1
General / Re: Interpolation will not turn off
« on: July 25, 2023, 01:40:20 AM »
I've tried changing the settings as you shared, but the interpolation still happens. I've included screenshots.
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
2
General / Interpolation will not turn off
« on: July 23, 2023, 01:56:02 AM »
Hello,
I have Metashape standard 2.02 (build 16404) running on a 2022 Mac mini M1. I want to create a mesh without interpolation, but no matter what I do, interpolation still happens. Please note the screenshots for what I'm doing and what results.
Is there something I'm overlooking?
Thanks!
Jerry
I have Metashape standard 2.02 (build 16404) running on a 2022 Mac mini M1. I want to create a mesh without interpolation, but no matter what I do, interpolation still happens. Please note the screenshots for what I'm doing and what results.
Is there something I'm overlooking?
Thanks!
Jerry
3
General / Selective dense cloud edit?
« on: December 05, 2020, 05:05:10 PM »
I have a dense cloud but would prefer to filter by confidence only a small part of it. I tried duplicating the chunk and cut off the part of the model I wanted to edit. But, when I tried to merge the two chunks, all I end up with is an empty space in the merged chunks model.
Am I doing something wrong?
The reason I want to selectively edit one part of the model is that a weathervane on a barn moved with a slight breeze. While there was plenty of noise in the barn dense model, I only wanted to clean up the cupola and weathervane while leaving the remainder of the barn model alone.
Am I doing something wrong?
The reason I want to selectively edit one part of the model is that a weathervane on a barn moved with a slight breeze. While there was plenty of noise in the barn dense model, I only wanted to clean up the cupola and weathervane while leaving the remainder of the barn model alone.
4
General / Re: Extreme distortion of the sparse cloud using masks?
« on: April 19, 2016, 10:49:26 PM »
Here are some screenshots of what I'm working with...
I've included a couple of Adobe Lightroom screenshots that show the 'Before & After' adjustments I made. I was trying to minimize the reflections and boost the details that were hidden in the shadows. Oddly, when I ran the initial alignment using the adjusted photos on the 'Low' setting, everything worked splendidly. I then went through the remaining steps of creating a dense cloud (success) then a mesh (success again) and finally created masks from the resulting low resolution model. My problems began after that when I used the masks and started over on the 'High' setting.
Photoscan just literally finished a few minutes ago creating the dense cloud model from the sparse cloud. I've cleaned up the model a bit as it had sections where the surface was lifted and hovering far away from the remainder of the model. I've included screenshots of the dense cloud model approximating the positions I stood at to photograph the original for comparison.
I guess I'm very linear in my logic, but I thought if it worked well on a low quality setting, that it would work just as well on a high setting, giving me far more detail in places like the face, the locks of hair, toes, fingers, etc.
I've included a couple of Adobe Lightroom screenshots that show the 'Before & After' adjustments I made. I was trying to minimize the reflections and boost the details that were hidden in the shadows. Oddly, when I ran the initial alignment using the adjusted photos on the 'Low' setting, everything worked splendidly. I then went through the remaining steps of creating a dense cloud (success) then a mesh (success again) and finally created masks from the resulting low resolution model. My problems began after that when I used the masks and started over on the 'High' setting.
Photoscan just literally finished a few minutes ago creating the dense cloud model from the sparse cloud. I've cleaned up the model a bit as it had sections where the surface was lifted and hovering far away from the remainder of the model. I've included screenshots of the dense cloud model approximating the positions I stood at to photograph the original for comparison.
I guess I'm very linear in my logic, but I thought if it worked well on a low quality setting, that it would work just as well on a high setting, giving me far more detail in places like the face, the locks of hair, toes, fingers, etc.
5
General / Re: Extreme distortion of the sparse cloud using masks?
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:05:06 AM »
Hi Stihl,
I guess I was perplexed by the outcome differences from the first time to the second time. Without any real input from me, Photoscan at the "Low" setting was able to create a sparse cloud with no distortions of the statue in the first try. On the second try, suddenly the sparse cloud acted like string cheese in some areas. That was what threw me off. I thought that using masks was a nearly ironclad way of guaranteeing no problems or need for extensive cleanup, plus faster model creation?
