1
General / Re: Setup of point marker location
« on: March 06, 2014, 06:35:02 PM »
Thanks Alexey,
I'm going to try this.
I'm going to try this.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
General / Setup of point marker location
« on: March 05, 2014, 06:06:37 PM »
Hello everyone,
I've tried setting up my 3D mondel in space by
- setting up a point marker A at a given location on the 3D model
- manually editing the said point marker coordinates (x,y,z) as (0;0;0)
- pressed 'update' button
Note: I would like A to be the center of the universe (the origin)
When I did this I got the following issue: the error given was about 5 meters.
I've then scaled the object by taking 2 other points B and C and edited manually the distance between them.
After update, the error I found in point A was reduced from 5 to 1.
How can I make A to be the center at exactly (0;0;0)?
I hope I can find some help here.
Cheers,
J.
I've tried setting up my 3D mondel in space by
- setting up a point marker A at a given location on the 3D model
- manually editing the said point marker coordinates (x,y,z) as (0;0;0)
- pressed 'update' button
Note: I would like A to be the center of the universe (the origin)
When I did this I got the following issue: the error given was about 5 meters.
I've then scaled the object by taking 2 other points B and C and edited manually the distance between them.
After update, the error I found in point A was reduced from 5 to 1.
How can I make A to be the center at exactly (0;0;0)?
I hope I can find some help here.
Cheers,
J.
3
General / Re: Scale by markers?
« on: March 05, 2014, 04:30:43 PM »
Okay that's clear! Thank you
Another question came up: I notices the Error is always 10% of the estimated distance -- at least in my model. Why is this so?
Another question came up: I notices the Error is always 10% of the estimated distance -- at least in my model. Why is this so?
4
General / Re: Scale by markers?
« on: March 05, 2014, 04:26:00 PM »
Hi Alexey, 
Thanks a lot for your support. It helped me figure out how the whole thing works.
- First check a scale button in the Source bar and put in a known value
- Then go to the Estimated bar and see the updated other values
Just a question: when should I click on the Update button? Only once when setting up the first (known) scale, or every time I add another (unknown) scale that I want to be estimated?
Cheers!
J.
Thanks a lot for your support. It helped me figure out how the whole thing works.
- First check a scale button in the Source bar and put in a known value
- Then go to the Estimated bar and see the updated other values
Just a question: when should I click on the Update button? Only once when setting up the first (known) scale, or every time I add another (unknown) scale that I want to be estimated?
Cheers!
J.
5
General / Re: Scale by markers?
« on: March 05, 2014, 04:04:25 PM »
Right, when input 0.7 for scale2, I get -0.000301 as the error. (see attachment)
So what does it mean on how the scale tool works?
I might have been wrong, but I assumed that once a correct distance between 2 markers is set (as it has been done with scale 1), the other scales that I set up going forward would 'automatically' and proportionally adjust to the first scale.
Do I have to make a manual and proportional adjustment every time I set up a new scale?
So what does it mean on how the scale tool works?
I might have been wrong, but I assumed that once a correct distance between 2 markers is set (as it has been done with scale 1), the other scales that I set up going forward would 'automatically' and proportionally adjust to the first scale.
Do I have to make a manual and proportional adjustment every time I set up a new scale?
6
General / Re: Scale by markers?
« on: March 05, 2014, 03:50:59 PM »
Yeah I've tried checking 0/2, 1/2 and 2/2 of the checkboxes before running the button "Update".
In both the 2 first cases, I get the error message "Can't estimate tranformation".
When checking both checkboxes, nothing happens.
:-/
In both the 2 first cases, I get the error message "Can't estimate tranformation".
When checking both checkboxes, nothing happens.
:-/
7
General / Re: Scale by markers?
« on: March 05, 2014, 02:42:11 PM »
Thanks alexey,
However, i get the message "Can't estimate tranformation".
:s
However, i get the message "Can't estimate tranformation".
:s
8
General / Re: Scale by markers?
« on: March 05, 2014, 01:54:32 AM »
Hi Alexey
Could you let me how to create scale based on a given distance between two ponts A and B?
I've just
- created 2 marker points on a given model
- selected both of them with Crtl + left click on both
- right click
- created a Scale Bar
- put in the actual value (in meters) of the distance between A and B
- created two other points on the model, and created a corresponding Scale bar
But I'm not sure how to go from there. It seems there's no automatic adjustment after the dirst measure (scale) has been put in PhotoScan.
Do you have an advice?
Thanks in advance,
J.
Could you let me how to create scale based on a given distance between two ponts A and B?
I've just
- created 2 marker points on a given model
- selected both of them with Crtl + left click on both
- right click
- created a Scale Bar
- put in the actual value (in meters) of the distance between A and B
- created two other points on the model, and created a corresponding Scale bar
But I'm not sure how to go from there. It seems there's no automatic adjustment after the dirst measure (scale) has been put in PhotoScan.
Do you have an advice?
Thanks in advance,
J.
9
Bug Reports / Re: Same photo set, huge difference in results
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:52:35 PM »
Okay, I'll try to get better pictures to put in PhotoScan.
Cheers
Cheers
10
Bug Reports / Re: Same photo set, huge difference in results
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:19:46 PM »
Thanks Alexey.
Yeah I also figured out that resolution, light, noise, blur, and camera calibration might be the culprit for a poorer reconstruction.
I'm using a phone (S3), so the pixel size wasn't automatically recognized. However, the focal length is correctly detected.
However, the thing I don't understand is that: when I launch the pictures camera alignment for a single set of photos and with the same settings, I obtain radically different results.
Yeah I also figured out that resolution, light, noise, blur, and camera calibration might be the culprit for a poorer reconstruction.
I'm using a phone (S3), so the pixel size wasn't automatically recognized. However, the focal length is correctly detected.
However, the thing I don't understand is that: when I launch the pictures camera alignment for a single set of photos and with the same settings, I obtain radically different results.
11
Bug Reports / Re: Same photo set, huge difference in results
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:54:07 PM »
Hi Alexey, Wishgranter,
Thanks for your response.
Here are the screenshots. I've used my Samsung Galaxy S3 camera,do you think it's hopeless wit it?
Thanks for your response.
Here are the screenshots. I've used my Samsung Galaxy S3 camera,do you think it's hopeless wit it?
12
Bug Reports / Same photo set, huge difference in results
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:47:12 AM »
Hello every one,
Has any one had the same issue?
I've used the exact same photoset and processed it *3 times*, in the same conditions with the same optionsfor the initial alignment.
- Accuracy: High
- Pair selection: disabled
- Point limit: 40,000
- Constraint by mask: no
Oh, and the 28 pictures are 960x1280 and are well overlapped. No blur.
I've only proceeded with the first step: alignment, and the camera locations is way way..wayyy different!
I've struggled to come up with an explanation and I know it sounds weird, but I can't figure out what happened.
I hope somebody can help,
:-)
J.
Has any one had the same issue?
I've used the exact same photoset and processed it *3 times*, in the same conditions with the same optionsfor the initial alignment.
- Accuracy: High
- Pair selection: disabled
- Point limit: 40,000
- Constraint by mask: no
Oh, and the 28 pictures are 960x1280 and are well overlapped. No blur.
I've only proceeded with the first step: alignment, and the camera locations is way way..wayyy different!
I've struggled to come up with an explanation and I know it sounds weird, but I can't figure out what happened.
I hope somebody can help,
:-)
J.
Pages: [1]
