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.

Messages - JohnyJoe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
I now think its because shadow and highlights doesnt work equally on the whol image :-(...

Do i understand it correct, that the proper workflow for this would be to make a separate set of original photos JUST for the diffuse texture generation in Metashape...? This 2nd set of photos (JUST for texture generation, not point cloud, mesh etc., generation, JUST for the texture) should have shadows and highlights reduced even more (from the RAW photos)...? (that means reduce the highlkights and shadows on PHOTOS (via lightroom for example or Adobe Camera Raw) from which you generate the texture, NOT on the texture itself...?) Correct?

Photogrammetry (3D Scanning) Diffuse Texture isn't "seamless" after Photoshop adjustments (Shadows/Highlights) - WHY ?

Im doing a scan of smaller object (orange (fruit); but it doesnt matter, could be anything and the problem happened on and off previously with various scanned models). Im doing the diffuse texture in Agisoft Metashape from the original photos that were used for point cloud, mesh etc. generation ( i dont use another special, separate set of photos (adjusted) just for diffuse texture generation (as is often the case/recommended in a more proper photogrammetry workflow)).

I just use the Photoshop feature/function "Shadows/Highlights" (Image - Adjustments - Shadows/Highlights) to "somewhat" remove highlights and shadows from the Diffuse texture.

(I use indoor scanning setup on a rotating lazy susan with 2 softboxes for lighting so the lighting is "quite" (well... somewhat) even to begin with)

It usually works ok for me (for my "quality  level demand"), but SOMETIMES, as happened currently the (in photoshop) adjusted texture (if applied on the 3d object (in 3ds max)) suddenly gives/shows seams among the UV unwraped islands, picture:

Original Diffuse texture (UNaltered in photshop in any way) doesnt have the seams:

I dont know... I vaguely remember that it might have happened before sometimes (maybe..?)  but usually i dont see any problems... Now i do... My understanding is that the shadows/highlights function in Photoshop should work on the whole image "equally" so no "showing seams" problem should occur... Its like if your original diffuse texture doesnt show seams, and you for example, whatever... brighten, darken, add contrast, add color tint, change color balance etc. whatever you do with the texture in Photoshop, if there were no seams in the original diffuse texture, there should be NO seams visible even on the new adjusted one...? Right..? And it doesnt show AFAIK with brightening, darkening, changing color balance whatever...  BUT for some reason it shows (suddenly?) with Shadows Hightlights...? Why is that?

Again i think i MIGHT have gotten this problem MAYBE before but it was NOT often, i cannot even remember it really... But suddenly it shows with the newest model i work on... ( i didnt play with photogrammetry for months really)?

Hi JohnyJoe, small camera sensors don't have good image quality in terms of noise. Noise reduction used on mobile phones does not help to make cleaner and more detailed point cloud.
If you want to have better quality with these devices, you need to get much closer to objects when taking photos and build just medium quality dense cloud. This procedure will "eliminate" noise problem and image sharpness degraded thanks to denoising.

i did get close with the mobile phone.

But neverthless so you are saying that i do NOT have to make any adjustment or change any settings in metashape when using these photos...? (instead of normal raw files from 24 mpx DSLRs...?
No need to change any setting...?

So what was that in the past where i read somewhere that you need to change "something" in metashape (photoscan back then)  to "fisheye"...? you did have to do it in the past versions, but not in the new ones?

Thank you

Do i need to set/change something when working with small Focal Lengths (mobile phone etc.)


When using pictures taken with small focal lenghts (below 18mm), like the ones used in mobile phones (5mm and so on) or even cheap compact "point and shoot" cameras (like Ixus 132), do i need to change some setting in agisoft metashape to get good results...? I read somewhere (here on forums) that you should "switch" somewhere (some settings in metashape) to "fisheye lenses used" or something like that). To get good results... But im not sure (if its true, and if it applies even to newer metashapes versions (and isnt only a thing of the past)).

