Messages

1

Bug Reports / Re: Realignment deleting pointcloud Bug

« on: June 11, 2025, 04:56:21 PM »

I was going to post this bug as well, and then found this thread.

However, after downloading the latest version 2.2.1, I can confirm this bug is still present.

2

General / Revert Undo command changes in newer versions for cleaning of clouds/models

« on: December 10, 2024, 04:15:39 PM »

I recently downloaded version 2.1.3.  There's some nice improvements such as texture generation by resolution and block models. Admittedly I haven't updated for 8-10 months.

That said, I see the undo function has changed.  Previously, if you were cleaning up meshes or point clouds and you accidentally deleted something, you could undo, and it would leave your deleted data cumulatively selected (red)  as you undo, then you could deselect what you wanted to keep (what you accidentally deleted), and then delete the rest of the data again.  This was great.  But now, each time you click undo it wipes the selection of the previous undo command. So then you have to redo all your cleaning if you go back to recover something you too aggressively cleaned.

Let me know if I am just missing something, or if others also noticed the change and would prefer it to go back to how it was.

3

General / Re: Depth Map generation: random patterns and many black holes

« on: October 17, 2024, 10:48:34 PM »

I have done a lens calibration which has helped immensely, but it still should have had better results than it did.  It's optimized to survey, etc. 

I am experimenting a bit more to see if running alignments with generic disabled will help.  It takes exponentially longer on larger datasets, but perhaps that's what it needs to improve the number of matches. I'll upload some sample images to google drive shortly.

The solution for this issue was to turn the rolling shutter compensation to  "full" and apply the calibration to the initial tab. Then optimize to adjust.

4

General / Re: Depth Map generation: random patterns and many black holes

« on: October 04, 2024, 05:14:28 PM »

I have done a lens calibration which has helped immensely, but it still should have had better results than it did.  It's optimized to survey, etc. 

I am experimenting a bit more to see if running alignments with generic disabled will help.  It takes exponentially longer on larger datasets, but perhaps that's what it needs to improve the number of matches. I'll upload some sample images to google drive shortly.

5

General / Depth Map generation: random patterns and many black holes

« on: October 03, 2024, 08:34:42 PM »

Hi all,

I have been noticing a troubling problem with mesh and depth map generation with our new UAV camera specifically.  We recently purchased a DJI Inspire 3 with X9 camera.  We had previously been using an Inspire 2 with X7 camera with mostly great results.  We are aware the X9 isn't intended for photogrammetry by DJI, however, the Mavic is insufficient quality and the M350/P1 is not easily transportable around the country due to the battery capacities.

The depth maps and meshes generated for close up images with our 50mm lens is mostly unusable. It has bizarre patterns with little to no depth between pairs.

Previously we had some issues with no depth or key points detected in random areas inside images.  This also still happens, but this depth map issue is a critical problem.  Any help would be ideal.  I could transfer a dataset if that would help.

6

Bug Reports / Re: Holes in tie points/ depth maps in random portions of images

« on: January 04, 2024, 04:24:23 PM »

Sorry for the delay,  here's the requested images. I can't think of other projects off hand, but have seen this phenomenon before with the newer versions of the software. Never the older ones.

7

Bug Reports / Re: Holes in tie points/ depth maps in random portions of images

« on: November 17, 2023, 09:21:44 PM »

Hi Alexey, there's no masks anywhere in the project.  These weird gaps in the tie points are only in a handful of images.  It has happened to me on other projects as well. When there's no tie points, it also has a problem calculating the depth.
This has only happened on more recent versions the last few years. Never had this issue before.  I've tried changing tie point and key point's and re-aligning, but the software just doesn't like those portions of the images.

8

Bug Reports / Holes in tie points/ depth maps in random portions of images

« on: November 17, 2023, 05:45:18 PM »

Hello, this has been an issue in the newer versions of Metashape.  I  haven't had these issues in other software packages like Context Capture.

These are UAV and DSLR photos of a large masonry structure, with lots of great texture for photogrammetry.

I have added images of the results in the mesh (lumpy filled in voids from further away photos). I have added a photo of the image in question, which is super dense with tie points, minus a void with no tie points, the adjacent image showing the same area full of tie points, and the depth map of the image with the void.

