Messages

61

General / Re: Advice on making my flat field "flat"

« on: September 12, 2014, 10:16:32 PM »

Jose, this actually worked!  I think it's an improvement, not as many blurry spots.  I did not even know it was possible.  Thank you!  The RGB/NIR/TIR cameras were all on the same flight, and all have the same ground reference.  Thank you for that tip.  The TIR image looks better.

I also tried customizing the mesh polygons to something even more high than the high.  It did not change much.

So with this method, is Agisoft even using the dense point cloud for anything or only the outside mesh?

We have other thermal mosaics that worked much better, but they were river corridors or something with more interest than a vineyard. 

62

General / Re: Advice on making my flat field "flat"

« on: September 11, 2014, 07:40:16 PM »

A couple more views of a "cliff" that when removing points leaves a hole in my mosaic.  When I change settings to remove the "cliff" I end up with a very bumpy field.

Is it the nature of these images?

63

General / Re: Advice on making my flat field "flat" (not bumpy)

« on: September 10, 2014, 01:30:32 AM »

Note the "smudged" areas.  I made this from the low quality point cloud, and any depth filter (did not seem to make a difference which depth filter).  Then edited out the really high and low peaks before making the mesh.

64

General / Advice on making my flat field "flat"

« on: September 10, 2014, 01:09:42 AM »

I am working with thermal imagery using a microbolometer thermal camera ICI 7640 (Infrared Cameras Incorporated).  Imagery was flown at 400 m AGL.  Images are 480 x 640 pixels.

My RGB and NIR point clouds came out wonderful for this flat vineyard project.  (see attached)

However, the two thermal flights are showing tons of bumps when I make the point clouds, or even random images that produce 90 degree "ramps" or "cliffs."

Here are the settings I'm trying:

Align photos:
I've tried high and medium accuracies
Pair Selection: Ground Control
Point limit: 1,000,000

Build Dense Cloud:
I've tried every combination I can think of
high, medium, low quality
mild, moderate, aggressive depth filtering
(not even totally sure when to use what still)

Build Mesh:
using Arbitrary for the surface type (since it's in temperature)
use high or moderate polygon count

See my various outputs below.  If I have one of those "ramped" or "cliffed" images, I try to find it and turn it off.  That does not help all the way.  If I try to delete those high points after I build a dense cloud (and before build mesh), then I have a hole in my imagery.

The issue is my end mosaics are very blurry in spots, only in the thermal.

Can someone help me improve what I'm doing?  Still new to this software.  These vineyard thermals seem to be a little more tricky than other thermal mosaics we've done.

65

General / Re: Updating project with CalCam info - no error improvement?

« on: September 10, 2014, 12:23:59 AM »

Is there any information out there regarding the iterative process for the camera parameters?  So far I am only going with the initial guessing (opposed to using my known camera parameters).  But if they can be refined even further, I would like to understand the process.

Thanks!

66

General / Re: Advice on improving this mosaic? How do you view your stitched images?

« on: September 03, 2014, 10:57:25 PM »

Good topic.  My trees come out like that as well.  I'll have to try these suggestions.

67

General / Re: Updating project with CalCam info - no error improvement?

« on: September 03, 2014, 10:55:42 PM »

Can anyone provide some steps on the iterative camera parameters process that is mentioned in this post?  I would like to try it.

68

General / Re: Updating project with CalCam info - no error improvement?

« on: August 27, 2014, 08:32:34 PM »

Thank you for the outlines, Alexey.

Any info, manuals, links, etc. about the iterative camera calibration refinement process?  I'd like to be able to do comparisons.

Do you suggest always using the iterative process when using Agisoft's camera guessing parameters?  Or use the camera info if it is already known?  Or whatever makes the best results?

69

General / Re: Updating project with CalCam info - no error improvement?

« on: August 25, 2014, 10:21:50 PM »

"The initial settings in PhotoScan are only the starting point for the iterative process of solving for the best set of parameters."

So theoretically the parameters could be more refined with lower errors as a result?  Where can I find the instructions for these refinement steps for the rest of the iterative process?  Any manuals on this? 

Is it something like what is mentioned in this post from ju523m?
http://www.agisoft.ru/forum/index.php?topic=930.0

I guess I am confused on a) how to refine Agisoft's camera parameters, and b) which I am to use - our own calibrated camera parameters or let Agisoft do the refining.

It seems refining Agisoft's camera parameters should only get better (can't get worse than the initial, right?), so if the initial guess is already better than our known camera parameters, it seems I should go the refinement route, if I can learn the steps.  Or would it really be a project by project basis? 