Cause when i use pictures taken by mobile phones (cheap ones) or even the cheap compact point and shoot cameras (ixus 132 for example), i get (on high, ultra high dense point cloud settings) rather "noisy" point clouds (dont know how to call it), im not sure if its because of motion blur (me not holding the camera steady enough), or if its because i use "wrong settings" in metashape when working with these small focal length files, or if its something else...?


So points cloud/mesh speaking, the results from combined cameras would be practically the same quality as if al lthe cameras were the same one type...

Nobody knows :-o...?


Years ago (like around 2015 i guess (?))  I somewhat built my own custom "face scanner" consisting of 11 Cannon "Point and shoot cameras" - compact cheap cameras... I used 2 types - Canon A2500 and Cannon Ixus 132. (5x and 6x = 11 in total). I used it to scan my face. The results were ok i guess, mixing 2 different camera types (although both with the same Mpx - 16 Mpx) (Canon Ixus 132 and Canon A2500) didnt seem to bother Agisoft Photoscan.

Im currently thinking about expanding the number of cameras (probably by 5 at most, but maybe more). My question is- can i use even other different versions of Canon compact cameras? Or do i need to stick only to the 2 types i already have (Ixus 132, A2500)...? Like can i combine even more types than 2? Im eyeing buying used Canon IXUS 160 (which has 20 Mpx sensors NOT 16 as the old cameras i have)... My question is: Can i combine multiple different Cannon Ixus (and Canon A) point and shoot cameras? Even with different MPx (16 vs 20, maybe even with 14...?). Will it bother agisoft program? Will it give me subpar results (in comparison if i used ONLY the exact same type of camera (all Ixus 132 for example)...?

1) Do i have to worry or is it ok to combine different canon compact cameras?

2) Is there a limit to how many types can i combine...? Currently i have 2 types, can i combine even 5 different types for example?

3) Does the MPx difference matter? (16 Mpx VS 20 Mpx (and maybe ill buy even some 14 Mpx)) wont it bother the program...?

Thank you

Face and Body Scanning / Re: Turntable based Full body capture rig
« on: June 03, 2023, 03:43:05 AM »
Hey bcoyle,  Yeah, I've done a little more now, refined my procedure a bit and actually I don't think hundreds is too bad at all.

I think I'd rather have too many shots (and turn some off) than not enough.


8 cameras or how many you use seem too little... How do you handle tha fact that the scanned model will move a bit during the scanning procedure...?

(and yes i know its an 7 year old thread :-) )....

General / Re: RAW file format - does it yet support it or still no?
« on: May 12, 2023, 05:40:10 PM »
Well to add to my original question... So far i always worked with 8 bit (LZW or whatever compresion) TIFs... (converted from NEF raw files via Adobe Lightroom)
I tried 16 bit TIFs but didnt see any difference really (but i tried only few tests).

I run across people online who say that you should use only 16 bit TIFs (and not 8 bit TIFs), that you get superior results...

Is it really true...? My tests back then (although only few and im not sure i tests everything (like dense point cloud "quality", mesh "quality", texture "quality" etc.) back than i didnt see really any improvements or just TINY imporvement (when using 16 bits tifs) so i never used 16 bit tifs again, just sticked to using 8 bits...

Is 16 bits really that much better...? In what way...? More detailed dense point cloud? More detailed mesh? More detailed texture? Or just texture with more depth (allowing you to play with highlights and shadows in the texture even after its generated?)


so what shutter speed you usually use/get...?

I am always doing outdoor photogrammetry without a tripod to be much faster, for hobby purposes. I'm using a Sony A6400 with a Sigma 16mm at f/5.6, Auto ISO to scan pretty large statue / things.
When I don't have the camera with me I use my iPhone 11, less details, but better than nothing.

well... thats nice :-), but you didnt say how the scans compare with your tripod scans (at home or outdoors)...?
are they comparable...? (you do do sometimes "proper" scans with tripod etc...?)  shooting in shadows or on a cloudy day... whats the ISO you use (most often) and the shutter speed?


