Messages

1

Feature Requests / Re: Grid

« on: January 31, 2025, 12:01:20 PM »

I don’t know how long that option has been there, I’ve been  missing it for about 10 years!! lol , but can I suggest putting it in “view” tab, rather than under “model/show/hide items/view grid”

It doesn’t seem very logical for it to be in the “model” menu as it’s not anything to do with the model, it is a view related item. Just a suggestion!

2

Feature Requests / Re: Option to remove exif rotation data at import

« on: January 31, 2025, 03:21:56 AM »

I think i found the solution by deselecting "load camera calibration from XMP metadata" in preferences/advanced

3

Feature Requests / Re: Grid

« on: January 31, 2025, 03:17:28 AM »

Doh! thanks!

4

General / Gaussian Splat workflow using masks and Postshot

« on: January 28, 2025, 10:56:38 AM »

Hey, I just made a rather long video walking through my process using Metashape to preprocess a Gaussian splat in Postshot using masks from Metashape mesh model.

It’s a bit of a longwinded video, but hopefully might be of help to anyone looking to try Gaussian splatting.

I ask a couple of MS related questions, if anyone knows the answer, please leave a comment. Thanks.

https://youtu.be/kXhmxU4d4DA?si=noJ2yWKF9RjydxB7

5

Feature Requests / Re: Grid

« on: January 22, 2025, 09:07:26 PM »

Can you please elaborate, why current grid option is not sufficient, or how it could be improved to fit all the needs?

Sorry, maybe I've missed something, but there is no zero plane grid? Is there a setting to enable it?

Im thinking a grid with 1m squares that is aligned to 000 x/y/z axis in ortho top bottom etc views. This way, a non georeferenced model can be visually aligned and scaled to the grid datum.

6

Feature Requests / Re: Export COLMAP in standard

« on: January 22, 2025, 07:12:45 PM »

Regarding .dng, we will fix it in 2.2.0. Thanks for telling about the problem!

Just to report this appears to have been fixed - thank you

7

General / Masks export undistortion

« on: January 22, 2025, 06:53:33 PM »

Hi,

When exporting masks, does the software export the undistorted version of the mask, or is it the original image distortion?

Also, on the same vein, when exporting masks using the COLMAP cameras export, do the mask files respect the "pinhole transform" option? IE, will the masks be undistorted or not to match the exported image files?

Many thanks.

8

Feature Requests / Re: Ability to delete points in Gradual Selection within the open dialog

« on: January 22, 2025, 06:24:39 PM »

This seems to have been implemented, thank you!

9

Feature Requests / Re: Grid

« on: January 21, 2025, 12:23:37 PM »

Yes please!

10

Feature Requests / Option to remove exif rotation data at import

« on: January 18, 2025, 11:49:58 AM »

I have recently been having problems exporting the masks due to original and mask images having different rotations.

From another forum and indeed from the warning when importing images with varying rotations, it appears that the images have to be stripped of the exif flag for rotation. This is (to be blunt) a total pain in the arse, and such a simple thing to add to the import options within Metashape.

Please can you add an option to remove/ignore camera rotation exif ?

Thanks.

11

Feature Requests / Marker detection in standard

« on: January 18, 2025, 11:45:00 AM »

Firstly, I realise that this request is purely a giveaway for you guys, but hear me out, I do think that marker detection and scaling should be part of the standard edition by default.

Whilst $300+ seems a reasonable price for such a fine piece of software, the fundamentals of photogrammetric scanning and model creation rely on accuracy and correct scale etc. almost all free photogrammetry tools allow the ability to recognise and use markers to improve accuracy and scale.

Limiting markers to the pro version makes sense for a carrot and stick approach, but the result is the average user who does not need dems, lidar and all the other amazing options in the pro version is severely restricted in accuracy and quality of the photogrammetry output, which to me seems like a counterintuitive restriction.

Obviously it’s your guys call, but I do think basic accuracy tools should be part of both paid for versions as a default.

Put another way, I can’t justify paying the big financial hike to the pro version, just to be able to scale and transform my photogrammetry model more accurately.

12

Bug Reports / Re: COLMAP masks export incorrect image rotation

« on: January 08, 2025, 06:13:57 PM »

Looking at it again, if the masks are exported separately from the Colmap export, the image rotation is also not adhered to.

13

Bug Reports / COLMAP masks export incorrect image rotation

« on: January 08, 2025, 05:29:15 PM »

Exporting masks using the Colmap camera export with V2.2.0 is not adhering to the original image rotation.

The original photos were from an iphone, so I suspect that the camera orientation flag is being missed somehow?

The resultant exported images in my test case are portrait (correct orientation), Whilst the masks are rotated to landscape.

14

Feature Requests / Re: Export COLMAP in standard

« on: January 03, 2025, 12:17:52 AM »

Thanks for adding the option to not export images every time!

sorry for the dumb question, but can anyone explain the difference between the new "transform to pinhole" and unselected options? what does this do?

15

Feature Requests / Re: Export COLMAP in standard

« on: October 14, 2024, 07:44:19 PM »

I'd like to chime in here:

1. dense point clouds exported from Metashape as points3d work fine in both Nerfstudio and Postshot.
I have a customized version of the gaussian export script which does exactly this. A friend programmed this for me, but it's a kind of a workaround which we therefore couldn't offer Open Source (unlike the Masks implementation we added to the script).
But @ PolarNick, I can of course provide you this script version for internal examination.
One has to install open3d for Metashape manually, and the script internally creates a tmp ply version, reads it back in an then exports it as points3d. A hack which Metashape developers can probably solve in a cleaner fashion, with direct access to the dense cloud points via Python API.
The script chooses the currently active Dense Point cloud in Metashape for export (which I find is a neat solution if the project contains multiple dense point clouds).

I guess replacing the points3d.txt is still compatible with colmap, unlike changing the images.txt with its matching points (although that 2d-matching information isn't needed for Gaussian Splatting reonstructions).
And I personally favour such a points3d approach, rather than mixing this with a ply file or similar.

2. Yes, it would be _extremely_ useful to be able to disable the export of images (like in the script version), due to the long time undistorting takes.
There are many use cases for this (as also mentioned in post above).

3. Looking ahead, it's only a matter of time until fisheye camera models are fully supported for Gaussian Splatting.
The first steps were already made in Nerfstudio's latest GSplat version (1.4).
That's why I think an option to:
a) create idealized fisheye images on export, with the cameras.txt parameters following the OpenCV Fisheye convention, or
b) leave the images as-is, but adapt the cameras.txt  (p1/2, b1/2 intrinsics get lost in this case, but something which is acceptable for OpenCV compatibility?!)

Point 3) should probably be in an advanced section of the export dialog, as users will need to know what they are doing. Maybe also point 2)?

For any discussions of this closer to the 3dGS applications, I'm on the Nerfstudio and Postshot Discord servers as @pics23d

Thanks!

Really great points - I agree with all of these!