Forum

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 - MaciekK

Pages: 1 [2]
16
you have 15 million points on one cloud and 101 million on the other - maybe that's the difference

17
General / Re: Automated mission planning
« on: March 01, 2021, 10:36:45 PM »
3dWinter,
I think the DJI Pilot does not support the phantom 4 rtk. You must use DJI GS PRO. The application then reads the kml files from Metashape. The gimbal rotation will work, etc. Unfortunately, I did not check it because I have a version with a built-in screen and android.
ps. remember that the heights must be entered in the WGS84 system, without the use of a geoid.

18
General / Re: Automated mission planning
« on: March 01, 2021, 11:11:03 AM »
hi
To import this kml you must have p4rtk sdk version - with a separate screen, i.e. ipad
maciek

19
Hi everyoneI'm hooking the thread because I have a similar problem. The dense cloud does not reflect the correct heights at the control points. I get very good alignment results. Total error at the control points about 1 cm, at the check points about 1.5 cm. After generating a dense cloud, I get heights at control and checkpoints different by about 4-5 cm (all values with the same + sign) from those measured in the field with a total station. Job made by Phantom RTK, 65m AGL, gsd below 2 cm. All camera positions are fix. After alignment, the total error of cameras about 3 cm. After generating a dense cloud with the ultra hight parameter, the situation improves slightly, errors fall to about 3 cm. But that doesn't satisfy me anyway. Is this the extreme accuracy of MS dense cloud generation? A bit strange because aerotriangulation comes out about 4 times better. Do I make a mistake?

20
General / Re: Your opinion on USGS Agisoft Processing Workflow
« on: March 25, 2020, 01:08:44 PM »
Thanks for the feedback, guys, I'm also wondering if I'm doing the right thing, deleting so many points. On the other hand, I worked a few years with classic aerial photogrammetry and there was no question of 100 stereo pairing points. Good relative orientation came out at about 20 points. Hence, I have no resistance when I have only 100 projections in the picture (usually they are pictures on the edge of the block). I read somewhere - I do not remember the source that the quality of Dense Cloud depends primarily on the correct parameters of relative orientation and I hope that these about 100 good points guarantee - this is confirmed by my tests. The topic of camera calibration also remains in my head - I do not know to what extent the reletive orientation is responsible for the correct calibration and to what extent it is external. Please, Alexey, join the discussion ..... In the coming days I will work a block of about 1500 photos. This will be a more representative example ...
Thanks again for your data, I've been working on Metashape for about a month and I don't understand all the procedures.
Regards

21
General / Re: Your opinion on USGS Agisoft Processing Workflow
« on: March 24, 2020, 11:19:39 PM »
Hello,
I think gradual selection is a very good tool for cleaning aerotriangulation. I went a little further than the USGS shows and I received accuracy below 0.2pix. This required the gradual removal of less accurate projections. I used 3 options: Reconstruction uncertainty, Projection accuracy, Reprojection error. After each correction, I optimized the camera and watched SEUW = ​​~ 1. I am a bit worried that a lot of points about 50% occurs only in 2 pictures - I have to work on it. Still, the construction seems very rigid. After enabling the coordinates of projection centers and camera optimization, I received estimated GCPs xyz coordinates differing max 0.02m from those measured in the field with the GNNS receiver. In addition, there is no dense cloud noise and it generates very quickly.
All this on P4RTK with a relatively weak camera. Metashape calculates the quality of my photos always above 0.7pix
I look forward to your experiences
Regards MK

22
General / Report
« on: March 20, 2020, 11:15:28 PM »
Hello everyone, I have a question about the work report. I would like the report to be in meters with assumed accuracy, e.g. 0.01 m. Everything - coordinates, average errors, projection centers. Meanwhile, centimeters with an accuracy of 0.00001cm appear in the report. Why do you need so many unnecessary numbers?
Is there somewhere the option to generate a report with the assumed precision and in the appropriate units? Please don't tell me that only excel remains
Regards

23
General / Re: Your opinion on USGS Agisoft Processing Workflow
« on: March 20, 2020, 12:37:53 AM »
Hello everyone,

I'm new to the forum and also at work on Metashape. I have some experience with photogrammetry - a few years of work on Z / I Imaging. Now I start with Agisoft .... But back to the topic, I practiced the USGS workflow on several data sets - 1.5 ha (75%, 75%) 100 photos, 12 ha (80%, 80%) 530 photos and 12 ha (60%, 40%) 370 photos grid- the same area, GCP measured with accuracy xyz 1cm, pixel 2cm, drone P4RTK. Alignment carried out to obtain errors assumed by USGS, camera parameters - all marked without additional. I recommend this workflow, very good results obtained. At 33 checkpoints, errors no larger than 2cm. The dense cloud finally generates quickly, about 40 minutes on high setting. Dense cloud height accuracy at +/- 2 cm checkpoints. I really recommend.
PS. I want to introduce some modifications of the workflow in order to obtain more accurate image matching from about 0.2 pix

Regards
Maciek

Pages: 1 [2]