HANDHELD photogrammetry, high ISO, AI denoise... Doable/Advisable...?

Hello, is doing photogrammetry with Handheld Mirrorless DSLR (Cannon EOS M200), handheld, high ISO (800 lets say) and using newest AI denoise in Lightroom Classic possible...? Like will it look good? NO tripod involved (thus the need for high ISO setting in order to get at least 1/100s+ shutter speeds to hopefully NOT get blurry images) ...?
I have currently Nikon D3200 which i use at home "studio" with tripod for photogrammetry for various objects/props i bring home. I was few times (like 2x times over the span of like 7 years (!)) in the terrain/outside with the camera and tripod... Only like 2x times over 7 years (!!). I always tell myself i will go exclusively a on photoscanning "journey"/trip to the city (i live in village) with the camera and tripod to scan objects i cannot bring home, but over the 7 years (!) i just never went, never "had the time" etc...

SO... i was thinking of getting a 2nd camera (Cannon EOS M200), PURELY for the purpose of "photogrammetry on the go" - to have a camera with me whenever i leave home for the city/outside. Its a smaller camera, so i can have it always with me and if i see something worth scanning (or just shooting for texture purposes) i will pull out the camera and "handheld" scan it... No more telling myself - "Oh... this is nice... ill come later back here with my Nikon and tripod and scan it"... Guess what - i NEVER DID, and thus "lost" the model/scan opportunity... (Few times I tried using a cheap smartphone i always have on me , but the scans are just not good...)

My question is: Is it worth it...? Like will the resulting scans be any good and more or less comparable with my nikon D3200 tripod scans...? Cause with the Cannon EOS M200 i will have to shoot without tripod (and even monopod), just handheld... Can you get a good looking scan handheld with such mirrorless camera...? Depending on the lighting, i will have to probably take majority of shoots with ISO 800, F8-F11, in order to prevent blurry images due to handholding the camera... I should be able to get at least shutter speeds of 1/100 sec and higher (1/125 etc.)... This should be enough to prevent blury images right...? I will denoise the high (800) ISO in lightroom classic using the newest AI denoise feature...

So could it be done, will the final scan be "any good" and comparable/ more or less the same quality as if done with a tripod at home...?

(will use agisoft metashape probably for the photogrammetry)


OR... can i shoot in full sun now these days? It was adviced that you should do scanning in shadow or when the sky is cloudy to get even lighting on your model... This is what i have always done, the downside is that there is LESS light entering the camera in these conditions, so you have to use tripod or high ISO settings... OR... did the "delighting" technology got so good over the years (i started 3d scanning like in 2015 or 2017 (?)), that you can now scan in full sun and auto remove the shadows later on with specialized tech ( i know agisoft metashape has some delighiting tools (2 seperate i think), Unity has some delighting tools, and there are probably others)... Did the delighting got so good over the years, that you can now shoot in full sun?

General / Re: RAW file format - does it yet support it or still no?
« on: April 24, 2023, 05:00:06 PM »
I've been using raw files (DNG format) in Metashape for years now with no problem.  Whether it can read brand-specific formats like PEF or NEF I don't know, but I doubt it.

ok that interesting... so metashape CAN  use raw formats (DNG), just not ALL raw formats (like NEF)... :-(

why not NEFF :-(?

General / RAW file format - does it yet support it or still no?
« on: April 20, 2023, 04:52:22 PM »
Does Agisoft Metashape finally support RAW file formats (either from Cannon, NEFFs from Nikon or some other RAW file formats)...?

Or is it still a NO (it does NOT support them)...?

Will it ever support them? Why not? Seems good to support it, you can skip the exporting from Lightroom to TIFF "inter-step" if you dont need to export TIFFs and just use (maybe a bit altered) RAWs...?


Two additional questions :-):

1)Is the removl of lighting only single threaded? Regarding the CPU, it uses only one core (and not all available cores)?
2) Is there a way to export the AO map the program automatically generates ("in the background") while delighting?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5