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 - dpitman

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17
General / Re: Incorrect Show image with calibration with k4
« on: March 15, 2024, 04:44:42 AM »
Hi Paul.

How are you able to get distortion plots for anything but Residuals? 

My residuals plot looks quite different.  Were your images captured with dewarp on or off?

General / Re: Incorrect Show image with calibration with k4
« on: March 14, 2024, 04:17:21 PM »
Interesting conversation. 

My M3E images are captured with Dewarp off, and pre-calibration taken from XMP data via MS preferences. 

I get no values populated for K4. And I only have distortion plots available for Residuals.  Nothing for the other fields.

When I use Optimize Cameras, K4 is left unchecked, as well as b1 and b2.

Is this not the correct approach with the M3E?

General / Re: Import .csv marker file
« on: March 07, 2024, 04:31:41 AM »
Hello dpitman,

The request is quite different from the Import CSV functionality, Clayton requires to import markers' projections (2D coordinates in pixels on the images) rather then XYZ coordinates in the global coordinate system.

Ah, my mistake.  Sorry for the interruption.  Would the purpose be to try and eliminate the step in MS of adjusting the marker coordinate to the target in the image?  If so, that would not cause any reduced ability for MS to optimize cameras? The image pixel value would produce the same result as the manual point adjustment procedure?

Thank you!

General / Re: Import .csv marker file
« on: March 02, 2024, 11:40:57 PM »

Metashape allows for a marker input by Metashape .xml, not at all by .csv.  The really confusing thing is it seems like the .xml version should be attempting a universal export that most softwares could understand.

Hi Clayton.

Metashape can import .csv perfectly well without any scripting.  I am not sure why it does not work for you?

General / Re: GPU GTX 3060 is low on memory at 12 GB
« on: March 01, 2024, 01:33:16 AM »
That's too bad.

General / Re: GPU GTX 3060 is low on memory at 12 GB
« on: February 29, 2024, 06:08:13 AM »
I don't know if this would be appropriate for this problem. Maybe worth a look.

General / Re: New Laptop - Mostly Faster
« on: February 01, 2024, 07:28:54 PM »
Hi Alexey,

Both laptops are using a 2 NVMe SSD setup.  The OS and programs on one, and the data on the other.  The storage drive on the new laptop is slightly faster than the one on the older machine.  A Samsung 2TB 990 PRO vs a SAMSUNG 970 EVO Plus.

I did not try running the DEM generation more than once on either.  The actual time of generation is fairly insignificant in this case ( 560,xxx,xxx points in cloud).  I was just surprised that it would be slower at all on the new machine.

General / New Laptop - Mostly Faster
« on: January 29, 2024, 02:04:23 AM »
This is more  of a sharing post.

I just got a new laptop and ran a project through it and my old laptop.

The point cloud processing was ~32% faster.
The DEM processing was ~25% slower
The Ortho processing was ~20% faster.

I did not process a Mesh.

The slower DEM processing was a surprise.

System's specs in the screenshot.

General / Re: .laz import crashing MS (2.0)
« on: January 25, 2024, 06:06:38 PM »

Upd: I tried to import the point cloud in - and it worked without a crash.

Okay, that is good enough.  Eventually we will update.  Thanks Alexey.


General / .laz import crashing MS (2.0)
« on: January 25, 2024, 01:01:53 AM »
I was sent a link to a .laz file.  The import dialog in MS works, but MS instantly crashes on import.
Link to file  (

I do not know the CRS and and tried setting a couple of different ones with no difference in result (if it matters).  This is just a test file from


[Edit]  I would add that Cloud Compare opens the file.  If I save the cloud out of Cloud Compare, making no changes, then MS opens it.  It seems MS doesn't like something about the file that Cloud Compare can handle.

General / Re: Mavic 2 Pro DEM result out of
« on: October 23, 2023, 12:08:41 AM »
After identifying all GCPs, are you disabling the camera positions before the optimizing step?  The elevation reported in the image exif is junk.

General / Re: GCP data negative impact on accuracy?
« on: October 23, 2023, 12:04:53 AM »

When I see the control points on the 3d model they are precisely in the right position when disabled, but if they're enabled everything goes wrong.
I have matched both rtk images  and gcps to show GDA2020/AMG xone 50 (EPSG:20350)

By that description, you are seeing an offset due to an incorrect CRS for one set or the other.

General / Re: Holes in point cloud and distortion around trees
« on: October 09, 2023, 06:04:55 PM »
another image

General / Re: Holes in point cloud and distortion around trees
« on: October 09, 2023, 06:04:01 PM »
I downloaded the images to take a look. 

Firstly, the author seems to have used a reduced resolution (4864 x 3648) for the image capture rather than the recommended native full sensor resolution of 5472 × 3648. This may be because some earlier flight control software defaulted to 4:3 rather than the native 3:2 aspect ratio.

Second.  As suspected, the overlap is insufficient for good results.  I've attached Metashape's overlap report along with a report from another project showing what a good report looks like.

Third, the dark shade under the mature trees, and the reflective poly sheathing under the young trees is causing the problems directly under the trees.  For photographing water, or reflective surfaces, to get the best results, light overcast is preferred.

For the images that you have to work with, I think Metashape is doing a decent job.  If the result is not going to work for your purpose, you may need to seek out a superior image set.

General / Re: Holes in point cloud and distortion around trees
« on: October 09, 2023, 07:43:31 AM »
I'm guessing the images are being down-sampled upon upload to the forum, and that they are actually 20mp (5472 × 3648) image resolution? The attached versions look a little soft.  If the actual images look the same,  you might try adding a bit of sharpening before processing in order to give Metashape more "edges" to work with in the bare earth areas.  Use an editor that does not disturb the exif data. 

I'm not certain it will improve the result, but it's worth a try.

Are you using High Quality and Mild Depth Filtering in the point cloud generation?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17