Topics

16

Python and Java API / Newbie - error running a script.

« on: April 13, 2017, 08:01:55 PM »

Having recently upgraded to 1.3.1.4 I now find the following script:-

http://wiki.agisoft.com/w/index.php?title=Split_in_chunks.py&oldid=207

This script is really, really useful. Its a godsend for larger models such as this one:-

https://sketchfab.com/models/99d9f126ea0647f79e761d3cd2c1fca0

Created over 6 or 7 dives and now has nearly 10k images.

However, running the script triggers the following errors in the console:-

2017-04-13 17:47:31     class SplitDlg(QtWidgets.QDialog):
2017-04-13 17:47:31 NameError: name 'QtWidgets' is not defined

Can anyone suggest a fix for this one? its making me tear my hair out!

17

General / Hosting and Publishing Orthophotos

« on: April 24, 2016, 06:24:31 PM »

So I have generated a few orthophotos of some underwater 3D models.

The results are very impressive, and worthy of publication, but both Mpabox and 4DMapper (the two API-ready hosts that come with Photoscan Pro) are really geared around GPS/mapping.

Mixing underwater and GPS is possible (and we are working on it) but in absence of GPS data, is there anywhere that hosts orthophotos in a way that makes a 139Mb JPEG orthophoto actually usable by the general public?

Sample models:-

https://sketchfab.com/models/c0dc76861241475b8e8ecaca56514c68

https://sketchfab.com/models/417253342c924739a60d6478b54f6c28

Looking forward to the replies.

18

Feature Requests / Size of Marker ID text

« on: November 30, 2015, 07:16:34 PM »

When using Photoscan Professional -> Tools -> Markers -> Print Markers.

Relative to each printed Marker there is a number that can be used to ID the marker. Relative to the printed marker, the printed number is quite small.

Would it be possible to allow users to set a preference that controls the size of the text printed alongside the marker?

19

General / Adding thickness to model

« on: September 04, 2015, 10:51:53 AM »

We are now printing in plastic the first 3D models of underwater artefacts and shipwreck remains, and the exported STL files from Photoscan are coming out very well indeed.

But the actual printing process can struggle with models with a greater level of texture/detail, and its necessary to build a printed frame around the model to help it build. Here's an example:-

https://www.facebook.com/theshipwreckproject/photos/a.128279717253739.33108.127175257364185/885165258231844/?type=1&theater

And the model itself:-
https://sketchfab.com/models/9d3ff4db7fca4471a2cd5e50ce4ee237

So ideally what I would like to do is add thickness to the surface in one direction only (the seabed side in this case) that will help the model build.

Has anyone found a tool or application that will add thickness to a surface? This is more in the realm of 3D CAD perhaps, but hoping someone here might be able to help?

20

General / Mesh area report with zero thickness - correct value?

« on: April 23, 2015, 09:56:09 AM »

Good morning. I'm new here so I'm asking a newbie type question...

I have mapped an underwater shipwreck site and gone through the workflow in PhotoScanPro to derive what I think is a really good model:-

https://sketchfab.com/models/949b1f97922e4a239dfb60b31056ed62

So in my model the mesh has zero thickness. Area and volume report 1622.59m2 and zero respectively.

But am I correct in thinking that 1622m2 is counting both sides of the mesh? To get the correct value of area of mesh a simple 1622/2=811m2 would give the value of a single side?

Based on my gut feeling about the size of the wreck site, I think yes...but always prefer to know rather than guess...

Secondly, I have generated a report for the model and one value has caught my eye:-

Coverage area: 0.00115897 sq km, or 1158.97m2

There is some variance between mesh area and coverage. I am guessing that the mesh includes any vertical (or angled) faces and coverage is a true projection? In other words, if you flattened the mesh out its area would be bigger than the area it covers. This would explain why the mesh area is greater than the coverage...but then raises doubts over mesh area being both sides...

I hope the above makes sense.