F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | Avg | ||
-0.01 | -0.03 | -0.06 | -0.07 | -0.11 | -0.09 | -0.10 | -0.11 | -0.07 | mean signed difference | V 1.6.5 RuPaReX2+FitAddl on last iteration |
-0.03 | -0.07 | -0.08 | -0.09 | -0.14 | -0.13 | -0.14 | -0.13 | -0.10 | mean signed difference | V 1.7.2 RuPaReX2+ FitAddl on last iteration |
0.00 | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.05 | -0.09 | -0.09 | -0.09 | -0.11 | -0.06 | median signed difference | V 1.6.5 RuPaReX2+FitAddl on last iteration |
-0.04 | -0.06 | -0.08 | -0.07 | -0.13 | -0.12 | -0.11 | -0.13 | -0.09 | median signed difference | V 1.7.2 RuPaReX2+ FitAddl on last iteration |
0.06 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.10 | mean absolute difference | V 1.6.5 RuPaReX2+FitAddl on last iteration |
0.12 | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.21 | 0.19 | mean absolute difference | V 1.7.2 RuPaReX2+ FitAddl on last iteration |
0.05 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.08 | median absolute difference | V 1.6.5 RuPaReX2+FitAddl on last iteration |
0.06 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.10 | median absolute difference | V 1.7.2 RuPaReX2+ FitAddl on last iteration |
1.6.5 1.7.2 1.7.2/1.6.5
Matching time (h) 14 28 200%
Alignment time (h) 44 60 136%
Optimize time 15.1 6.2 41%
Matching memory(GB) 48 217 452%
Alignment memory 97 132 136%
Total Align/Opt (h) 73.1 94.2 129%
I was a little surprised to find that our accuracy decreased, and processing time and memory requirements increased, when processing imagery with the most recent versions of Metashape.
Do you have differences between just GCP checkpoints - results just from the alignment and optimizations? Since the surfaces from depth maps is a different process, as I understand it, from 1.6.5 and 1.7.x I am wondering if the difference is because of the DEMs and how they are created.
Are there deviations in the pure camera calibration / control points?
(Without a point cloud or an elevation map being calculated?).