, and object detection. The aim is a connected Blender workflow for working artists, with local processing when the hardware is available and Nebius GPU processing when it is needed. Full cloud reconstruction is the next build step after the diagnostic stage demonstrated here.

If you work with scanned assets or photo-derived materials, try the comparisons and tell us where they stop being useful. A missed material boundary, a bad repeat, a confusing report—we want the specific awkward bit.


Fox photographs: John Davies, CC BY-SA 4.0; the sculpture’s maker is unknown. Paint, wood, cabin, and office photographs: Paul Stevenson, sagesolar, Grand Canyon National Park, and Robbie Sproule, CC BY 2.0. Argus made the reconstruction, masks, UVs, material adaptations, and comparison media. Full credits and licenses.

Built With

  • blender
  • computer-vision
  • cuda
  • nebius-ai-cloud
  • nebius-token-factory
  • numpy
  • nvidia-nemotron-3-super
  • pbr
  • photogrammetry
  • python
Share this project:

Updates

posted an update —

Argus: new material tests, and the failure they caught

We ran new controls against the current Argus demo, including a photograph we had not used before. Here are the outputs, not just the next-step list.

One photo, two materials. We selected blue paint and exposed orange substrate from Paul Stevenson's peeling-paint photograph, then made new offset, quilt, and adaptive-quilt candidates at two seeds each. The twelve new rasters reproduce exactly with the same seed, differ between seeds, and pass our narrow seam, median-color, and texture-gradient checks. The panel shows the source crops beside the new 2×2 repeats. These are material candidates; the checks do not prove measured PBR or perfect material boundaries.

Peeling-paint photograph, two separately selected material zones, and new repeat candidates

A repeat that still fails the reuse decision. The weathered-wood candidate looks plausible and all six variants pass the narrow technical checks, but its donor is only 64×64 pixels. Just 74.7% of that crop belongs to the proposed material; the rest is filled from nearby same-zone pixels. We marked it reject for reuse until we can find a larger, cleaner donor. This is exactly the sort of failure an edge-seam score misses.

Weathered door photograph, small donor and repeated wood candidate marked for rejection

A new scene, not another crop of the old controls. We found a CC BY-SA 4.0 photograph by A S M Jobaer showing corrugated iron, weathered wood, blue paint and iron hardware in one door. We froze three guided regions before the first run. Argus produced separate UV material candidates, 2×2 repeats, and lit orb/cube previews for the iron wall, wood and paint. Every selected donor stayed inside its computed material mask; all three material ZIPs and UV meshes passed integrity checks. The material-owner coverage was 72.7%, 60.4% and 30.0%, respectively. The metal repeat still carries a broad weathering band, and the small lock has no defensible repeat donor. Both remain review items, not quietly merged into a finished PBR material.

New Commons door photograph with three guided material regions, their repeats and lit previews

The fox still has to answer to every camera. We recomputed error for all twelve saved source/control/candidate raster groups. Under this same-grid owner-mask measurement, the material candidate improves five views. View 05 gets a tiny gain; view 10 gets worse. The pair fails our protected-view check. This is a new analysis of saved images, not a new mesh or light fit, and its measurement contract differs from the earlier six-of-twelve local report.

Fox source, neutral render and material render from views 05 and 10, showing opposite error changes

The useful part is that neat-looking repeats and nearly identical fox renders cannot quietly pass. The reports keep the sources, masks, seeds, hashes, metrics and rejections together. Next we will try a larger wood donor, remove the duplicated weathering from the metal repeat, and seek a fox correction that helps view 10 without losing view 05.

Photo credits: Paul Stevenson and sagesolar (CC BY 2.0); A S M Jobaer and John Davies's fox set (CC BY-SA 4.0). These panels adapt their photographs; the full report records the changes.

Full test receipt and source credits · Interactive demo · 2:27 video

Submission history