After I posted here, I started looking more closely at the sparse cloud model and began editing it, just as you suggested. I think I've cleaned up it enough to see where it will go.
I can't help but still be impressed that Photoscan was able to do all this with the photos from a low end Canon point & shoot that only outputs 14 megapixel JPGs. I usually prefer to use my Pentax in RAW mode, but for some reason I had less success with this statue in those attempts.
I guess I was perplexed by the outcome differences from the first time to the second time. Without any real input from me, Photoscan at the "Low" setting was able to create a sparse cloud with no distortions of the statue in the first try. On the second try, suddenly the sparse cloud acted like string cheese in some areas. That was what threw me off. I thought that using masks was a nearly ironclad way of guaranteeing no problems or need for extensive cleanup, plus faster model creation?
After I posted here, I started looking more closely at the sparse cloud model and began editing it, just as you suggested. I think I've cleaned up it enough to see where it will go.
I can't help but still be impressed that Photoscan was able to do all this with the photos from a low end Canon point & shoot that only outputs 14 megapixel JPGs. I usually prefer to use my Pentax in RAW mode, but for some reason I had less success with this statue in those attempts.
6
General / Extreme distortion of the sparse cloud using masks?
« on: April 18, 2016, 11:25:20 PM »
Hello,
I've been obsessing over a full-sized bronze copy of Michelangelo's David that stands here in my hometown. I've had mixed results at best but recently tried again.
I took over 500+ photos with a simple point & shoot Canon, imported the photos into Lightroom and set to work correcting the images for exposure, etc. I know that goes against the advice given in the manual, but with the subject being a dark, shiny bronze nude male, I thought it couldn't hurt to try a different approach.
I opened the folder containing all the photos in Photoscan and put it to work using the "Low" setting for each step.
You can imagine my surprise and joy when I came back hours later to discover that Photoscan not only used every photo but created a very good model. I only had to adjust the box around the statue, remove the fringes of overcast sky that had been piled like Marie Antionette's hair atop the statue's head and set Photoscan to work creating a dense cloud and finally a mesh.
I used the final, low-quality setting mesh model to create masks so I could turn around and start over with "High" settings and speed the process along.
It worked, but now I end up with some really wacky results that I can't figure out as shown by the screenshots below. What happened? It seems almost like using masks and focusing Photoscan on the statue made things worse.
I'm using a 2009 Mac Pro, 2.66GHz quad-core Intel Xeon with 32GB of RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 with 4GB of onboard RAM.
I've been obsessing over a full-sized bronze copy of Michelangelo's David that stands here in my hometown. I've had mixed results at best but recently tried again.
I took over 500+ photos with a simple point & shoot Canon, imported the photos into Lightroom and set to work correcting the images for exposure, etc. I know that goes against the advice given in the manual, but with the subject being a dark, shiny bronze nude male, I thought it couldn't hurt to try a different approach.
I opened the folder containing all the photos in Photoscan and put it to work using the "Low" setting for each step.
You can imagine my surprise and joy when I came back hours later to discover that Photoscan not only used every photo but created a very good model. I only had to adjust the box around the statue, remove the fringes of overcast sky that had been piled like Marie Antionette's hair atop the statue's head and set Photoscan to work creating a dense cloud and finally a mesh.
I used the final, low-quality setting mesh model to create masks so I could turn around and start over with "High" settings and speed the process along.
It worked, but now I end up with some really wacky results that I can't figure out as shown by the screenshots below. What happened? It seems almost like using masks and focusing Photoscan on the statue made things worse.
I'm using a 2009 Mac Pro, 2.66GHz quad-core Intel Xeon with 32GB of RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 with 4GB of onboard RAM.
7
General / Re: Another difficult object to model...
« on: February 11, 2016, 05:16:59 AM »
I've shot around 350-400 photos and after weeding out the poor photos, usually have at least 275+ photos to work with, depending on which time I went to shoot David. I think I am around 5-10 degrees between shots, since I barely take a step, in a full circle. I usually make several complete walk-around circles at varying distances to give Photoscan some variation to help it. Since detail is really important to me, I'll also photo-saturate things like David's face, hands, feet, etc.
