31
General / Re: Export DEM (.TIF) for importing in Civil 3D
« on: August 06, 2018, 12:47:32 PM »
No one else?
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.
32
General / Re: Adaptive Camera Model Fitting which step
« on: August 06, 2018, 12:43:15 PM »
I'd be interested to hear more about this as well! Checking or Unchecking it during Camera Optimization does not seem to change anything with respect to the estimated control-/checkpoint errors, but it DOES change the adjusted camera parameters in the Camera Calibration dialog...
33
General / Re: Export DEM (.TIF) for importing in Civil 3D
« on: August 01, 2018, 04:38:11 PM »
Just ran another test but this time trying to import an Orthomosaic .TIF file. The original 15GB file wouldn't work, for obviously reasons, but exporting a much coarser resolution 98MB version of the same orthomosaic worked straight away! Also when highlighting the DEM .TIF file in Civil3D's MAPIINSERT dialog all preview and file metadata fields are empty. On the contrary, when highlighting the Orthofoto .TIF it succesfully gives me a preview image of the file, in addition all file metadata fields contain data (Please see the screendump attached.). Apparently critical information required by Civil3D to correctly read a file IS exported for Orthomosaics but missing or corrupted for exported DEMS.
The orthofoto also being a .TIF file (similar to the DEM file) the cause must be related to how Agisoft exports/compresses/alters the .TIF format of DEMs prior to exporting. When exporting the Orthomosaic I ensured to keep all settings default, meaning TIFF compression is set to LZW and JPEG quality to 90. These options, however, are not available when exporting a DEM.
The orthofoto also being a .TIF file (similar to the DEM file) the cause must be related to how Agisoft exports/compresses/alters the .TIF format of DEMs prior to exporting. When exporting the Orthomosaic I ensured to keep all settings default, meaning TIFF compression is set to LZW and JPEG quality to 90. These options, however, are not available when exporting a DEM.
34
General / Re: Export DEM (.TIF) for importing in Civil 3D
« on: August 01, 2018, 03:37:41 PM »Hey Bob,
How did you import the TIFF into Civil 3D? Did you use the XREF function? See: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/civil-3d-forum/insert-raster-image/td-p/4878368
As for the file size difference between QGIS and Photoscan; Photoscan uses LZW lossless compression on the TIFF file which greatly reduces the file size without data loss. I'm uncertain that QGIS also does this by default.
When using GlobalMapper to export TIFFs you'll notice a huge difference in file size if you enable or disable LZW compression. I'd advice to use the compression as this usually means less loading times when importing into a GIS.
Thanks for your quick response Stihl,
I haven't used XREF before so I gave it a try straight away using the dropdown option 'Attach Image'. Unfortunately this produces the following error message:
Code: [Select]
This file cannot be opened.
The problem can be caused by several things:
- The data in the file is corrupted
- The file is an earlier format that is no longer supported
- The file format is not supported
Try to obtain a better copy of the file, recreate the file using different settings, or convert the file to a supported file format.For what it's worth, the same prompt appears when I try to import either the smaller .TIF file (straight from Agisoft) or the larger (and plausibly uncompressed) .TIF file exported from QGIS.
Any other ideas
?
35
General / Re: Why my GPU not active while building dense cloud
« on: August 01, 2018, 03:23:14 PM »
It is worth noting that the Generate Dense Cloud process embodies multiple smaller processes. Agisoft only employs the GPU for the first stage, the second (and much longer) stage is not using any of the GPU power and is solely relying on CPU/RAM memory.
Also, as stated above, you should ideally use a software such as GPU-Z to check GPU utilization as Window's Task Manager is generally incorrect with respect to the GPU.
Also, as stated above, you should ideally use a software such as GPU-Z to check GPU utilization as Window's Task Manager is generally incorrect with respect to the GPU.
36
General / Export DEM (.TIF) for importing in Civil 3D
« on: August 01, 2018, 03:20:18 PM »
Dear all,
I have been trying to import several DEM files, created in Agisoft and exportedas .TIF files, into our Civil 3D environment. Unfortunately I haven't been very succesful at it; Civil 3D does not seem to recognize the file, at all.
Importing in Civil 3D using the MAPIINSERT command produces an error message stating that <filename>.tif was not found or not valid. Considering the DEM file is well over 3GB, and knowing Civil3D dislikes such large file sizes, I exported the DEM at a coarser resolution to produce a considerably smaller file of only 300MB. Unfortunately importing the smaller TIF file produces an identical error message.
