Messages

1

General / Re: 3D Web map publishing ?

« on: January 08, 2019, 04:42:03 PM »

Too bad you don't propose your own solution.
I tried these and was not convinced so far. But I keep looking, maybe updates were mad I do not know yet.

2

General / 3D Web map publishing ?

« on: January 06, 2019, 06:17:21 PM »

What would be the best option for 3D web map publishing ?
So far my best option is Propeller, but I do not need the photogrammetric calculation option, and it became a bit costly.
Lines / Surfaces / Volumes interactive measurement on 3D model is great there.
What else did you tried ? Is Agisoft planning such a function ?

Thanks ! 

3

Python and Java API / Re: Automated PS script to process single or multiple chunks - opinions please

« on: September 01, 2018, 01:35:33 PM »

Thank you Mks_gis for sharing this ! Have to try this.

Quick stop after "log file to check progress :" followed by a mixed / & \ file name.

4

General / Re: Your opinion on USGS Agisoft Processing Workflow

« on: August 16, 2018, 03:32:05 PM »

Thank you Andy for the response.
Much agreed about the art part, mapping is always also a bit of artistic creation.
I hope Tom will find some time to share his experience here. This field is still quite new, and at least we are happy to see that Photoscan is a good choice as the main tool for photogrammetry. Maybe we could also talk about pre and post PS workflow.

5

General / Re: UAS Mapping with DJI Phantom Pro 4 v2 elevation errors

« on: August 14, 2018, 12:20:34 PM »

You can have good results with P4P without PPK. How is you GCP distribution over the area ? I have one every 200m for quarries. First do global alignment with cameras and gcp checked, then optimize with gcp only. Have a close look on calibration result changes between the 2 phases, especially f.

6

General / Re: Your opinion on USGS Agisoft Processing Workflow

« on: August 11, 2018, 07:49:22 PM »

Thanks  BobvdMeij for this very interesting topic.
I found normal to clean the cloud at maximum level before including GCPs. That gives a clean "aero side only" solution before trying to adjust to real world coordinates. But that would not change a lot in my opinion to follow your own process (i.e. include GCP first).
Also the 0.1 parameter for Tie point seems very low for me, as I have often not so crisp images. 0.3 is better in my case.
One thing they don't mention is to have a look on camera calibration values. This is something I really look closely, i.e. values are consistant between various surveys. Big Z error can come from bad F value, even with good GCPs.

7

General / Re: Using scale bars for Pile volume measurement

« on: April 18, 2018, 06:49:41 PM »

How do you fix height with your distance meter ? This job needs a lot of known xyz points to be accurate.

8

General / Re: Field Camera Calibration Procedure

« on: April 18, 2018, 01:44:39 PM »

Hi Darko,

I do not work with PPK yet, but I tried also to determine the best camera calibration parameters. What I did was to disable all camera location (uncheck camears on reference panel) and keep only GCP locations, then run alignment. I found that I get much more constant camera parameters like this.
Working with P4P, I have sometime very large error in Z cam, and even with large values given to camera accuracy, final solution is greatly affected by these bad locations.
And of course it is very important to have a good set of camera parameters, in particular F value, who lead to large Z error if badly determined.