1
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: April 26, 2018, 10:06:01 AM »
Ok SAV, thanks, I got it!
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 / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: April 23, 2018, 07:55:39 PM »
Ok, thanks SAV!
I understand that we need better acuracy for our GCP, however I don't understand why Photoscan moves GCP in exported files but shows the same position within the application. I will descibe the conditions for our header and contact with producers of the device your recommended.
I understand that we need better acuracy for our GCP, however I don't understand why Photoscan moves GCP in exported files but shows the same position within the application. I will descibe the conditions for our header and contact with producers of the device your recommended.
3
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: April 20, 2018, 09:04:47 AM »
Thank SAV, I have sent them.
It is just my main task to work out the best practice in this particule issue.
I agree that traditional methods are not ideal, but I have to convince that innovative ones are not only younger, but also better.
It is just my main task to work out the best practice in this particule issue.
I agree that traditional methods are not ideal, but I have to convince that innovative ones are not only younger, but also better.
4
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: April 20, 2018, 07:29:45 AM »
Ok SAV, thank you for info!
My task now is to convince heads that the technology reliable enought to run it in our dozens of quarries. The "problem" is that it is very "easy" to get a result. We get volume and don't know is it correct. The cut\fill method is good control for this. I have seen several cut\fill plans (nice pictures!) presented by UAV staffs, but have never seen miners happy with those (maybe they exist). I am "mining" proffesional and don't happy with accuracy so far.
I will try to improve the results using the available capabilities and offer solutions to improve accuracy.
My task now is to convince heads that the technology reliable enought to run it in our dozens of quarries. The "problem" is that it is very "easy" to get a result. We get volume and don't know is it correct. The cut\fill method is good control for this. I have seen several cut\fill plans (nice pictures!) presented by UAV staffs, but have never seen miners happy with those (maybe they exist). I am "mining" proffesional and don't happy with accuracy so far.
I will try to improve the results using the available capabilities and offer solutions to improve accuracy.
5
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: April 19, 2018, 10:55:33 AM »
Ok, I got it, thank you very much! I'll try to do that next time. May I clarify some so far?
1) I tried to put GCP on diffrent levels. You suggest just to create uniform grid - without worring about levels.
2) As I understand, at fisrt I should use only "triangles" in Agisoft and check calculated altitude in "circles". If they are correct I am happy, if not - I put altitude in "circles" into Agisoft and recalculate. Is it correct?
BTW, In Agisoft tutorials distances between GCP is quite large - if I'm not mistaken - more than 600 m. However it seems that point density is not enought but problem is not visible.
1) I tried to put GCP on diffrent levels. You suggest just to create uniform grid - without worring about levels.
2) As I understand, at fisrt I should use only "triangles" in Agisoft and check calculated altitude in "circles". If they are correct I am happy, if not - I put altitude in "circles" into Agisoft and recalculate. Is it correct?
BTW, In Agisoft tutorials distances between GCP is quite large - if I'm not mistaken - more than 600 m. However it seems that point density is not enought but problem is not visible.
7
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: April 12, 2018, 11:40:44 PM »
Sure, as pics - ~3Gb each mission (I have three so far), as las files (~1Gb each). Just let me know how to do that. I'm working out a solution for our quarries and would very appriciate for any help. Next mission is planned by the end of the month.
8
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: April 12, 2018, 01:21:48 PM »
Hi SAV, I'm back from the site...
1) DJI GS Pro has several options to get pictures (Hover at point \ Time interval \ Distance interval). If I'm not mistaken in the first case I got message about limit 99 points. Then I changed regime to distance and everything was ok.
2) I tried my best to improve quality of shooting for control of quarry volume. I put around and inside quarry some boards as GCP. We don't have RTK GPS so I took coordinates for the GCP from the first flight and used them in other for markers. I took GCP elevation from our surface survey. I have several shootings in month intervals, but I believe that example with day interval is more demonstrative because there weren't real changes on the next day.
Both shootings were made with the same mission at high of 100 m and overlapping 75%. After aligning pictures with high quality in Agisoft markers were defined with the same static coordinates for both cases, cameras were optimizated and unchecked. Markers were checked and density cloud was constructed with medium quality.
On the attached cut\fill picture:
black contour - quarry limit
black points - GCP
white area - difference between two days less than +\-0.25 m
light pink \ light blue - difference +\- 0.25-0.5 m
pink \ blue - difference +\- 0.5 - 1 m
dark blue - difference more than 1 m
It is visible that difference at the most area of the quarry is more than 0.25 m and often more than 1 m which is significant. It looks like in two adjacent days quarry "had" differenet shape which means that calculated volumes for each days are not trustfull. It is pity and I don't believe that CloudCompare can help: it is not shifting, it is not scaling.