Searching on the internet demonstrated that importing .TIF files produced in Agisoft (or P4D for that matter) is often problematic. The issues described above are seemingly well known to many others who have tried this before. Following suggestions mentioned by some I imported the .TIF file into our QuantumGIS (QGIS) software and exported the DEM to a new .TIF file at the same resolution. Again, however, this does not resolve the problem and importing into Civil3D remains impossible (the same error message appears).
It may be worth noting that importing the 300MB .TIF file into QGIS, then saving/ exporting it again to a new .TIF file (at the very same resolution), suddenly produces a 2.4GB .TIF file.
Any help is much appreciated, thanks in advance!
I have been trying to import several DEM files, created in Agisoft and exportedas .TIF files, into our Civil 3D environment. Unfortunately I haven't been very succesful at it; Civil 3D does not seem to recognize the file, at all.
Importing in Civil 3D using the MAPIINSERT command produces an error message stating that <filename>.tif was not found or not valid. Considering the DEM file is well over 3GB, and knowing Civil3D dislikes such large file sizes, I exported the DEM at a coarser resolution to produce a considerably smaller file of only 300MB. Unfortunately importing the smaller TIF file produces an identical error message.
Searching on the internet demonstrated that importing .TIF files produced in Agisoft (or P4D for that matter) is often problematic. The issues described above are seemingly well known to many others who have tried this before. Following suggestions mentioned by some I imported the .TIF file into our QuantumGIS (QGIS) software and exported the DEM to a new .TIF file at the same resolution. Again, however, this does not resolve the problem and importing into Civil3D remains impossible (the same error message appears).
It may be worth noting that importing the 300MB .TIF file into QGIS, then saving/ exporting it again to a new .TIF file (at the very same resolution), suddenly produces a 2.4GB .TIF file.
Any help is much appreciated, thanks in advance!
37
General / Re: Pointcloud: Tackling Noise
« on: May 23, 2018, 03:06:30 PM »Hello BobvdMeij,
We have just finished reprocessing the dataset on our side and are now observing similar issues in the dense cloud that you have mentioned in the first post.
That's good to hear in a sense that I'm supposedly doing nothing wrong. On the other hand, any clues or suggestions on how such artifacts can be prevented in the future?
38
General / Re: Pointcloud: Tackling Noise
« on: May 22, 2018, 03:29:14 PM »Hello BobvdMeij,
I've got the link with the additional info. Starting the download now.
I understand you are likely very busy, but any news on this perhaps?
Cheers!
39
General / Re: Pointcloud: Tackling Noise
« on: May 15, 2018, 03:03:58 PM »Hello BobvdMeij,
The download link would be fine. You can send it to me via PM or to support@agisoft.com with the reference to this thread.
I just sent you a PM. Please let me know if you did or did not receive the message.
Cheers!
40
General / Re: Pointcloud: Tackling Noise
« on: May 15, 2018, 12:25:01 PM »Hello BobvdMeij,
As for the hidden setting - it's an absolute number defining the number of paired images per camera to be evaluated to filter the depth (in the version 1.3.0, for example, the setting has been implemented as default with the 50 value. it worked faster, but for some projects this threshold was too low and additional noise appeared, so we removed the threshold. -1 means that there's no limit).
I think values ranging from 50 to 80 should give considerable speedup for the projects with the excessive overlap, but as for the quality of the output, likely it wouldn't be better than for default settings - unlimited threshold. So setting this parameter may lower the quality of the output (meaning more noise), but wouldn't affect the image alignment - the option is only for the dense cloud filtering, not for any other stages.
For the data sharing I can send you the access parameters to our FTP server if it is a convenient method for you.
Looks like I may be able to upload the image set to our WeTransfer account and send you a link for download. Would that work? If so, what would be the best way to provide you with the download link? Through a PM, perhaps?
41
General / Re: Pointcloud: Tackling Noise
« on: May 11, 2018, 05:39:36 PM »
Thanks for your feedback Alexey, much appreciated!
I'd be very willing to share the image set to see how you will get on, but the dataset is pretty large. What would be the best way to get it out to you?