70

General / Re: Updating project with CalCam info - no error improvement?

« on: August 24, 2014, 04:23:20 AM »

Everyone - yes, I reran the optimization, then alignment, then point cloud, then mesh and texture as you can see in my comment:

"I reran the optimization and went through all the steps again"

I am assuming using the known camera's interior orientation parameters would improve the results since you are now working with known variables.  No guessing.  From use in other software usage (ie. EnsoMosaic), when your camera calibration results are not their best (perhaps subpar camera calibration results are different than guessing results?), it affects the end product from experience.  I am assuming more known info would improve things.

71

General / Re: Updating project with CalCam info - no error improvement?

« on: August 20, 2014, 06:56:30 PM »

Hello Alexey,

Thnk you for the reply!  I was hoping you would have advice.

I changed my sensor info to be in pixel size (mm) for the precalibration option.

I reran the optimization and went through all the steps again.  While my error is still close to before, it seems like the detailed camera calibration info did not make much of a difference for this particular project? 

BEFORE:  Auto errors are:                 0.021789 (m), 0.238 (pixel)
AFTER:  Precalibrated errors are:     0.022320 (m), 0.239 (pixel)

Did I do this correctly?  Can you advise on that?

72

General / Re: Updating project with CalCam info - no error improvement?

« on: August 08, 2014, 11:39:39 PM »

We are using a Canon S95 camera for NIR and RGB, with a UAV flown at 600 m AGL.  Calibration is done in-house with a dot wall.

73

General / Updating project with CalCam info - no error improvement?

« on: August 08, 2014, 11:11:21 PM »

I would love some help.  I don’t know if I’m doing this process correctly.  The posts I found on camera calibration are not painting the full picture for me.

I completed an Agisoft aerial project with 6 known marker points (aerial targets).  I did not adjust any camera information and let everything go to the default.  (Somewhere I read about playing with these settings to improve results.  I did not do this.)

My errors are:  0.021789 (m), 0.238 (pixel). Photos below.

Then, I wanted to compare the same project but using known camera calibration file (opposed from staring over where markers would not be exactly the same due to human error).  I made a copy of the project.

I used RapidCal (updated CalCam version) to calibrate our cameras.  I imported this *.cal file into AgisoftLens which generated an xml file.  I imported this xml file in my copy project, reran the optimization (HERE the error did not change) and went through the steps again to get a mosaic. Checked to see the camera information stayed the same and it did.

Should I expect a change?  I was surprised that none of the error changes in the slightest.

Did I add my own camera information correctly (uploading xml file generated from AgisoftLens)? 

Below are the camera calibration windows one from the default and the other using the RapidCal/CalCam data.

74

General / Re: Agisoft DEMs - comparing in-flight and flight to flight DEMs

« on: July 15, 2014, 01:29:35 AM »

I am going with the default settings.  I am not sure when and where I'd even change the settings to tell you the truth, unless I saw it in a PDF tutorial.


Align photos - Accuracy-medium; Pair selection-Generic; Point limit-40000

Build Dense Cloud - Quality-Medium; Depth filtering-Moderate

Build Mesh - Surface type-height field; Source data-Dense cloud; Polygon count-Medium; Interpolation-Extrapolated; Point classes-all

Build Texture - Mappig mode-Orthopho; Blending mode-average; Texture size/count-8192; Enable color correction-off


For the Fixed or Auto Calibrations - does this mean camera calibration? 

I do have my interior camera calibration data (focal point, k1, k2...).   I have not entered into the Camera Calibration window under Tools, so I presume I've been doing auto calibrations?

I will add our camera calibration data in the forms.  Not sure if I fill out the Initial tab or Adjusted tab however.  I went with Adjusted as Initial did not let me enter my k1, k2, k3 and this is data that I have.

Edited to Add:  I also found this link so I will read it over to see what I am missing.  This seems like a very complicated part that I had no idea about, and it highly affects the DSM.
http://www.agisoft.ru/forum/index.php?topic=930.0

75

General / Re: Agisoft DEMs - comparing in-flight and flight to flight DEMs

« on: July 11, 2014, 09:04:22 PM »

Hi Andy,

We are using Canon S95 (RGB and NIR) and also flew the UAV at flight at 600 m AGL. 

I did look at my map with +/- 20 cm all turned off, and it looked like the non-crop bareground area (which is really sage and weeds) was all in that range.

I have not tried making a larger grid size DEM, but I can experiment with that.

Can you clarify "reconstruction parameters?"