Oh yes, I have a 15 foot painters pole that I send my Pentax up on and fire remotely. David is so tall that I still never get the top of his head, shoulders or the upper-most surface of his left arm and the top of the slingshot he holds in it. I can usually handle some mild editing for the missing spots, but when I've attempted to smooth out the noisy mesh, I have to do it with a very heavy hand and any fine detail I might have captured is lost.
I hadn't thought of attempting to use a flash though. He is floodlit from several poles around the triangular plaza he stands in, so perhaps I'll give a night time shoot a try. It couldn't hurt!
Oh yes, I have a 15 foot painters pole that I send my Pentax up on and fire remotely. David is so tall that I still never get the top of his head, shoulders or the upper-most surface of his left arm and the top of the slingshot he holds in it. I can usually handle some mild editing for the missing spots, but when I've attempted to smooth out the noisy mesh, I have to do it with a very heavy hand and any fine detail I might have captured is lost.
I hadn't thought of attempting to use a flash though. He is floodlit from several poles around the triangular plaza he stands in, so perhaps I'll give a night time shoot a try. It couldn't hurt!
8
General / Another difficult object to model...
« on: February 11, 2016, 01:10:00 AM »
Here in Sioux Falls, SD is a precise bronze copy of Michelangelo's famous nude, the David. He's a favorite landmark of mine and has become a minor obsession for me; I can't begin to recall how many times I've went to photograph him and attempted to model him, but end up with poor to ok results.
I know it has a lot to do with how I photograph him. I generally try to capture him on overcast days to minimize extreme contrasts and shadows. In that regard, I'm successful.
I think the problem is the sheer size of him (he's the same size as the original, about 20 feet tall excluding his pedestal). I think there is also the problem that I'm trying to model him with as much detail as possible, but aside from his hands, feet, the stump behind his right calf or his head and face, the greater part of him is relatively smooth and has only minor features for Photoscan to grab onto. The resulting preliminary model is very "noisy" all over his torso, legs and arms. That is how I concluded that because so much of him is mostly smooth that Photoscan has a tough time.
Would anyone have any ideas on how I might overcome this stumbling block?
I have also tried photographing him in early morning sunlight and late evening sunlight and have had somewhat better results, but only for the parts of him that had raking patterns of light and shadow.
I know it has a lot to do with how I photograph him. I generally try to capture him on overcast days to minimize extreme contrasts and shadows. In that regard, I'm successful.
I think the problem is the sheer size of him (he's the same size as the original, about 20 feet tall excluding his pedestal). I think there is also the problem that I'm trying to model him with as much detail as possible, but aside from his hands, feet, the stump behind his right calf or his head and face, the greater part of him is relatively smooth and has only minor features for Photoscan to grab onto. The resulting preliminary model is very "noisy" all over his torso, legs and arms. That is how I concluded that because so much of him is mostly smooth that Photoscan has a tough time.
Would anyone have any ideas on how I might overcome this stumbling block?
I have also tried photographing him in early morning sunlight and late evening sunlight and have had somewhat better results, but only for the parts of him that had raking patterns of light and shadow.
9
General / Re: Photoshop camera raw export parameters... what matters?
« on: February 11, 2016, 12:52:19 AM »
Thanks for the tip BigBen. I had been wondering about the same thing for a long, long time. I've been stumbling blindly along when I'd import my Pentax DNG files and try to tweak them hoping to give Photoscan the best information to work from. Sometimes my projects would work well and other times, not so much. I knew it came down to the quality of the photos I was snapping and the resulting exports to Photoscan.
Now I can take some of my not-so-great projects from the past and give them another try with your suggested settings.
Now I can take some of my not-so-great projects from the past and give them another try with your suggested settings.
10
General / Apple's graphics "Metal" API
« on: November 30, 2015, 01:21:25 PM »
I'm one of the few Apple enthusiasts who actually didn't sit riveted in front of my Mac as the annual keynote played out but I just became aware of a new graphics API from Apple called Metal. It sounds intriguing for all the improvements it is supposed to be able to introduce to the latest Mac OS going forward.
