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 - Shadow

Pages: [1]
General / Watertight model/fill holes alongside the bounding box ?
« on: March 05, 2022, 11:18:36 AM »

Is there a way to create a watertight model within Metashape, when the scan intersects the bounding box ?

An example is attached : I scanned one side of a sculpture, and the model intersects the bouding box at the top, bottom, back.
Interpolation: extrapolated was used.
I know the Tools:Mesh:Fill Holes tool can be useful, but it gives poor results (see last screenshot) because it doesn't try to follow the sides of the bounding box.

Is there any way, within Metashape, to get clean, flat surfaces in such a case ?

Feature Requests / Improved display of processing status [Solved]
« on: January 09, 2021, 04:25:58 AM »

The progress dialog box is of course very helpful, but if you're doing something else while processing a project, you can't see the progress bar any more.
I think there are two ways the current system could be improved :
- some products, such as lightroom, use the software icon in the Windows 10 taskbar to display the current progress of a task. Simple and effective : after shooting 100s of pictures to scan an object, I can export them from Lightroom, do something else, and just by looking at the taskbar, I know if the export process is almost finished or not.
(a screenshot is attached to this post)

- another way to improve the current system could be to display the progress dialog box as "always on top" of other applications. This way we could put it in a corner of the screen while browsing the web, watching a movie, etc, yet still be able to check both the progress status and the estimated remaining time.
Of course, this won't be a feature all user need or want, so this would be an option in the Metashape Preferences and not the default behaviour.

This will probably sound like a very minor bug, and it is, but :
when you export videos using the animation tool, the resulting file seem to have 1 additional frame.
For example, if the animation is set to 10 seconds, 25 frames per second, the video should have 250 frames. But if you check the file, it has 251 frames.

I assume there might be a loop somewhere in the code with one useless iteration.


here are a few suggestions to improve the animation tools.
Providing more export options would be nice :
- UHD-2 (7 680 × 4 320) can be useful to later convert the video in UHD or even 1080p, and therefore reduce aliasing issues ;
- maybe an "export as image sequence" option ?

A HUGE improvement would be for Metashape to remember the last settings used : when tweaking an animation, being forced to set the resolution and framerate each and every time is a little bit annoying.

Bug Reports / "Missing or Broken index" when exporting RAW video
« on: February 18, 2020, 10:39:00 PM »

I've been playing with the video export tools, but I stumbled upon a weird issue :
- If I export low resolution RAW videos, everything is ok, the video can be played in VLC or imported in a video editing software without any issue ;
- If I export high resolution mjpeg videos, everything is ok as well.

But if I export high resolution (4k or 1920x1080) RAW videos, VLC tells me that the index is "missing or broken", and a software such as DaVinci Resolve is not able to import the file. Allowing VLC to attempt to repair the index doesn't fix anything.

Any idea what could be the issue ? Is this a known issue ?

Texture De-Lighter / GPU acceleration ?
« on: July 12, 2019, 10:27:53 PM »
First of all, thanks a LOT for making the De-Lighter available. As a long-time Metashape/Photoscan (Standard Edition) user this will be really helpful.

I noticed that De-Lighter seems to rely on the CPU alone : do you think GPU acceleration could be added in a future update ?

General / Lens choice : Ultra wide angle vs fisheye, electric contacts
« on: October 12, 2018, 02:48:11 PM »

I found quite a few topics about ultra wide angle lenses, others about fisheye lenses, but not much about one vs the other.

Basically, I've been shooting interiors (museums, rooms, etc) using a 16-35mm f4 lens at 16mm and a full frame camera, which is quite wide already, and I'm considering going even further. The idea would be to use an even wider lens to shoot small rooms, corridors, museums with narrow passageways, etc.

These lenses seem to be good candidates :
- The Voigtländer 10 mm or 12mm  F5,6 Ultra Wide Heliar (Sony E mount, manual lens) ;
- The Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE, also available for Sony E- mount users but without any electric contacts (no EXIF data and manual lens) ;
- A circular or diagonal fisheye lens.

Since a 10mm ultra wide angle lens and a fisheye lens will have similar fields of view, I was wondering if the quality was similar in Photoscan ?

Another question : since the focal lens and lens type can be added manually in Photoscan, I assume the lack of electric contacts of the 10-18mm lens won't be an issue, as long as I remember to write down the focal length I used for each shoot ?


I wasn't able to find a topic on this specific subject in the forum :

- Is Photoscan able to use two -different- GPUs at once ?
This could be useful for people who already have a GPU that is only 1 or 2 years old and buy a new one. For example, one could add a 1080 TI to a 980 TI.

- If Photoscan does allow mismatched GPUs : what results can be expected ? Will Photoscan be able to use the full power of both GPUs, or will the less powerful one slow the process ?

Pages: [1]