As for your suggested hidding setting I will give that a try ASAP and let you know if it helps. I was only capable of downloading 1.4.2 as of today so I'll be checking some other new features in the meantime first. I am wondering though, how should I interpreted this suggested value of '60' for the said new parameter? Does this relate to a percentage or absolute number and, in case of the latter, on what kind of scale? Also how does it compare to the default value of -1? Also, am I correct to assume that limiting the number of evaluated image pairs will possible introduce lower model accuracy and/ or poorer image alignment?
I'd be very willing to share the image set to see how you will get on, but the dataset is pretty large. What would be the best way to get it out to you?
As for your suggested hidding setting I will give that a try ASAP and let you know if it helps. I was only capable of downloading 1.4.2 as of today so I'll be checking some other new features in the meantime first. I am wondering though, how should I interpreted this suggested value of '60' for the said new parameter? Does this relate to a percentage or absolute number and, in case of the latter, on what kind of scale? Also how does it compare to the default value of -1? Also, am I correct to assume that limiting the number of evaluated image pairs will possible introduce lower model accuracy and/ or poorer image alignment?
42
General / Re: Pointcloud: Tackling Noise
« on: May 11, 2018, 11:58:07 AM »
SAV & JMR, thanks for both of your reponses!
The other package applied was indeed Reality Capture, not P4D. The pointcloud was processed in RC using 'Normal' quality (it only has Normal or High), as processing on High would cause me running into memory issues. Although, admittingly, the point density in RC's pointcloud is seemingly lower compared to the pointcloud processed in Agisoft (set to High quality), I still believe the pointcloud by RC is significantly more usable than the one outputted by Agisoft. Regardless of the slightly lower point density it managed to capture notably more details and individual components, whereas Agisoft did only marginally or was incapable of rendering such details all together. The pointcloud from RC may be succesfully translated into a BIM model of some sort, whereas the one from Agisoft is rendered largely useless in this respect. Add to that the significantly shorter processing time of RC and I must agree with you, JMR, that the results is especially dramatic.
I will give both of your suggestions a try, SAV, and will come back to you as soon as I get some new results. I am wondering the following about the python script though, what specific stages of the Agisoft workflow does it encompasses? Or, put differently, which steps of the workflow are to be completed before I run the script? Does it run from Align Photos onwards or does it only run the Densecloud generation? In case of the former I'd like to point out that I still require various manual steps in between specific processing steps and marking GCPs, applying Gradual Selection filters and Optimizing Camera's in particular.
Cheers!
The other package applied was indeed Reality Capture, not P4D. The pointcloud was processed in RC using 'Normal' quality (it only has Normal or High), as processing on High would cause me running into memory issues. Although, admittingly, the point density in RC's pointcloud is seemingly lower compared to the pointcloud processed in Agisoft (set to High quality), I still believe the pointcloud by RC is significantly more usable than the one outputted by Agisoft. Regardless of the slightly lower point density it managed to capture notably more details and individual components, whereas Agisoft did only marginally or was incapable of rendering such details all together. The pointcloud from RC may be succesfully translated into a BIM model of some sort, whereas the one from Agisoft is rendered largely useless in this respect. Add to that the significantly shorter processing time of RC and I must agree with you, JMR, that the results is especially dramatic.
I will give both of your suggestions a try, SAV, and will come back to you as soon as I get some new results. I am wondering the following about the python script though, what specific stages of the Agisoft workflow does it encompasses? Or, put differently, which steps of the workflow are to be completed before I run the script? Does it run from Align Photos onwards or does it only run the Densecloud generation? In case of the former I'd like to point out that I still require various manual steps in between specific processing steps and marking GCPs, applying Gradual Selection filters and Optimizing Camera's in particular.
Cheers!
43
General / Pointcloud: Tackling Noise
« on: May 08, 2018, 12:43:28 PM »
Dear all,
We've recently started testing processing image sets with more complex geometries, i.e. containing both nadir and oblique shots using different camera angles. Unfortunately we're somewhat disappointed thus far with respect to both the processing time AND the outputted (dense) pointcloud. The disappointment grows when we compare both the processing time and subsequent output with another photogrammetry suite, which I will not name here for obvious reasons.
Attached you'll find a two screendump of a pointcloud depicting a bridge, the first being processed using Agisoft and the other using a different software. The differences are obvious, with the pointcloud in Agisoft depicting significant amounts of noise around the beams whereas the pointcloud created using the other software depicts rather sharp edges with no or very little noise. This likely follows from background noise in the original images, depicting the ground and/ or the sky in the background, and Agisoft for some reason (and unsuccesfully) trying to align these pixels. Furthermore Agisoft is hardly capable of reconstructing the metal pipes on the either side of the bridge, whereas the other package does not indicate such troubles at all!