As usual, Metal will only work with software that has been optimized to take advantage of it.
So, logically, I'm wondering if anyone at Agisoft has begun looking into including Metal for their future releases of Photoscan on the Mac side?
On my end, I'm adding more RAM to my 2009 Mac Pro whenever I can afford it and have just invested in a much faster/better graphics card as well. I know better than to expect some day vs. night difference in performance, but every little bit helps. As it stands, unless I go crazy with my 3D modeling settings, my Mac Pro actually keeps up handily with the most current iMacs and Mac Pros available. Not bad for an almost seven year old machine. Let's hear it for the cheese grater!
Thanks!
Jerry
As usual, Metal will only work with software that has been optimized to take advantage of it.
So, logically, I'm wondering if anyone at Agisoft has begun looking into including Metal for their future releases of Photoscan on the Mac side?
On my end, I'm adding more RAM to my 2009 Mac Pro whenever I can afford it and have just invested in a much faster/better graphics card as well. I know better than to expect some day vs. night difference in performance, but every little bit helps. As it stands, unless I go crazy with my 3D modeling settings, my Mac Pro actually keeps up handily with the most current iMacs and Mac Pros available. Not bad for an almost seven year old machine. Let's hear it for the cheese grater!
Thanks!
Jerry
11
Feature Requests / Re: Save during long processing
« on: November 30, 2015, 01:06:57 PM »
I've often wondered why this wasn't a feature offered early on?! Still, hopefully someone will see this request and take it into consideration. Just like everyone else, there are times that my Mac gets almost overwhelmed and I don't dare try to do anything else lest it crash or freeze. Periodic project backups that run in the background would be wonderful.
12
General / Advice about a bronze sculpture
« on: October 26, 2015, 11:59:43 PM »
Hello,
This is a question about the futility of capturing a bronze statue--specifically one that was recently polished and waxed.
I've been having fun for the last few years being Ahab and chasing my great white whale, in this case a full-sized bronze copy of Michelangelo's David. Until recently, he was easy to photograph on overcast days as he had a patina that helped dull the underlying sheen of the bronze.
I recently stopped by the park where he stands guard and was surprised to see that the city had a change of heart and decided to scrub his patina off, polish him and coat him with a nice protective layer of wax. While I'm gratified to see the city moving away from the benign neglect frame of mind towards David, their recent actions have me reconsidering the chances of successfully modeling him now.
I know that shiny surfaces should be dulled with something like talcum powder, but I am pretty sure the city would take a very dim view of me doing that to a 20-foot male nude they'd just recently cleaned. Beyond that, are there any tricks in Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop that might help me?
I took this particular photograph late in the day after the shadow of a nearby building moved completely over him. Otherwise, David has an extremely dazzling, almost blinding reflective shine. If I were tall enough, I'm convinced I could use one of his feet for a mirror to shave in--that is how shiny and reflective his newly cleaned state is.
Jerry
This is a question about the futility of capturing a bronze statue--specifically one that was recently polished and waxed.
I've been having fun for the last few years being Ahab and chasing my great white whale, in this case a full-sized bronze copy of Michelangelo's David. Until recently, he was easy to photograph on overcast days as he had a patina that helped dull the underlying sheen of the bronze.
I recently stopped by the park where he stands guard and was surprised to see that the city had a change of heart and decided to scrub his patina off, polish him and coat him with a nice protective layer of wax. While I'm gratified to see the city moving away from the benign neglect frame of mind towards David, their recent actions have me reconsidering the chances of successfully modeling him now.
I know that shiny surfaces should be dulled with something like talcum powder, but I am pretty sure the city would take a very dim view of me doing that to a 20-foot male nude they'd just recently cleaned. Beyond that, are there any tricks in Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop that might help me?
I took this particular photograph late in the day after the shadow of a nearby building moved completely over him. Otherwise, David has an extremely dazzling, almost blinding reflective shine. If I were tall enough, I'm convinced I could use one of his feet for a mirror to shave in--that is how shiny and reflective his newly cleaned state is.
