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.

Topics - stihl

Pages: [1]
Hello, I'm encountering an issue with the latest Metashape 2.0.0 release.

Upon wanting to test the trajectory import, I am experiencing an unexplainable error.
When starting a fresh project, with the reference settings set to a Local coordinate system, I get the error "Unsupported datum transformation" when importing a trajectory .TXT file.
The text file is formatted with the following tab delimited columns; GPStime / X / Y / Z. The coordinates are in a local (all positive) coordinate system.

I also tried the same file in different formats such as .xyz and .csv but the same error remains. The error also remains when switching the project reference settings to a different (cartesian) coordinate system.

When importing the trajectory file, the console message always says that the imported trajectory file is in a local coordinate system. No other errors pop-up except "Unsupported datum transformation".

Wondering if anyone else is experiencing this.

General / Matched tie points in Sparse Cloud but no data in Dense Cloud
« on: October 29, 2014, 03:41:59 PM »

I'm trying to create an Orthomosaïc. The sparse dense cloud after the alignment doesn't show any holes in the pointcloud.
However after running a medium dense point cloud step, holes in the dense cloud appear.

Can anyone explain why this would happen and how I can resolve it?

I was under the impression that Photoscan uses the sparse cloud to densify the point cloud. So how would holes appear in the Dense Pointcloud when the Sparse cloud doesn't show any holes?


General / -
« on: April 11, 2014, 04:53:07 PM »

General / GCP error low - high errors on DEM
« on: March 17, 2014, 01:48:04 PM »

I've finalized generating a 400 hectare land DEM using 67 GCP, all measured with RTK GPS.
Photoscan says the GCP error is 0.036m however when I evaluate the DEM with RTK GPS checkpoints made in the field, far larger errors are found in excess of over 20cm in the Z value.

Is there any explanation as to why? Even exact locations of GCP in the DEM give out false readings when compared to the absolute values of the GPS measurement even though those points should match 1:1?

Pages: [1]