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 - Super_Saffer

Pages: [1] 2 3
I'm hoping that posting here will provide better results than emails. I'm frustrated to the point of considering pirated software or an alternative such as Pix4D.

I had a hardware issue with my PC, and formatted it after replacing the GPU. I deregistered the licence properly, and activated it again after reinstalling. Unfortunately I had another issue and the stupid windows startup repairs wiped my HDD, and the activated license. Very frustrating. I've emailed support to get it opened up again but I'm just been given the run around. It's an edu licence, and I've traveled, work and studied at a few different places the last few years. I've always had my Gmail account registered because of this, but now this isn't good enough any more. I emailed from my current email address after being asked by support but now the school has blocked contact with RUS servers. I assume because of the war.

Support also previously sent me instructions to get information on my PC to do a manual activation, but the steps didn't work.

So now I'm stuck. I'm getting a lot of pressure to move away from Russian software, and this really isn't helping.

Cmon support. I'm trying here....

General / Hardware: i9 9900k vs i7 9700k
« on: February 27, 2022, 07:52:31 PM »
Hi all,

I have the opportunity to upgrade my CPU, and I'm wondering if it's worth it.  Would it be worth it to upgrade from a i7 9700K CPU to a i9 9700K? 

My specs are as follows:
AORUS Z390 mobo
i7 9700K CPU
Gigabyte 3070 TI GPU (just upgraded from a 2070 Super)
32GB Ram
2 x 2TB m.2 SSD

I want to get the most out of this system before I upgrade the entire thing. I can get a used 9700K for around $300, and I'm wondering if it's worth the upgrade. I've looked extensively ant the Puget Systems pages for comparisons, and the i9 9900k looks to be maybe 20% faster at most...but the newer CPU's from Intel and AMD seems to perform a LOT better than the 900 series from Intel.


General / Nvidia Tesla K80. A good, cheap option?
« on: September 12, 2021, 05:39:34 PM »
As you all know GPU prices are insane right now, and I'm looking for a cost effective way to beef up an older second system to use for jobs.  I see that the Nvidia Tesla K80 has some pretty good specs, and is really cheap online because of the lack of monitor output. 

What would the K80 be comparable to? I have a 2070 Super in my main system. Doesn't anyone have any experience with this card? Possibly in a 2x or 3x configuration.

General / Re: Trouble with UAV & Local Coordinate System Workflow
« on: August 06, 2021, 05:16:02 PM »
Attached here. I also sent you a message via the forums, if you're interested?

Coordinates on only 1 (GCP7) spot have been updated, yet when I try to import it it doesn't show up.  The client has multiple GCP set out, and some are close together, so they gave me a picture list of the correct GCP. The KMZ showing the GCP they originally gave me was pretty inaccurate, so I selected the wrong GCP in several cases. GCP 2 "may have blown away and not be visible on the images".

Hello Super,

maybe you can show the updated reference list to see what could be the problem?

General / Re: Trouble with UAV & Local Coordinate System Workflow
« on: August 06, 2021, 04:20:06 AM »
Hi again Paul, well I managed to get a new GCP list from the client. Several of them were either the wrong GCP completely, or the GCP had moved.  The 'old' data I'm processing in 2 chunks as it was collected at 2 different heights.  There is a 50m difference in capture height between the 2 "old" sets.  The 'new' data I'm processing as a 3rd chunk.  There is an 80m difference between this set and the lowest 'old' set, and a 30m difference between it and the highest 'old' set.

I can get the 3 chunks to align individually, but now when I try to import the updated reference it doesn't create markers automatically like it used to. Nor can I create markers myself. What could it be now?

Hey Super,

the coordinates supplied for the GCPs are definitely in feet. I referenced the image of your dense cloud to existing world imagery in Global Mapper. To reference the list of GCPs from your screen capture, I had to define the coordinates to be in orthographic projection with international feet as unit and then move them so they fit within your referenced dense cloud. Also the altitude from the GCPs text file must be transformed to meter (multiply by 0.3048) to fit the downloaded DEM from NRCanada....
see following attachments...

PS. if you want to play around with the workspace here is a zip file containing Global mapper workspace, Densecloud.jpg, gcps.txt, gcps.prj and DEM.tif....

General / Re: Trouble with UAV & Local Coordinate System Workflow
« on: July 27, 2021, 06:15:21 PM »
Thanks again Paul. Yup, the GSP was very different for all attempts. It's just a real mess, and I', coordinating with the client to recollect the data. They can't even get straight which units the GCP are in. Now they tell me it's International Survey feet, after telling me it was first meters and then US Survey ft. Oh well...

General / Re: Trouble with UAV & Local Coordinate System Workflow
« on: July 21, 2021, 07:16:02 AM »
Well, I now know why I couldn't get the GCP to line up no matter what I tried. The client now says that some of the GCP may have been moved by site workers.   >:(

I was able to use the older data, and the "fill hole" feature when exporting DEM. I'm not sure how my client will move the project forward, but I was able to give them a result. I guess the lesson here is to always be skeptical of every piece of information, if you are not the person who collected the data.

Thank you very much, Paul! The silver lining here for me is that you taught me a few new things, which I really appreciate.

In the reference pane, select all your images or cameras and in right click context menu, you will find Clear... which will open Clear Reference menu where you select Location option to clear all cameras reference locations....

Is 65% the forward or side overlap? It is best to have at least 60% side lap and 75% front lap but less can also be dealt with if there is good texture in imagery which seems to be your case as from camera coordinates you are on a mining site, right?

General / Re: Trouble with UAV & Local Coordinate System Workflow
« on: July 20, 2021, 06:52:13 AM »
Do you mean "reset camera alignment"? I don't see an option to remove the camera reference from a right click menu, but rather the reset camera alignment option.

