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 - sambagis

Pages: [1]
1
Hey Alexey.  Thanks for getting back to me.  I have shared the project in PSZ format with support via email.  I will report to the community here if we get any sort of useful resolution.  Thanks for all of your help and great support.

2
YES YES YES!!!! This needs to be simple option.  Look at invalid points and change them to valid points (basically turns them into markers).  This is something that would greatly improve the use of this software for complex data sets that dont have a simple solution or ability to capture new data. 

3
Feature Requests / Re: manual placement of tie point
« on: August 29, 2019, 08:06:31 PM »
Hey Alexi,
How do we go about doing this process you describe?  I dont see any tutorial information on the topic

4
quick update.  A friend suggested adding manual points until Agisoft decides to align the problem images.  Im happy to work on that but I have no idea what the best workflow is for that process.  Does anyone have any insight here?

5
Hi all,
I have a data set that has relatively reasonable overlap but in areas of dense forest the overlap seems to be just poor enough that I am unable to get alignment.  I have gaps in the data and have tried all the different accuracy options during alignment (highest to lowest) to get the images to get some sort of alignment but no luck.  When I view matches with those images that dont align I can see that there are many "invalid points" but they all look like good / valid points between images.  I have tried also increasing and decreasing the horizontal accuracy of the initial position.  Still no change.  I am working with imagery from a PhaseONE IXU1000 sensor that has really good camera geometry but at very high resolution where the trees have significant lean between images.  I think this is whats creating the lack of alignment.  We are unable to recollect data in this area so I am hoping someone has any ideas on how to reduce the tolerances in the initial alignment phase that will force agisoft to give me even a poor result which would be better than the gaps I have now. 

I have attached a screen grab.

Thanks all.   

6
General / Re: WGS84 transformations
« on: August 10, 2018, 06:29:30 PM »
The problem Im having is that when I am exporting data from Agisoft in a projected format the data is off by 1.5m from the original GCP data when viewed in an outside GIS (arcgis 10.x).  The only thing I can figure is that agisoft is assuming a different realization than what was actually used in post processing the GCP points.   In this case ITFR00 was used but it seems like agisoft assumes maybe the most recent realization or either ITFR08 or ITFR14.   The result again is that Im getting 1.5 meters of error just from transformation errors which is in excess of what I need to produce.  I think the major issue is that Hawaii (pacific plate) in comparison to the rest of the US is moving quite quickly every year making these different realizations more important.  Maybe Im completely confused.  Im not a geodesy guy and this stuff gets relatively confusing.   

7
General / WGS84 transformations
« on: August 10, 2018, 03:21:07 AM »
Hi all. 
Im working with data from Hawaii where the geographic reference system WGS84 is problematic.  Does any one know what realization of WGS84 agisoft is using in its basic format??  There are no options for choosing any of the ITFR realizations and my GCP data is all in ITFR00. 

Stephen

Pages: [1]