1
Bug Reports / Re: Wrong masks generation
« on: September 24, 2022, 11:29:37 PM »
Just sent files to support@agisoft.com.
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
Bug Reports / Re: Wrong masks generation
« on: September 22, 2022, 02:47:54 PM »
Forgot to mention version - 1.8.5 build 14930. Previous versions have even worse result. This is big step forward, but still unusable.
3
Bug Reports / Wrong masks generation
« on: September 16, 2022, 06:01:42 AM »
Masks generation to mask defocus areas is cool feature and in about 95% cases work correct, but in about 5% cases they are partially inverted. I've attached example screenshots. Images 1_wrong.jpg and 2_wrong.jpg show wrong masks, but images 1_right.jpg and 2_right.jpg in the same areas with some different angle show correct masks. I've tried to decimate and smooth 3d model - it made some wrong masks correct but also it made some right masks incorrect.
4
Bug Reports / Re: Bad result with 32bit images
« on: September 15, 2022, 04:27:08 PM »
Just checked - now it work fine with JPG and 32bit images. Thanks.
5
General / Re: Strange test results on different GPU
« on: September 06, 2022, 06:29:55 AM »
Why that results look too strange for me. In that tests almost any card and even twin top card give almost the same performance - difference very very small. But I remember time a few years ago when I've changed GTX1060 to GTX1070 and I measured difference and it was around difference in games - about in 1.5 times (not saved precise results). Then I've changed Intel 4 core CPU (8 threads) 4.4Ghz to Intel 10 cores (20 threads) 4.8Ghz and to GTX1080ti and got difference in 2 times (total - align, mesh, texture) and I am sure that role of CPU was not really important in total time, because I've measured performance of CPU compared to GPU and it was about in 10 times. So I am absolutely don't understand how that was possible to get so strange results in that tests. Maybe corrupted PCIE bus of motherboard?
6
General / Re: Strange test results on different GPU
« on: September 05, 2022, 02:16:49 AM »
I would participate in user benchmark. Particularly I am interested if difference between 1080ti and 3080 still so small - used 3080 cost more than in 2 times higher than used 1080ti and 7% difference don't worth it, hope it different now, because this situation looks absolutely strange for cards that have in 2.6 times different FP32 performance even taking in account data transfer time loss. Even more disappointing situation with twin cards, because 5% gain don't worth double price. I see that many people on this forum have twin cards and all of them have only 5% gain? If situation still so, then twin cards absolutely wrong idea and right idea to buy second PC and install second card there.
7
Bug Reports / Re: Bad result with 32bit images
« on: September 05, 2022, 01:59:31 AM »
Just found that problem even with JPG and even worse. Here Metashape scene https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20220904UA6iNI7S
8
General / Strange test results on different GPU
« on: September 04, 2022, 01:21:40 AM »
I found articles comparing different GPUs in Metashape and results very strange.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Agisoft-Metashape-1-6-4---NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3080-Performance-1884/
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Agisoft-Metashape-1-6-5---NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-30-Series-Multi-GPU-Performance-2009/
By combining data from these two articles dual 3080 only 10% faster than single 1080ti - can't believe that. By floating point tests results difference about +400%, I think difference in Metashape should be about that, definitely not 10%.
Tests were done using Metashape 1.6, but that version already supported acceleration for most features. Quote from 1.6 manual - "Metashape supports accelerated image matching; depth maps reconstruction; depth maps based mesh, DEM and tiled model generation; texture blending; photoconsistent mesh refinement operation due to the graphics hardware (GPU) exploiting"
Can anyone confirm that these articles absolutely wrong? How they get so wrong results?
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Agisoft-Metashape-1-6-4---NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3080-Performance-1884/
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Agisoft-Metashape-1-6-5---NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-30-Series-Multi-GPU-Performance-2009/
By combining data from these two articles dual 3080 only 10% faster than single 1080ti - can't believe that. By floating point tests results difference about +400%, I think difference in Metashape should be about that, definitely not 10%.
Tests were done using Metashape 1.6, but that version already supported acceleration for most features. Quote from 1.6 manual - "Metashape supports accelerated image matching; depth maps reconstruction; depth maps based mesh, DEM and tiled model generation; texture blending; photoconsistent mesh refinement operation due to the graphics hardware (GPU) exploiting"
Can anyone confirm that these articles absolutely wrong? How they get so wrong results?
9
Bug Reports / Re: Bad result with 32bit images
« on: September 02, 2022, 11:40:50 PM »
I found that not all scenes have this problem, so here scene that have this problem https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20220902ZnzuVd8k
10
Bug Reports / Bad result with 32bit images
« on: September 02, 2022, 10:11:57 PM »
Version 1.8.5 build 14752. Version 1.8.4 worked fine with 32 bit images.
Pages: [1]