1) DJI GS Pro has several options to get pictures (Hover at point \ Time interval \ Distance interval). If I'm not mistaken in the first case I got message about limit 99 points. Then I changed regime to distance and everything was ok.
2) I tried my best to improve quality of shooting for control of quarry volume. I put around and inside quarry some boards as GCP. We don't have RTK GPS so I took coordinates for the GCP from the first flight and used them in other for markers. I took GCP elevation from our surface survey. I have several shootings in month intervals, but I believe that example with day interval is more demonstrative because there weren't real changes on the next day.
Both shootings were made with the same mission at high of 100 m and overlapping 75%. After aligning pictures with high quality in Agisoft markers were defined with the same static coordinates for both cases, cameras were optimizated and unchecked. Markers were checked and density cloud was constructed with medium quality.
On the attached cut\fill picture:
black contour - quarry limit
black points - GCP
white area - difference between two days less than +\-0.25 m
light pink \ light blue - difference +\- 0.25-0.5 m
pink \ blue - difference +\- 0.5 - 1 m
dark blue - difference more than 1 m
It is visible that difference at the most area of the quarry is more than 0.25 m and often more than 1 m which is significant. It looks like in two adjacent days quarry "had" differenet shape which means that calculated volumes for each days are not trustfull. It is pity and I don't believe that CloudCompare can help: it is not shifting, it is not scaling.
9
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: February 23, 2018, 05:21:22 PM »
Hi SAV
1) I'll try 75% overlap. I tried several flight control app. DJI GS PRO can make only 99 pictures in a mission and works only with iPad. Map Pilot is not free and I don't know why I should by it if I satisfied with DroneDeploy.
2) I will try CloudCompare
3) Usually px size in the DEM clouds is 10-20 cm.
4) I'll try to create some points around the quarry next time
Thanks, but I believe it will be waste of your time to look on my clouds so far. I will try to do my best to get better shots first. My be you have a good practice examples - height of flight, quantity of markers per area and etc?
Meanwhile there are some points which I can't explain. For example on the attached picture there are markers 8B and 6B. Resulted points clouds corresponds to 8B height - about 80 m, but doesn't correspond to 6B height - about 100 m instead of 81.5 m. (I did camera optimization and calculated density cloud with checked markers and unchecked cameras - twice)
1) I'll try 75% overlap. I tried several flight control app. DJI GS PRO can make only 99 pictures in a mission and works only with iPad. Map Pilot is not free and I don't know why I should by it if I satisfied with DroneDeploy.
2) I will try CloudCompare
3) Usually px size in the DEM clouds is 10-20 cm.
4) I'll try to create some points around the quarry next time
Thanks, but I believe it will be waste of your time to look on my clouds so far. I will try to do my best to get better shots first. My be you have a good practice examples - height of flight, quantity of markers per area and etc?
Meanwhile there are some points which I can't explain. For example on the attached picture there are markers 8B and 6B. Resulted points clouds corresponds to 8B height - about 80 m, but doesn't correspond to 6B height - about 100 m instead of 81.5 m. (I did camera optimization and calculated density cloud with checked markers and unchecked cameras - twice)
10
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: February 15, 2018, 11:26:20 AM »
Hi SAV!
1) I did just what you say - unchecked cameras and checked GCP in both cases. Side overlap was 65% and front overlap - 75%. It was DJI Mavic Pro under control of DroneDeploy. I just wondered why EXIF were so differenet in both cases.
2) I don't remember which quality was for photo aligning and will repeat the step. I used optimisation also.
3) It isn't favorable conditions, but it is reality - snow in winter, grass in summer.
4) Unfortunately it is not easy to keep GCP on the active quarry bottom and benches for a long time. That is is why I had five GSP around the pit and three GSP on the bottom.
I have tried CloudCompare, but so far only confirmed that clouds of the quarry are different with main problems on the slopes.
1) I did just what you say - unchecked cameras and checked GCP in both cases. Side overlap was 65% and front overlap - 75%. It was DJI Mavic Pro under control of DroneDeploy. I just wondered why EXIF were so differenet in both cases.
2) I don't remember which quality was for photo aligning and will repeat the step. I used optimisation also.
3) It isn't favorable conditions, but it is reality - snow in winter, grass in summer.
