Messages

16

Bug Reports / Re: 1.7.1 fails to build depth maps with same amount of VRAM as 1.6.5

« on: March 03, 2021, 09:21:49 PM »

In our workstation there is a 2080 and a 2080 super, both have 8 Gigabyte of VRAM.
I currently have the job running with Metashape 1.6.5, but once it's done I can reproduce the error in 1.7.1 and send you the logs and exact numbers of required RAM.

The project contains ~1800 images with 100 Megapixels each.
When I start the 'build DEM from Depth Maps' processing (in 1.7.1) it fails right away - interestingly It didn't matter if I had the ultra setting or high or medium. It always happended.
When I removed a part of the images the error did not occur right away. It did start to work fine and used both GPUs. However over time during the night the VRAM consumption grew and at some point it was saturated again and defaulted back to the CPU processing.

17

Feature Requests / Re: Add AVIF support

« on: March 03, 2021, 09:15:16 PM »

Okay, I stand corrected. Seems like I had outdated information. What do you think about de/encoding speeds?

18

Bug Reports / Re: 1.7.1 fails to build depth maps with same amount of VRAM as 1.6.5

« on: March 03, 2021, 04:51:15 PM »

We're having the same issue with our 100MP images. It seems the VRAM required is always just above what is available...
Our images are 8bit by the way. Current fallback solution is using 1.6.5 but I'd clearly prefer using 1.7.x with the new algorithm. The speed improvements are impressive!

19

Feature Requests / Re: Add AVIF support

« on: March 01, 2021, 10:01:08 PM »

In fact, another very viable option would be JPEG XL, which has a couple of benefits over AVIF:

• Transcode JPEG images without loss of quality
• Much faster encoding/deciding speed
• Larger image dimension supported (AVIF only 8k x 4k)

with the same benefits as AVIF: Royalty-free, Much better compression than 'old' standards, more feature complete.

And the standard was succesfully finallized now.

One thing that comes to mind, which could be beneficial for AVIF is that the hardware encoders/decoders are much more matured and will probably be on most CPUs within the next 2 years. No such thing with JPEG XL yet.

 

20

Feature Requests / Re: Add AVIF support

« on: January 07, 2021, 07:52:48 PM »

There are also a Go-based version: https://github.com/Kagami/go-avif
or one, which uses the popular dav1d decoder from the VLC team: https://github.com/link-u/davif

Is there any chance you could look into that for a potential additional feature in an upcoming point release, @Alexey Pasumansky?

21

Feature Requests / Re: Add AVIF support

« on: September 29, 2020, 05:01:22 PM »

I deeply agree with this!
AVIF is clearly the best competitor to replace JPG in the long run, given it's clear licensing and wide support through all AV1 members both in hardware and software.
The gains in compression, features and quality are very remarkable and more and more software already supports AV1.

This would be an extremely welcomed addition!

22

Bug Reports / Re: EXIF Information not detected in WEBP images

« on: June 17, 2020, 12:53:37 PM »

Are there any updates on this? Nobody has replied to my ticket yet (#139629).

Thanks in advance!

23

Bug Reports / Re: EXIF Information not detected in WEBP images

« on: June 09, 2020, 06:01:43 PM »

Thank you very much, I just sent an email and a  download link for the two images.

24

Bug Reports / EXIF Information not detected in WEBP images

« on: June 09, 2020, 03:23:07 PM »

Hi, I'd like to report what seems to be a bug.
We exported our raw images as JPEGs and as WEBPs in order to test out WEBP images, as they are smaller.

Unfortunately Metashape seems not to read the EXIF information from the WEBP images. Only from the JPGs. We've seen something similar with PNG, by the way.
I attached the EXIF information of both the WEBP and the JPG generated by exiftool as text files.
The two screenshots show, how Metashape uses the JPG exif information but not the WEBP exif information.

We'd very much apprechiate a fix for this bug, because this can drastically improve our workflow. Thanks a lot!
 

25

General / Re: Define Processing Area By Shapefile?

« on: February 04, 2020, 02:31:48 PM »

Hi Alexey,

congrats to the great 1.6 release! Thanks to its out-of-core functionality, extremely large projects with Metashape have become not only feasible but a real pleasure to process. We're extremely happy about the results and processing speed within our usecase to process large area cities and we definitely prefer your software over the competition now.

Anyway: Muhammad's topic is also very relevant to us and I think with the latest development progress this would be an extremely useful feature for a lot of users, now that large scale areas are a possibility. Being able to tell Metashape to just process within a certain Shape/GeoJSON would help us further reduce our processing times by a large margin.

Could you shine some light on this topic? Is a feature like this planned or even under development? Are there certain technical complexities preventing this?

Thanks in advance and keep up the outstanding work!
David