Messages

16

Python and Java API / Key point limit from chunk.point_cloud.meta is different to GUI

« on: April 29, 2021, 10:38:40 AM »

Hi Alexey,

I am looking at the chunk.point_cloud.meta and saw the key point limit is 80,000 while in GUI I was specifying as 40,000, and the MatchPhotos/tiepoint_limit is also doubled from API, is that an expected result?

My other question is could you share for camera's projection matrix and this point_cloud.cov, do they have relationship with each other?

I'm on v1.60 build 9617 by the way.

Much appreciate for your help, thank you!

Best,

17

General / Re: Is there a way to put mask from sparse point cloud to image?

« on: October 22, 2020, 01:40:22 AM »

Hi Jose,

Thanks for your kind suggestions, though I was trying to speed up with higher density point cloud reconstruction time, but your suggestions offered a good new path on how to merge the data.

I did try the mask from mesh and it is interestingly taking longer in processing. Directly running high density I'd get 63mins in all dense reconstruction time, while with the mask for AOI, the time is 72 mins, I think this is due to the cropping procedure and the whole surface was still created.

So to speed up the solution currently is still to have more powerful machine then I guess.

Thanks a lot!
Best

18

General / Re: Is there a way to put mask from sparse point cloud to image?

« on: October 20, 2020, 01:03:20 PM »

Hi Jose,

Thank you very much for your kind suggestion. I've had a try the workflow and it does creating a mask on the image! However it will then crop the whole point cloud to the selected area only. What I want to achieve is selected part can use high density of point reconstruction, while the rest part are still proceeding with for example medium density, so that for not interested area it is still processing but less resources are required.

Would that be possible in Metashape?

Best,

19

General / Is there a way to put mask from sparse point cloud to image?

« on: October 06, 2020, 02:24:53 AM »

Hi Alexey,

Is there a way to draw mask for selected area from sparse point cloud / ortho to the photos, rather than draw mask each image with same mask? What I want to do is creating point cloud with very high desnity in some AOI, is that possible? Or is it possible to create point cloud with high density in some part and lower in not interested part to speed up?

Thank you!

20

Bug Reports / Re: Possibly Wrong conversion in EPSG 5513

« on: August 28, 2020, 12:33:35 PM »

Thank you Alexey, it seems that's some issue with gdal or epsg.io, much appreciate for the details!!

21

Bug Reports / Possibly Wrong conversion in EPSG 5513

« on: August 25, 2020, 02:55:25 AM »

Hi Alexey,

I found some post before regarding EPSG 5513 / 5514 support, which is great, however when I am converting GCPs from WGS84 to EPSG:5513 and 5514 they show different sign (positive vs negative), but in EPSG.io they are the same: https://epsg.io/transform#s_srs=5513&t_srs=5514&x=-527358.6200000&y=-1140103.1800000

Which one is correct? By checking the proj4 string definition they are exactly the same in Metashape, so why there's a different sign for output? I know there's SW vs NE axis but not sure which source is correct.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

22

Bug Reports / Re: proj4 definition not match with WKT EPSG 2056

« on: March 18, 2020, 04:05:56 AM »

Hi Alexey,

It seems the WKT is different shown to the proj4 string returned, can you check if the projection parameters are correct?

Best,

23

General / Understanding confidence map of dense point cloud

« on: March 10, 2020, 06:41:52 AM »

Hi Friends,

Can anyone provide some info about the confidence map of Dense Point cloud? With the 0 to 255 level it works well with removing some noise, but I saw a weird image and interested to know how this confidence map related with image overlap, and how it is calculated for that pattern.

