1
General / Height Field vs. Arbitrary
« on: May 21, 2015, 12:21:49 AM »
Hello,
I have posted on this topic before, but am hoping someone perhaps has figured it out. I use a lot of historic imagery and occasionally have problems generating height fields. I have attached three images showing a dense point cloud, arbitrary mesh, and height field mesh. As you can see, the dense cloud looks good, as does the arbitrary mesh. The height field mesh looks horrible, however. This may not be the best example since it is in a highly glaciated region and many areas are void due to saturation in the input imagery, however, I have seen this issue in other non-glaciated regions as well. A couple things I have tried:
1. Used gradual selection to try to eliminate lower quality points in sparse cloud -- no impact
2. Cropped the edges of the dense cloud thinking that this was an edge effect. I even cropped to only an interior region as far away from edges as I could. -- no impact
3. Tried various options for the number of points calculated and maximum tie points retained -- no impact
It seems as though this is happening more often, but it may just be the data I'm using of late.
I have posted a tar ball of the project file and raw data scans here:
https://akarise.asf.alaska.edu/photoscan/BlackRapids.tar.gz
The screen caps were from my MacBook Pro, but I see the same problem on my primary processing system, which is Windows. I am using the latest stable release of Photoscan Professional.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I have posted on this topic before, but am hoping someone perhaps has figured it out. I use a lot of historic imagery and occasionally have problems generating height fields. I have attached three images showing a dense point cloud, arbitrary mesh, and height field mesh. As you can see, the dense cloud looks good, as does the arbitrary mesh. The height field mesh looks horrible, however. This may not be the best example since it is in a highly glaciated region and many areas are void due to saturation in the input imagery, however, I have seen this issue in other non-glaciated regions as well. A couple things I have tried:
1. Used gradual selection to try to eliminate lower quality points in sparse cloud -- no impact
2. Cropped the edges of the dense cloud thinking that this was an edge effect. I even cropped to only an interior region as far away from edges as I could. -- no impact
3. Tried various options for the number of points calculated and maximum tie points retained -- no impact
It seems as though this is happening more often, but it may just be the data I'm using of late.
I have posted a tar ball of the project file and raw data scans here:
https://akarise.asf.alaska.edu/photoscan/BlackRapids.tar.gz
The screen caps were from my MacBook Pro, but I see the same problem on my primary processing system, which is Windows. I am using the latest stable release of Photoscan Professional.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.