How would I be able to get rid of this in an efficient manner? I'm aware of the option to mask images in Agisoft, but considering the rather complex geometry of the object under study and the image set containing well over 1.000 images this is hardly option as it will likely take several weeks (not so say months) to do so! It is striking to see that the other software suite seems to be very capable of removing/ filtering such background noise automatically, as no image masking was done to produce the output in the second image.
It's also worth mentioning that we were forced to downsize the original image set (1.100 images) to about 800 images for processing in Agisoft as the full set would not process at all OR would take well over a week (regardless of our decent PC setup). The other software package, however, had no problems at all with aligning all the images and was even able to do so within less than 24 hours!
We've recently started testing processing image sets with more complex geometries, i.e. containing both nadir and oblique shots using different camera angles. Unfortunately we're somewhat disappointed thus far with respect to both the processing time AND the outputted (dense) pointcloud. The disappointment grows when we compare both the processing time and subsequent output with another photogrammetry suite, which I will not name here for obvious reasons.
Attached you'll find a two screendump of a pointcloud depicting a bridge, the first being processed using Agisoft and the other using a different software. The differences are obvious, with the pointcloud in Agisoft depicting significant amounts of noise around the beams whereas the pointcloud created using the other software depicts rather sharp edges with no or very little noise. This likely follows from background noise in the original images, depicting the ground and/ or the sky in the background, and Agisoft for some reason (and unsuccesfully) trying to align these pixels. Furthermore Agisoft is hardly capable of reconstructing the metal pipes on the either side of the bridge, whereas the other package does not indicate such troubles at all!
How would I be able to get rid of this in an efficient manner? I'm aware of the option to mask images in Agisoft, but considering the rather complex geometry of the object under study and the image set containing well over 1.000 images this is hardly option as it will likely take several weeks (not so say months) to do so! It is striking to see that the other software suite seems to be very capable of removing/ filtering such background noise automatically, as no image masking was done to produce the output in the second image.
It's also worth mentioning that we were forced to downsize the original image set (1.100 images) to about 800 images for processing in Agisoft as the full set would not process at all OR would take well over a week (regardless of our decent PC setup). The other software package, however, had no problems at all with aligning all the images and was even able to do so within less than 24 hours!
44
General / Re: FLIR DUO R - Thermal orthomoscaic
« on: February 14, 2018, 11:58:48 AM »
Any news on this? Curious to hear how you're coming along as we may be opting to acquire the (higher res) FLIR DUO Pro R or, alternatively, equip our M210-RTK bird with a X5s/X4s and Zenmuse XTR simultaneously.
45
General / Re: strange camera locations error report
« on: November 29, 2017, 09:02:11 PM »I understand now. It's a way of isolating data that may be inaccurate from the calculation. That leads me to believe that the problem was with the application that I used to plan the flight mission.
I used DJI GS Pro for the flight that had the strange errors. I also flew an adjacent area at the same time using Pix4Dcapture with no problems. I'll research those apps.
If you have any suggestions for the best method to acquire the images using a DJI Inspire 2 please let me know.
Thanks for all your help Alexey!
Hello mkrech,
I use DJI's GSP all the time and haven't observed any such issues as you described above. Then again my quality reports do not contain a map with Camera Locations and associated error estimates (maybe we are on a different Agisoft version)?
That being said, I understand you do have GCPs in the scene? Have you tried:
1. Adding Markers (i.e. GCPs) to all images;
2. Turn ALL checkmarks for the images OFF in the Reference Pane;
3. Run Optimize Camera's (with only the checkmarks for the desired GCPs on).
At last I would like to point out that the Camera Error Estimate Map in your report seems to suggest somewhat of a structural pattern. Please note that in contrast to any other mapping application for DJI drones out there, GS Pro is the only application that I know off that does NOT make the drone turn at the end of each flight line. Or put differently, whereas most flight planning applications ensure that your drone flies forward all the time, the orientation of the bird is the same for all flight lines when using GS Pro (one line it flies forward, the next backwards, etc.).
Although I cannot comprehend how the two may be related, I reckon they may be to some extend. Maybe Alexey can elaborate on this?