Best,

24

Bug Reports / proj4 definition not match with WKT EPSG 2056

« on: March 10, 2020, 06:07:22 AM »

Hello Alexey,

I found the EPSG: 2056 in Metashape returned different proj string to the WKT:
Proj4:

'+proj=omerc +lat_0=46.95240555555561 +lonc=7.439583333333329 +alpha=90 +gamma=90 +k_0=1 +x_0=2600000 +y_0=1200000 +ellps=bessel +units=m

WKT:
'PROJCS["CH1903+ / LV95",GEOGCS["CH1903+",DATUM["CH1903+",SPHEROID["Bessel 1841",6377397.155,299.1528128,AUTHORITY["EPSG","7004"]],TOWGS84[674.374,15.056,405.346,0,0,0,0],AUTHORITY["EPSG","6150"]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0,AUTHORITY["EPSG","8901"]],UNIT["degree",0.01745329251994328,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9102"]],AUTHORITY["EPSG","4150"]],PROJECTION["Oblique_Mercator",AUTHORITY["EPSG","9815"]],PARAMETER["latitude_of_center",46.95240555555561],PARAMETER["longitude_of_center",7.439583333333329],PARAMETER["azimuth",90],PARAMETER["recitified_grid_angle",90],PARAMETER["scale_factor",1],PARAMETER["false_easting",2600000],PARAMETER["false_northing",1200000],UNIT["metre",1,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9001"]],AUTHORITY["EPSG","2056"]]'

From http://epsg.io/2056 the projection in proj4 should be +proj=somerc rather than +proj=omerc. It's interesting that the conversion is correct, so I assume the conversion is not using proj4 string is it?

Thanks

25

Bug Reports / Re: Different WKT definition to EPSG.io

« on: December 09, 2019, 01:12:45 AM »

Thank you Alexey!

26

Python and Java API / Re: Help in localframe explain

« on: December 06, 2019, 08:42:18 AM »

Thank you Alexey!

I got another question, could you help to identify?
I found
camera.project(chunk.markers[0].position)
and
markers[0].projections[camera].coord
both can return the x/y of the image pixels, but they are different, could you tell me which one should be the correct one?

Thanks!

27

Bug Reports / Re: Different WKT definition to EPSG.io

« on: December 03, 2019, 09:30:43 AM »

Hi Alexey,

I also notice that for this projection it seems the coordinate transformation is not correct, conversion seems wrongly added based on the EPSG.io's transformation.

For example, a point in EPSG: 3153 (1213336.088, 465211.399, 3.368) (E/N/H) converted to WGS84

in Agisoft will return [-122.30268840679987, 58.556709548457782, 3.2393043], (Already outside of Alberta area!)

in epsg.io will return [-123.0771235,49.1635985].

So there's something wrong with the conversion tool!
Could you take a look and check if this will be fixed?

Thank you!

28

Bug Reports / Different WKT definition to EPSG.io

« on: December 03, 2019, 05:28:32 AM »

Hello support,

I find that NAD83(CSRS) / BC Alberts EPSG:3153 in Agisoft has different WKT definition to http://epsg.io/3153.

In Metashape the toWGS84 defined as TOWGS84[-0.991,1.9072,0.5129,0.025789907519493,0.009650098960270401,0.011659943232342,0],

while in EPSG.io it is [0,0,0,0,0,0,0].

Is this a bug or different database for Agisoft referred to?

Thanks!

29

Python and Java API / Re: Help in localframe explain

« on: December 02, 2019, 09:49:55 AM »

Aha I generally got the answer from different threads, since the camera errors need to be calculated in the same unit, while if directly subtract estim position to source position they can be degrees which is not correct. In localframe I suppose the unit is meter, then can scale to other unit if needed?

30

Python and Java API / different marker pixel values returned from different api

« on: December 02, 2019, 09:46:52 AM »

Hello everyone,

I have tried two different ways to project marker to the image plane, and I searched in the forum to find two ways:
(1)
marker = chunk.markers[0]
x0, y0 = marker.projections[camera].coord

(2)
camera.project(chunk.markers[0].position)

Method (1) returns Vector([2046.1069456339237, 1142.9500712869672]), while method 2 returns (2046.3900146484375, 1143.6800537109375).

Since both starts from estimated values, I am expecting they are the same, but they are different. Could someone explain why there's difference? Or if I should compare the integer but the Y has about 1 pixel difference...

Thanks a lot!