Forum

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.


Messages - Mak11

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
General / Re: Intelligent scissors are not Intelligent
« on: June 24, 2019, 09:42:36 PM »
Maybe you should keep all your question under one thread instead of creating one every time you wish to complain about something? Spamming the forum like that isn't the best way to get answers.


2
The methods posted by Alexey work perfectly fine (on par & sometimes better than competing software when aligning those kinds of projects) . As long as you have enough photos and of good enough quality (which is literally the basis of photogrammetry).

Mak

3
General / Re: Best hardware for a PC for metashape
« on: June 13, 2019, 01:43:44 PM »
Cweord

Not a single Photogrammetry software on the market uses or is planning to make use of ray tracing hardware. Also SLI is simply not worth it (less than 5% faster on average). A single GPU with high number of compute cores (CUDA cores on NV or CUs on AMD) is your best bet for Metashape (other photogramettry software practically don't scale at all. So a low end GPU is good enough & has nearly the same perf as a high end one) .

AMD vs Nvidia: it's all your choice as both perform well (with AMD GPUs being much cheaper). It all depends on the work load (some are faster on NV while others are faster on AMD).

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Metashape-1-5-1-NVIDIA-GeForce-Titan-and-AMD-Radeon-Performance-Comparison-1472/

Also contrary to the conclusion in the report above I have never encounter a GPU related crash/bug in Photoscan/metashape on AMD GPUs in more that 3 years of nearly daily usage (same for NV GPUs as long as the drivers are correctly installed and up-to-date). Then again Puget also has "strange/odd" results when benchmarking AMD hardware.  Their previous Radeon bench results last year in Photoscan where totally wrong. Also note that those results above are done using the medium processing quality. Results vary enormously at higher quality settings.

Anyways, loads of RAM & a good high-end CPU is what makes the biggest difference.

Mak

4
General / Re: Agisoft Deligther Documentation
« on: June 11, 2019, 07:33:21 PM »
Alexey,

This just made me realize that I actually made a mistake when generating this texture..should have been 16384 instead of 16194. My mistake.

Will try out the delighter once you post the blog post about it. As of right bow I can't seem to figure out how to make it work etc (getting missing mask error etc).

Mak

5
General / Re: Agisoft Deligther Documentation
« on: June 11, 2019, 02:53:35 PM »
Alexey,

Texture size on the model was a regular 16K  map (16194x16194).

Mak

6
General / Re: Agisoft Deligther Documentation
« on: June 11, 2019, 01:24:41 PM »
Alexey,

Just submitted a crash report.

Mak

7
General / Re: unwanted vertices inside the mesh
« on: June 10, 2019, 01:50:07 AM »
To be perfectly clear and prove that something is wrong I just processed 2 of Agisoft's samples (Doll and Monument which anybody can download https://www.agisoft.com/downloads/sample-data/) using the depths maps workflow on Ultra High in 1.5.1 & 1.5.3 without changing any settings.

The results speak for themselves:

Doll

1.5.1: https://imgur.com/TS9auiR

1.5.3: https://imgur.com/Okkuc0Z

Monument

1.5.1: https://imgur.com/0zF6VlA

1.5.3: https://imgur.com/d49aMFb


Mak

8
General / Re: unwanted vertices inside the mesh
« on: June 09, 2019, 02:00:53 PM »
Dear support,

I would respectfully suggest that you prepare a small document explaining the main tweaks and their use....


They seem to be very useful but seem to be a mystery that is uncovered little by little....

A list of most useful tweak with their effect would greatly help!

More importantly it would be great to not introduce under-the-hood & undocumented optimizations that either make things slower to process compared to the previous version or break things appart with no tangible advantages. This has been the case for a while now.  :(

Performance optimization where done to camera alignment when using Generic Pre-selection: it's faster which is great but a lot less reliable than before which results in the need to align with pre-selection disabled more often thus rendering this feature optimization somewhat moot if said feature can't be used with confidence anymore.

Depth Maps generation has been changed under the hood between 1.5.0 & 1.5.1 (to improve the Dense Cloud quality) which makes it 30% slower on average with no particular benefits when using the new depth maps meshing workflow (there's an undocumented tweak to revert to the old method -> "method main/depth_build_lod - FALSE") which was useful up until 1.5.2 was released.

And now two new Depth Maps optimization have been introduced in 1.5.2 which makes things even worse: it's slightly slower (you have to set "main/depth_build_lod -TRUE" or things will be even worst now) and the meshes generated are simply messed up in terms of topology with holes and unwanted polys all over the place.

For those using Metashape and generating meshes using the Depth Maps workflow sticking to 1.5.1 is IMO the best solution for now.

Mak

9
General / Re: unwanted vertices inside the mesh
« on: June 08, 2019, 10:19:13 PM »
Hello Mak,

Yes. Additionally you can also use the following tweak to eliminate the "bubbles" inside or under the surface:
Code: [Select]
main/mesh_visibility_trimming_radius
Recommended value is 10. By default the option is disabled (i.e. set to 0).

Alexey,

Just started running some tests (first with main/mesh_visibility_trimming_radius 0) and I'm unfortunately getting exactly the same bad results as with 1.5.2: holes in the meshes, seam-line artifacts etc..

Edit: mesh_visibility_trimming_radius xx is like using gradual selection of connected component to delete unwanted polys/vertices but without any flexibility. If 10 is not enough or too much then you have to re-process the mesh..also if the "bubble" is connected to the main mesh, trimming it creates a hole !...

15.1:
https://imgur.com/eeocTWU

15.3:
https://imgur.com/4Ndl0Rf


To say that I'm disappointed would be gross understatement. Especially when 1.5.1 didn't suffer from those particular issues and meshes even had more detail at the same settings when using the Depth maps mesh generation workflow.
I'll repeat what I've been saying since March but the "Improved filtering of coarse depth map levels & Improved noise suppression for depth map based mesh generation" introduced in 1.5.2 are a step backward & 1.5.3 doesn't seem to have fixed any of this.

Back to 1.5.1 for me unfortunately.

Mak

10
General / Re: unwanted vertices inside the mesh
« on: June 08, 2019, 06:11:44 PM »
Alexey,
Thanks, I will test it out later tonight.

Cheers

Mak

11
General / Re: unwanted vertices inside the mesh
« on: June 08, 2019, 05:37:14 PM »
Alexey,
Does the 1.5.3 build released today include those fixes?

Cheers

Mak

12
General / Re: Texture projection issues.
« on: May 28, 2019, 03:04:38 PM »
Looks like you rotated, moved the retopo model compared to the original one.


Mak

13
Bug Reports / Re: crash on dense cloud creation
« on: May 25, 2019, 01:48:49 AM »
Frank

Did you try to run a full blown memtest (https://www.memtest86.com/) to make sure that your RAM isn't busted ?
BTW which version of Windows are you running ? FYI the Windows 10 May security update (KB4494441) has negatively affected many Intel CPUs (the i9-9900k included & may also have disabled Hyper-threading). https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Windows-10-Security-Patch-Slowed-Intel-Core-i9-9900K-in-Pix4D-Metashape-RealityCapture-1461/

Mak

14
General / Re: unwanted vertices inside the mesh
« on: May 16, 2019, 06:23:01 PM »
Alexey,

Perfect 👌🏻. Ready to test it once your team is ready.

Cheers

Mak

15
General / Re: unwanted vertices inside the mesh
« on: May 16, 2019, 05:03:04 PM »
Alexey,
I'm guessing that there no ETA yet for 1.5.3, right?

Cheers

Mak

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11