4) Unfortunately it is not easy to keep GCP on the active quarry bottom and benches for a long time. That is is why I had five GSP around the pit and three GSP on the bottom.
I have tried CloudCompare, but so far only confirmed that clouds of the quarry are different with main problems on the slopes.
11
General / Re: Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: February 09, 2018, 01:05:52 PM »
Thank you SAV very much for very constructive reply!
Well, it was the same camera and pictures were made in the same automatic mission (same route, same height).
1) I noted however a bit strange thing - EXIF data from the first flight has 17 m altitude and 180 m for the second while the real flight height was 100 m in both cases (above ground of course). Photoscan estimated height as 170 and 175 m, but I used markers altitude to calculate dense clouds.
2) I used the same processing settings, or more precisely I can use only the range lowest-medium quality as the file very large with better quality. Px size is 10-20 cm in this case. We don't need better acuracy. I don't find any difference between depth filtering options (disable - agressive) for my cases and used the same.
3) Water or dust are not the case. However the surface covered with thin snow. It didn't reflect as it was cloudy, but maybe it was a bit dark (attached).
4) I supplemented vertical pictures with pictures made at some angle as a panorama. I supposed that it helped Photoscan to evaluate the real depth. However this additional pictures were made from different positions in both cases. Maybe I was wrong.
I will try you recommendation about CloudCompare.
It is quite important for us to workout some rules and limits before recommendation using this technology on all our quarries.
Well, it was the same camera and pictures were made in the same automatic mission (same route, same height).
1) I noted however a bit strange thing - EXIF data from the first flight has 17 m altitude and 180 m for the second while the real flight height was 100 m in both cases (above ground of course). Photoscan estimated height as 170 and 175 m, but I used markers altitude to calculate dense clouds.
2) I used the same processing settings, or more precisely I can use only the range lowest-medium quality as the file very large with better quality. Px size is 10-20 cm in this case. We don't need better acuracy. I don't find any difference between depth filtering options (disable - agressive) for my cases and used the same.
3) Water or dust are not the case. However the surface covered with thin snow. It didn't reflect as it was cloudy, but maybe it was a bit dark (attached).
4) I supplemented vertical pictures with pictures made at some angle as a panorama. I supposed that it helped Photoscan to evaluate the real depth. However this additional pictures were made from different positions in both cases. Maybe I was wrong.
I will try you recommendation about CloudCompare.
It is quite important for us to workout some rules and limits before recommendation using this technology on all our quarries.
12
General / Cut \ fill plan (volume) for a quarry
« on: February 09, 2018, 12:35:54 AM »
Hello everybody! I'm trying to use photogrammetry to support our quarry.
I use Photoscan and Golder Surfer to work with exported DEM.
I put some markers around the quarry (200x400 m), and used them in both Photoscan models.
I tried different methods for creating dense clouds.
Everyhing went well until I tried to create a cut/fill plans for the quarry (200x400 m) for a period of time.
The problem is in slightly shifting the slopes of the quarry so, if they are steep, even a small offset leads to
large vertical difference. Thus, on the cut \ fill plan, almost all areas of the quarry looks modified but it isn't true.
Has anyone encountered this problem and what rules should be recommended to fix it?
I use Photoscan and Golder Surfer to work with exported DEM.
I put some markers around the quarry (200x400 m), and used them in both Photoscan models.
I tried different methods for creating dense clouds.
Everyhing went well until I tried to create a cut/fill plans for the quarry (200x400 m) for a period of time.
The problem is in slightly shifting the slopes of the quarry so, if they are steep, even a small offset leads to
large vertical difference. Thus, on the cut \ fill plan, almost all areas of the quarry looks modified but it isn't true.
Has anyone encountered this problem and what rules should be recommended to fix it?
13
General / Good practise for aeral photo with Phantom dron
« on: April 22, 2015, 11:55:07 PM »
I am trying to use Phantom 2 with GoPro 3+ to create areal photo. Usually I can cover during a flight about 0.5 square km being in it center. I keep drone at 100 m high with speed about 7 m/sec. The camera makes a picture each 5 sec. Typically a route has 1000 m straight then 50 m shift and 1000 m back. Usually Agisoft can align all picture from one flight. However there are troubles with pictures alignment from different flights. I try to put markers, but it doesn't help.
So question - what is the best practice of taking picture in this conditions? What is size of overlapping of the pictures should be? How to force/help Agisoft to align pictures?
So question - what is the best practice of taking picture in this conditions? What is size of overlapping of the pictures should be? How to force/help Agisoft to align pictures?
Pages: [1]