Jerry
13
General / A question about chunks
« on: June 26, 2015, 02:36:50 PM »
Hello,
I'm slowly improving my technique with Photoscan and I have been skimming and reading the tips and advice offered here in the forums. I didn't see anything quite like what my situation is and so here I go:
I'm currently attempting to recreate a full-sized, precise bronze cast of Michelangelo's Moses. I've covered very nearly every visible surface with multiple photos and different angles and distances to maximize my potential for success. It wasn't easy. The bronze sits atop an absurdly tall pedestal against a slab of aggregate. I've drawn plenty of attention as I have stood on ladders and nearby benches with a painter pole and my Pentax camera at the end of it. I've gotten quite a workout and discovered this sort of activity requires strong shoulders, arms and a good spine!
http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sioux-falls-michelangelos
Anyway, after culling my photos, all shot in RAW, carefully corrected for matching exposures and colors in Adobe Lightroom and exported as 200ppi JPG images, I've simple let Photoscan recreate Moses and his surroundings on the lowest setting, adjusted the bounding box accordingly and reran Photoscan to model Moses but at a medium quality to get more tie points. At this point, the model already looks great! I have over 100K tie points and my next thought was to adjust the bounding box to just a small part of Moses to create a dense point cloud and then a mesh.
I am a little lost about how to proceed with all the resulting chunks that I will eventually end up with. Do I have to create some generous overlap for each chunk to ensure Photoscan can mate all the pieces together? Or should I somehow create a precise cut between each proposed chunk with zero overlap? Or am I just going about this all wrong?
The reason I'm breaking Moses down into such small chunks is that my iMac simply can't handle that much processing without bogging down for literally days. I only have my one iMac and I'd like to use it for other things during that time. I tried running the first chunk overnight and that was fine for me. I just don't want to go through all the effort to find out that I have all these little pieces with no way to put them all together for the final model.
Sorry about the long question, but I wanted to make sure I was clear about how I was proceeding.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ylmspcrijwbi73/Screenshot%202015-06-26%2006.13.41.jpg?dl=0
I'm slowly improving my technique with Photoscan and I have been skimming and reading the tips and advice offered here in the forums. I didn't see anything quite like what my situation is and so here I go:
I'm currently attempting to recreate a full-sized, precise bronze cast of Michelangelo's Moses. I've covered very nearly every visible surface with multiple photos and different angles and distances to maximize my potential for success. It wasn't easy. The bronze sits atop an absurdly tall pedestal against a slab of aggregate. I've drawn plenty of attention as I have stood on ladders and nearby benches with a painter pole and my Pentax camera at the end of it. I've gotten quite a workout and discovered this sort of activity requires strong shoulders, arms and a good spine!
http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sioux-falls-michelangelos
Anyway, after culling my photos, all shot in RAW, carefully corrected for matching exposures and colors in Adobe Lightroom and exported as 200ppi JPG images, I've simple let Photoscan recreate Moses and his surroundings on the lowest setting, adjusted the bounding box accordingly and reran Photoscan to model Moses but at a medium quality to get more tie points. At this point, the model already looks great! I have over 100K tie points and my next thought was to adjust the bounding box to just a small part of Moses to create a dense point cloud and then a mesh.
I am a little lost about how to proceed with all the resulting chunks that I will eventually end up with. Do I have to create some generous overlap for each chunk to ensure Photoscan can mate all the pieces together? Or should I somehow create a precise cut between each proposed chunk with zero overlap? Or am I just going about this all wrong?
The reason I'm breaking Moses down into such small chunks is that my iMac simply can't handle that much processing without bogging down for literally days. I only have my one iMac and I'd like to use it for other things during that time. I tried running the first chunk overnight and that was fine for me. I just don't want to go through all the effort to find out that I have all these little pieces with no way to put them all together for the final model.
Sorry about the long question, but I wanted to make sure I was clear about how I was proceeding.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ylmspcrijwbi73/Screenshot%202015-06-26%2006.13.41.jpg?dl=0
14
General / Re: Odd Dense Cloud / Masking
« on: April 14, 2015, 03:27:54 AM »
I decided to try out building the mesh, but darn it, I ended up with this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wq7b0f78rwns4i8/Screenshot%202015-04-13%2018.12.30.jpg?dl=0
and this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/44t5stekmh8ald2/Screenshot%202015-04-13%2018.12.05.jpg?dl=0
I decided to put some Family Guy on the television for background noise and I'm attempting to trim away the sky that somehow stuck to the sculpture.
