1
General / Re: Aerial photogrammetry (DSM + ortho) in 1.0 for "large" projects (~1000 images)
« on: February 21, 2014, 04:08:04 AM »
Thanks for the help guys. 
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 / Re: Aerial photogrammetry (DSM + ortho) in 1.0 for "large" projects (~1000 images)
« on: February 20, 2014, 05:16:44 AM »
Ive found a few solutions. I can get 1CM real time all the time for around $8,000 in investment. If I want to put in some time and elbow grease and post process I can do it for around $4,000.00.
3
General / Re: Aerial photogrammetry (DSM + ortho) in 1.0 for "large" projects (~1000 images)
« on: February 19, 2014, 05:38:48 AM »
Are you not going to field and getting your own GCP'S? Just getting them from some other source? Surveyor maybe?
4
General / Re: Aerial photogrammetry (DSM + ortho) in 1.0 for "large" projects (~1000 images)
« on: February 19, 2014, 03:11:42 AM »
I get it on picking targets out and them being visible in the imagery. My issue is getting accurate lat, long, & elevation of those visible targets.
5
General / Re: Aerial photogrammetry (DSM + ortho) in 1.0 for "large" projects (~1000 images)
« on: February 19, 2014, 02:35:39 AM »
OK, I should rephrase my question. I am looking for a way to accurately collect some ground control points to add to my imagery. Like you I am flying a 172 and am able to collect 1000's of 10mpx images all day long over very large areas.
I am looking to tighten up my imagery to be able produce reasonably high accuracy topo line maps. I do not want (nor can I get) a full blown survey of these very large areas.
Im just wanting to get as accurate GCP's of my own to add to my imagery on some small test projects.
I am looking at what adding the ground control would be able to do on small projects. I need to find a way collecting it and then going from there on dialing it in even further.
I am looking to tighten up my imagery to be able produce reasonably high accuracy topo line maps. I do not want (nor can I get) a full blown survey of these very large areas.
Im just wanting to get as accurate GCP's of my own to add to my imagery on some small test projects.
I am looking at what adding the ground control would be able to do on small projects. I need to find a way collecting it and then going from there on dialing it in even further.
6
General / Re: GCP Points - Something stupid?
« on: February 18, 2014, 10:24:39 PM »
I pretty much new that the on ground GCP would be just as off as the aerial gps data. Two wrongs couldn't make a right but I thought that I would ask.
Im looking for the ideal inexpensive way of doing some of the walking around and getting solid GCP. Ive got access to a sub-meter Trimble unit and Bluemarble is telling me that there Global Mapper will correct that units output if I use my laptop hooked up to it to record my GCP's.
Too what level of accuracy it will do it I'm not for sure of yet. I may be complexity off track here on getting solid GCP, I don't know. Any help at all will be of great help.
Im looking for the ideal inexpensive way of doing some of the walking around and getting solid GCP. Ive got access to a sub-meter Trimble unit and Bluemarble is telling me that there Global Mapper will correct that units output if I use my laptop hooked up to it to record my GCP's.
Too what level of accuracy it will do it I'm not for sure of yet. I may be complexity off track here on getting solid GCP, I don't know. Any help at all will be of great help.
7
General / Re: Aerial photogrammetry (DSM + ortho) in 1.0 for "large" projects (~1000 images)
« on: February 17, 2014, 05:05:21 PM »
Andy,
Where are you getting GCP?
Where are you getting GCP?
8
General / Re: Opinions on a choice: Mac Pro or iMac?
« on: February 17, 2014, 05:51:12 AM »Thanks a bunch.
9
General / GCP Points - Something stupid?
« on: February 17, 2014, 05:37:25 AM »
Might sound stupid but its worth asking.
Anyone tried shooting aerial images with their GPS enabled camera then using the same camera on the ground, shooting straight down at visible objects that can be seen in the aerial imagery (center of a manhole for instance or any other identifiable object) say from the exact same height, 1 or 2 meters off the ground, consistently all over the project area? You could collect as many points as you wanted in a very short amount of time with no expensive survey gear.
Then using those pics gps data, identify the objects / locations in the aerial images, and then enter the gps data from that corrisponding pic into the project.
If you went all over the project area and shot all these pics and then used their gps data Im wondering about what kind of accuracy you would get. Same receiver, same camera, same everything. Ive test shot this and the gps data (elevation too) is pretty consistent and seems to match the terrain fairly accurately.
Im curious if this would work for creating "rough" (not super accurate) but better quality DEM's and other output data?