I learned this evening that the overlap was only 65%, so I'm not sure how much of an issue that it.

General / Re: Trouble with UAV & Local Coordinate System Workflow
« on: July 20, 2021, 05:35:43 AM »
Thank you Paul!

If there is not a GCP in every photo do I still want to remove the camera references? It is a very large area, and over 1000 photos, but only very few with GCP.

Hi Super Saffer,

I think what you need to do after importing the GCPs in local coodinate system, is open the Reference settings (with tools button) and define the coordinate system as local, uncheck the camera reference option and set marker reference as Local CS as in attached screen copy.
Then deselect all your cameras, clear all reference camera locations (with right click context menu) and mark the GCPS in each photo, Update Transform and you will now have the model referenced in local system.

In example shown, my original project was referenced from cameras in WGS84. I imported 3 GCPS in local CS and defined the various CSs in reference settings. After marking the GCPS in at leat 2 photos each, i update my transform and now the model is referenced in local CS (X, Y in 100 s instead of lat, long....)

Hope this makes sense,

PS. it seems definitely that the GCPs local z is in feet as it is 3 times larger than camera reference altitude....

General / Trouble with UAV & Local Coordinate System Workflow
« on: July 19, 2021, 02:46:18 AM »
I'm having a ton of trouble with 2 data sets given to me by a client. It's been quite a while since I've done work like this, and the client has had issues with the data collection. 

The 2 data sets are of the same area, but at different times this year. There was an issue with the 1st data set in that some images did not save properly, so there is a gap in the data. The client want to use the data from the 2nd set to plug the hole in the 1st set. However, the 2nd set was completed with a different drone at a much lower resolution and lower overlap.  The 1st data set is almost 3 x the size of the fist in terms of photos and size. 1500 vs 3000 pics and 8GB vs 22GB.  The data was collected with 2 different model DJI drone.  There are also 15 GCP, which the client laid out and are triangles that 'point' to the mark. These are recorded in a local (m) coordinate system.  It's very time-consuming to find these because Metashape can't find them for me.

Before I can even think of plugging up the hole in the first data set, I need to be able to properly process them both...I think. Here is my workflow.  I cannot get the GCP to line up, after I mark them and update the transform.

1. Import images
2. Align images, remove any images that don't align properly, align again
3. Import reference: Local (m) .... now the client says' its meters anyhow.
4. Metashape creates the markers, and I spend the next 2 hours finding and marking the GCP with the 15 markers given to me.
5. Then the update transform function in the reference window. If I select Local (m) the markers are way above the 'ground' and not in the correct shape.  If I try with USft then it lines up almost fine, but the markers are now off by a few feet horizontally but below the surface vertically. 

How do I get the markers to line up with the GCP that are given in the local (m) datum?

This is where I'm stuck so far.  I know there is some kind of issue with how DJI records X axis/altitude data but I'm not sure how it apples with the scripts given by Agisoft. The data quality is poor, and I can't talk to the data collectors directly, or the people who laid out the GCP.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

General / Re: Batch process DJI drone altitude(x) data...
« on: July 19, 2021, 02:23:49 AM »
Hello Super_Saffer,

You can click on Raw button:

Then use Save As command in your browser to save the code as plain text file and rename its extension to .py.

Thank you!

General / Re: Batch process DJI drone altitude(x) data...
« on: July 18, 2021, 08:22:27 PM »
Thank you, Alexy!

OK this is going to be a really stupid question but.... How do I save the .PY file off of Github?

Hello Super_Saffer,

Please check, if you can use the existing script from GitHub repository, which allows to add the same fixed value to all the cameras in the Reference pane:

General / Batch process DJI drone altitude(x) data...
« on: July 17, 2021, 08:18:04 AM »
Hi all,

I need to bach process a few hundred drone images, to convert the standard DJI measurment in feet to meters. I have GCP in a LOCAL coordinate system that uses meters, and I'm having a hard time. I found this script below in an old forum post, but it no longer works. Could someone please point me in the direction of an updated version? Or would one of the moderators be so kind as to update it.

This is my first job in a while  :-[

Thank you!

Code: [Select]
#Solves EXIF altitude problem for imagery acquired by DJI drones
#For questions, get in touch with Agisoft PhotoScan forum user SAV
#Tested on PhotoScan Pro 1.4.0

import PhotoScan

doc =
chunk = doc.chunk

flight_height ="Please specify the flight height in meters", 30)
take_off_alt ="Please specify altitude above mean sea level for the point of take-off:", 0)

for camera in chunk.cameras:
if camera.reference.location:
coord = camera.reference.location
camera.reference.location = PhotoScan.Vector([coord[0], coord[1], flight_height + take_off_alt])


The script will first ask you for the planned flight height (it assumes that the survey occurred along a constant flight height, so no terrain following). Next, you'll have to enter the altitude above mean sea level for the point of take-off. It will then use the sum of both values to populate the altitude column in the Reference pane.

For example, if the point of take-off was 120m above mean sea level (AMSL) and the survey was planned at a constant flight height of 65m, then the altitude value would be 185m.

This script might help many DJI UAV users. Feel free to share this script/post.

General / Re: Radeon RX 480: 4GB or 8GB version?
« on: November 20, 2018, 08:04:30 AM »
Better late than never, right? I was searching for info which may have related to this post, and stumbled upon it while looking for info.

You're probably fine with the 4GB version, but if you want to do any kind of gaming or can find it on sale get the 8GB version.  It's better to have and not need than need and not have...

General / Re: New AMD Ryzen 7 processor
« on: June 20, 2017, 05:28:30 PM »
Any updates on this? I'm looking to build a new desktop workstation, and would love to create a Ryzen bases system.

Anyone using Ryzen, and/or an AMD gpu?

Pages: [1] 2 3