I think most of the problem is not just with the software, but just as much with my inexperience. I've been playing with PS for a while now, but a lot of things I never knew about were learned from other users here and watching a lot of Youtube as well. But half the fun is learning new things as I go.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wq7b0f78rwns4i8/Screenshot%202015-04-13%2018.12.30.jpg?dl=0
and this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/44t5stekmh8ald2/Screenshot%202015-04-13%2018.12.05.jpg?dl=0
I decided to put some Family Guy on the television for background noise and I'm attempting to trim away the sky that somehow stuck to the sculpture.
I think most of the problem is not just with the software, but just as much with my inexperience. I've been playing with PS for a while now, but a lot of things I never knew about were learned from other users here and watching a lot of Youtube as well. But half the fun is learning new things as I go.
15
General / Odd Dense Cloud / Masking
« on: April 14, 2015, 12:22:59 AM »
I'm photographing a full-sized direct cast bronze copy of Michelangelo's David as a personal challenge to see how well my skills have come along since I started playing with 3D photo-modeling. Here is one of my photos:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw2xizj1huld37q/2015-04-12%2017-21-32.JPG?dl=0
As you can see, David is not a good or easy subject since he's dark and surrounded by a visually busy background of trees and cityscape. I used a tripod with my trusty Nikon D3100 set to 100 ISO at f/16 for 2 seconds (so the details of David would come out cleaner and brighter instead of disappearing into a dark featureless mass against the bright overcast sky).
I was able to run the alignment successfully. I then isolated David from the surrounding sparse cloud and erased everything. I shrank the bounding box as closely as possible to the sculpture. I then ran the dense cloud command on a low setting.
My plan was to cheat and let PS do the heavy lifting so I wouldn't have to spend hours masking each photo in Photoshop. I'd rather attempt to raise the Titanic with tweezers than ever have to do that again with another project, especially with something as complex as David. I would make a simple low-resolution model to create the masks from, then start over confident that I'd still saved more time than the old-fashioned masking by hand method.
Except, I go from this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p77crn3wb21g7zm/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-13%20at%2015.45.01.jpg?dl=0
to this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ze1e8ifa8q75oyw/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-13%20at%2015.45.06.jpg?dl=0
What am I doing wrong? I know all about the "Garbage in, garbage out." theory, but my photos are about as good as I can shoot with my limited knowledge of photography at this point. Am I stuck having to trim away all the excess off the dense cloud before proceeding, or is there a step I missed somewhere?
Thanks!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw2xizj1huld37q/2015-04-12%2017-21-32.JPG?dl=0
As you can see, David is not a good or easy subject since he's dark and surrounded by a visually busy background of trees and cityscape. I used a tripod with my trusty Nikon D3100 set to 100 ISO at f/16 for 2 seconds (so the details of David would come out cleaner and brighter instead of disappearing into a dark featureless mass against the bright overcast sky).
I was able to run the alignment successfully. I then isolated David from the surrounding sparse cloud and erased everything. I shrank the bounding box as closely as possible to the sculpture. I then ran the dense cloud command on a low setting.
My plan was to cheat and let PS do the heavy lifting so I wouldn't have to spend hours masking each photo in Photoshop. I'd rather attempt to raise the Titanic with tweezers than ever have to do that again with another project, especially with something as complex as David. I would make a simple low-resolution model to create the masks from, then start over confident that I'd still saved more time than the old-fashioned masking by hand method.
Except, I go from this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p77crn3wb21g7zm/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-13%20at%2015.45.01.jpg?dl=0
to this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ze1e8ifa8q75oyw/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-13%20at%2015.45.06.jpg?dl=0
What am I doing wrong? I know all about the "Garbage in, garbage out." theory, but my photos are about as good as I can shoot with my limited knowledge of photography at this point. Am I stuck having to trim away all the excess off the dense cloud before proceeding, or is there a step I missed somewhere?
Thanks!
Pages: [1] 2