Sounds to good to be true but Im not looking for dead nuts accuracy, not yet anyway. Just getting started with PS.
Its obviously a very cheap, quick, and inaccurate way to get some Ground Control but I'm wondering if its better than having nothing at all.
Just curious.
Anyone tried shooting aerial images with their GPS enabled camera then using the same camera on the ground, shooting straight down at visible objects that can be seen in the aerial imagery (center of a manhole for instance or any other identifiable object) say from the exact same height, 1 or 2 meters off the ground, consistently all over the project area? You could collect as many points as you wanted in a very short amount of time with no expensive survey gear.
Then using those pics gps data, identify the objects / locations in the aerial images, and then enter the gps data from that corrisponding pic into the project.
If you went all over the project area and shot all these pics and then used their gps data Im wondering about what kind of accuracy you would get. Same receiver, same camera, same everything. Ive test shot this and the gps data (elevation too) is pretty consistent and seems to match the terrain fairly accurately.
Im curious if this would work for creating "rough" (not super accurate) but better quality DEM's and other output data?
Sounds to good to be true but Im not looking for dead nuts accuracy, not yet anyway. Just getting started with PS.
Its obviously a very cheap, quick, and inaccurate way to get some Ground Control but I'm wondering if its better than having nothing at all.
Just curious.
10
General / Re: Opinions on a choice: Mac Pro or iMac?
« on: February 17, 2014, 05:04:37 AM »
Apple is 6 to 8 weeks out on building a Pro. 
I will grab the 27"iMac 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4X8GB
1TB Flash Storage
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M 4GB GDDR5
and will make due.
I will grab the 27"iMac 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4X8GB
1TB Flash Storage
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M 4GB GDDR5
and will make due.
11
General / Re: Opinions on a choice: Mac Pro or iMac?
« on: February 17, 2014, 04:35:22 AM »
Hello,
Im new to Agisoft and am looking for the right computer. Im not a computer guy by any means. Ive been looking at building a computer vs buying one off the shelf. Every person I've talked too had specked something totally different and the price range has jumped from 1500.00 US to 6500.00 US.
Im looking at the 27" iMac with all of the bells and whistles too and possibly considering springing for a Mac Pro. Ive been running a 2011 iMac since new and love it. Would be nice to stick with Apple but if I need a PC I can get over it.
Heres the specs on the Pro that Im looking at:
3.5GHz 6-core with 12MB of L3 cache
64GB (4x16GB) of 1866MHz DDR3 ECC
1TB PCIe-based flash storage
Dual AMD FirePro D700 GPUs with 6GB of GDDR5 VRAM each
From what I can gather having more than 6 cores will actually slow things down. I will be using the machine exclusively for PS Pro and will be running numerous 100 to 1500 10MPx image projects.
Best that I can determine is that I will be running 4 out of 6 of the cores for PS, will have 64gb ram, and the 1TB Flash will be awesome but IM not 100% sure on all of this.
I need a work horse machine that will last. I too was also told that SSD was the way to for durability, now Im about as confused as I can be.
Any help on the absolute perfect machine within my budget would be greatly appreciated. I would like to stay in the 6500.00 range but am willing to go up to 10K for the right tool for the job.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Im new to Agisoft and am looking for the right computer. Im not a computer guy by any means. Ive been looking at building a computer vs buying one off the shelf. Every person I've talked too had specked something totally different and the price range has jumped from 1500.00 US to 6500.00 US.
Im looking at the 27" iMac with all of the bells and whistles too and possibly considering springing for a Mac Pro. Ive been running a 2011 iMac since new and love it. Would be nice to stick with Apple but if I need a PC I can get over it.
Heres the specs on the Pro that Im looking at:
3.5GHz 6-core with 12MB of L3 cache
64GB (4x16GB) of 1866MHz DDR3 ECC
1TB PCIe-based flash storage
Dual AMD FirePro D700 GPUs with 6GB of GDDR5 VRAM each
From what I can gather having more than 6 cores will actually slow things down. I will be using the machine exclusively for PS Pro and will be running numerous 100 to 1500 10MPx image projects.
Best that I can determine is that I will be running 4 out of 6 of the cores for PS, will have 64gb ram, and the 1TB Flash will be awesome but IM not 100% sure on all of this.
I need a work horse machine that will last. I too was also told that SSD was the way to for durability, now Im about as confused as I can be.
Any help on the absolute perfect machine within my budget would be greatly appreciated. I would like to stay in the 6500.00 range but am willing to go up to 10K for the right tool for the job.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Pages: [1]
