1
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 / GEoTIFF to AutoCAD .dxf - Help needed
« on: December 07, 2012, 03:45:52 PM »
My customer needs a DEM in AutoCAD.dxf file format. Does anyone know how to do that?
I've tried a vectoring tool named Vextractor which is expected to do the conversion from .tiff files to .dxf, but the result is simply nonsense. It just creates a few erratic vertical and horizontal lines.
I know that ArcGIS, QGIS and so on are the usual tools, but too complex to learn for such a primitive requirement.
Besides the special request for .dxf: I don't understand why Agisoft still doesn't provide a simple tool to create .jpg files to show the contents of a DEM (isohypses) for avoiding this .tiff-nightmare. Having to spend hundreds of dollars for Global Mapper (which is usually suggested by Agisoft to use) cannot be a solution. This is absurd!
Oliver
I've tried a vectoring tool named Vextractor which is expected to do the conversion from .tiff files to .dxf, but the result is simply nonsense. It just creates a few erratic vertical and horizontal lines.
I know that ArcGIS, QGIS and so on are the usual tools, but too complex to learn for such a primitive requirement.
Besides the special request for .dxf: I don't understand why Agisoft still doesn't provide a simple tool to create .jpg files to show the contents of a DEM (isohypses) for avoiding this .tiff-nightmare. Having to spend hundreds of dollars for Global Mapper (which is usually suggested by Agisoft to use) cannot be a solution. This is absurd!
Oliver
3
General / How to handle strong altitude differences on the ground?
« on: June 04, 2012, 04:28:13 PM »
Does anyone have experience with measuring areas with altitude differences of up to 80 meters?
I will have to determine volumes of different heaps in a stone pit (stone quarry), which has lows of 300 m above sea level and highs of 380 meters. Normally we fly in altitudes of 80 m above ground. To get a homogenous and correct mesh, is it better to
a) use a greater overall flying height and take all shots from the same altitude (which resulted in 60-140 m distance to the ground) or
b) could I keep a constant distance to the ground by altering the altitude of the microdrone?
I'd prefer b) as the ground resolution would be better and equal on all photos, but I'm not sure if PS would calculate a wrong 3D model.
Thank you for help.
Oliver
I will have to determine volumes of different heaps in a stone pit (stone quarry), which has lows of 300 m above sea level and highs of 380 meters. Normally we fly in altitudes of 80 m above ground. To get a homogenous and correct mesh, is it better to
a) use a greater overall flying height and take all shots from the same altitude (which resulted in 60-140 m distance to the ground) or
b) could I keep a constant distance to the ground by altering the altitude of the microdrone?
I'd prefer b) as the ground resolution would be better and equal on all photos, but I'm not sure if PS would calculate a wrong 3D model.
Thank you for help.
Oliver
4
General / GCPs from Google Earth
« on: May 01, 2012, 11:36:26 AM »
I intended to find the problem with the camera coordinates from our microdrone, which seem to be completely wrong, possibly due to a bug in our software.
For this I experimented with markers. I took their ground positions from Google Earth, which is certainly a rough measure, but to get an idea of how it works, it should be good enough.
I left away all camera coordinates and calculated the full 3d model in quality "high", which looks perfectly fine. Then I tried to set markers, following the guided approach. I know, according to the nice new "Tutorial for Beginners: Orthophoto & DEM Generation (with GCPs)" I could have used only the point cloud to set them, but this was a nightmare to find and set the markers.
When I changed the settings to WGS84 (which seems to be the coordinate system, that Google Earth uses) and klicked "Update", the "Error(pix)" jump to many 1000s of pixels. When I remove them, klicking "Update" says "Can't estimate transformation". All this seems to me being some sort of voodoo, although it should be a simple thing. Could anyone explain, what I am doing wrong?
What I wanted was to calculate back from an existing model and ground marker coordinates to camera positions and compare them with those from our drone.
Besides, what's the idea behind the removing of all marker data, just because I remove the Z/Altitude information?
Thank you for your help.
Oliver
For this I experimented with markers. I took their ground positions from Google Earth, which is certainly a rough measure, but to get an idea of how it works, it should be good enough.
I left away all camera coordinates and calculated the full 3d model in quality "high", which looks perfectly fine. Then I tried to set markers, following the guided approach. I know, according to the nice new "Tutorial for Beginners: Orthophoto & DEM Generation (with GCPs)" I could have used only the point cloud to set them, but this was a nightmare to find and set the markers.
When I changed the settings to WGS84 (which seems to be the coordinate system, that Google Earth uses) and klicked "Update", the "Error(pix)" jump to many 1000s of pixels. When I remove them, klicking "Update" says "Can't estimate transformation". All this seems to me being some sort of voodoo, although it should be a simple thing. Could anyone explain, what I am doing wrong?
What I wanted was to calculate back from an existing model and ground marker coordinates to camera positions and compare them with those from our drone.
Besides, what's the idea behind the removing of all marker data, just because I remove the Z/Altitude information?
Thank you for your help.
Oliver
5
General / PDF Limitation on Texture
« on: April 14, 2012, 01:43:16 PM »
After several trials it seems to me that the Adobe Reader has a limitation of 8000 x 8000 pixels for the texture of 3D models in PDF, which is rather disappointing for customers when modeling areas of up to 1 km2. I can display a resolution up to 30000 pixels in photoscan but not hand out the 3D-data to the customer, except of exporting the mesh into Autocad or other formats.
Does anyone have an idea how to improve this in order to create a bigger wow-effect by the customer and show more detail?
Does anyone have an idea how to improve this in order to create a bigger wow-effect by the customer and show more detail?
Pages: [1]