Any insight would be helpful.  It has occurred in maybe a dozen spots on this large complex. It doesn't translate into much of an issue in the final ortho photo of each elevation, but it's an annoyance, and ideally would like to have it resolved for future projects.

9

General / Re: TLS + Photogrammetric data compilation bug?

« on: March 31, 2022, 06:41:04 PM »

Hi Dieter, 

This happened in both 1.7 and 1.8, but only for this project.  I had another 2 weeks ago that I added scans to afterwards (to help cleanup the mesh under eaves/overhangs), and that one worked fine, as it usually does.

The only differences I can discern is that the other project that worked is in a UTM, and this one is in a local system.  The other project has some UAV photos in it along with terrestrial DSLR, but this project is all DSLR.

10

General / Re: TLS + Photogrammetric data compilation bug?

« on: March 30, 2022, 10:24:19 PM »

I can confirm that exporting the existing metashape photo alignment to an XML bundle, opened in Context Capture and then brought in the same scan data E57's and it looks great..  The tiling and combining of the tiles is a step I wanted to avoid.

I also tried running the photos and scans from scratch with an align.. again, as soon as you place the scans with the script... same scaling issue.

Hopefully Alexei or someone can help address this issue/bug.

11

General / Re: TLS + Photogrammetric data compilation bug?

« on: March 30, 2022, 04:13:14 PM »

Here's the additional screen caps.

In number 5 I have turned all the layers on.  The red line and red circle are the correct locations of the model and the scans.  The green is the result after the references are refreshed.

In cap #6 you can see just the locations of the references that aren't activated on images (in their correct locations) as well as the ones activated on images and the image/scan locations that have inexplicably contracted in scale.

# 7 shows the resulting dense cloud...  The scans are split apart relative to each other and their original registration, both horizontally and vertically in the case of the roof scans..  The scan parallel to the photogrammetric data is in the correct orientation, and appears to have a realistic scale, but the PG model has shrunken in size due to this issue. You will see the roof data is also appearing below the roof, relative to the scans. I guess a scalar factor is being applied to the registration of the scan location, but leaving the scans themselves unscaled.

12

General / TLS + Photogrammetric data compilation bug?

« on: March 30, 2022, 04:07:14 PM »

Hello all.

I have been successfully combining TLS+ PG data in Metashape for a couple years now with mostly fantastic results. We also use Context Capture (typically exporting camera positions from Metashape), but I find myself lately just doing our workflow start to finish in metashape because it is simpler and the results are acceptable.

However, I have a project from 2017 I decided to re-process combining the scans and photos and am getting a very bizarre/inexplicable result.

I have my main chunk with the photogrammetry aligned and registered to the same survey as the TLS.  Due to holes in the PG (DSLR photos taken from a manlift) I wanted to add in the scans to create a nearly watertight point cloud. I have done this many times before, adding the scans in after the fact, applying the script to set the locations of the scans, etc.  It has always worked, regardless of whether or not I "align" the TLS pano images or use the script.  I sometimes get slightly better results aligning and then using the script, but not always.

Anyhow, for this project, I have done everything, and I keep ending up at the same result.  A bizarre movement and scalar reduction of the entire model. It affects the references, scans and images.

When I bring in the scans, they show up in the correct location relative to the survey and the photo locations. But as soon as you build something from it, or click refresh on the references the scans, photos and any reference markers activated on scans or photos will move with an overall error of over 9m.

I have attached screen captures of the error, and will attach 3 more in another post showing the dense cloud result as well, you can see the scale on the scans is unchanged and remains correct, but because the locations of the scans have been scaled the productions using this data has the scans split all over the place.

This happens exactly the same way with 1.7 or 1.8.

The survey is in a local coordinate system. I haven't tried creating a dummy WCS to see if that is the issue.  I also haven't tried starting a new project with all the raw ingredients from scratch (I may just for troubleshooting purposes).

I have left the accuracy of the scans at the  10m default, and tried moving it down in increments to 0.001m. The error changes slightly, but still does not correct the issue.

However, my scans and my photogrammetry on their own, in Recap line up perfectly, as do they in metashape until you click refresh (or if you don't it still gives you the same dense cloud result).