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 - Andreas1206

Pages: [1] 2
General / Re: Blurred texture
« on: September 06, 2021, 05:23:48 PM »
I guess this is related to this post:


General / Re: Blurred texture
« on: September 06, 2021, 05:18:15 PM »

I'm experiencing the same texturing issue (see attached image) in V 1.74 and have already shared this with Agisoft support.
Interestingly, in my case, the blurry patches only appear on the depth maps based mesh but not on the dense cloud based meshes.

Agisoft support suggested to use V 1.73 for texturing for the moment - in my specific case the texture turned out fine with that version.

best regards, Andreas

General / Re: Defocus masks
« on: June 09, 2021, 03:31:57 PM »
Hello Alexey,

thank you for your reply - could you supply an ftp access to the Agisoft server, then I could upload my latest project where I have this problem.

thank you,

General / Defocus masks
« on: May 26, 2021, 08:21:59 PM »

I've noticed in different projects, that the generation of defocus masks (from V 1.7) gives very unpredictable results. Since I do close-range photogrammetry I would like to use this option to limit the reconstruction and the texture calculation to in-focus areas of the photographs. So I build an initial scaled mesh with only the necessary masks to allow for correct image alignment. I then calculate the defocus masks from the scaled mesh and do the whole photogrammetry process again with the defocus masked images. With this approach in many images perfectly in-focus areas of the object are masked out while completely blurry parts of the photograph are kept.

Does anybody have similar experiences?

@Alexey: What could be the reason for this?   

best regards,

Feature Requests / Importing photos into group folder
« on: May 20, 2021, 10:53:13 AM »

I create group folders within the cameras folder in a project to keep my different photo sets structured. When I import photos by dragging them into metashape, they are always added to the main cameras folder, even though I drag them on top of a group sub-folder. I have to then mark them all and drag them into the specific group. It would be great if it was possible to place them in a group sub-folder directly by just dragging them there.

thanks and best whishes,

Hello Alexey,

the latest build 12337 of 1.73 imediately breaks down and closes with a bug report window, when importing .dng files. JPEG and TIFF files work.

best regards,

Unfortunately, this tweak as no impact on this issue. To my understanding, this is a valid tie point threshold, see Alexey post here :
It seems to me that the new depth map method deals differently with low tie points areas, leading to no depth reconstruction in those.

i really don't know if this is relavant, but lowering the threshold to 10 won't change the limiting neighbors to 40 parameter
Code: [Select]
filtering neighbors with too low common points, threshold=10...
avg neighbors before filtering: 72 (0% filtered out)
limiting neighbors to 40 best...

Hi jnb,

If I understood this correctly, those are different tweaks:

BuildDepthMaps/pm_point_threshold  --> This one is a tie point threshold for the minimum number of tie points needed between two neighbors in order for them to be used in DM creation. First I thought this was the reason for the bad mesh reconstruction in my case, since in my log it said, that many photos were not used because of too low common tie points. But then Alexey said, that this threshold did not change compared to V 1.65. And while lowering the threshold to fewer tie points did lead to more photos being used, the mesh quality did not improve.

BuildDepthMaps/pm_max_neighbors --> sorry for the outdated syntax in my earlier post, thanks Paulo. This one does change the maximum amount of neighbors used for DM creation - so I guess this should limit the overlapping images used. But strangely enough I just finished a series of reconstructions of the same area as in the image in my post above - once with 40, once with 20 and once with a 10 neighbors limit - all of them show more or less the same amount of mesh defects. Maybe this is because the total amount of Images/Depth Maps used for the mesh generation does not change with this tweak - what changes is only the amount of neighbors used for the DM-creation of each individual image. What definitely seems to improve mesh quality though is using less total images.

So neither of these tweaks appear to really improve the problem. I somehow can't imagine, this is a problem that can simply be solved by the user applying one of the few tweaks provided in this forum - this sounds a bit like guesswork with very limited understanding and tools to me. Of course I agree, that having more adjustable parameters in the reconstruction process would be useful, interesting and allow the user to optimize results. It would also make the whole photogrammetric reconstruction process with Metashape a bit less of a "Black Box". But I believe the issues we are experiencing clearly have to be resolved on the developer's side as they appear to be more fundamental than just experimentally playing around with some tweak settings.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very impressed by and grateful for this amazing Software - but right now there definitely seems to be an issue with the last version step, causing problems (at least in close range photogrammetry - which I do) that were simply not there in the previous 1.6 Versions.

best wishes,

Maybe there's the need that Agisoft use some sort of tweak to the reconstruction parameters depending on the overlap used. Excess overlap consistently increases the probability of holes in the mesh and noisy geometries.

wouldn't this just be this tweak suggested by Alexey in earlier threads - this limits the maximum amount of neighbors used in depth map creation right?



I am still experiencing the same issues of very unstable mesh reconstruction in the V 1.7.. versions as well.

Reducing the image count seems to prevent some reconstruction defects (see attached images) but of course this causes other areas of the mesh to be badly reconstructed as information is missing there.

Masking out defoucs areas also appears to help but the the "Mask defocus areas" option very often chooses the masked areas very unpredictably, masking out quite in focus areas and leaving completly blurry parts. Turning on the "Fix coverage" option pretty much just seems to create masks, that contain all the image parts used in the model - no matter whether they are in focus or not. Strangely enough defocus mask generation appears to be working much better, when creating the defocus masks based on a scaled mesh created in V 1.65 - so I assume, this has something to do with the new DM-generation process too?

It's too bad, the new DM-generation method causes so many problems, as it really is quite impressive, how much more detailed the meshes are in the areas, where the reconstruction works alright. But compared to earlier versions, V1.7.. at the moment is not reliable for my work (close-reange PG of cultural heritage) . This really is quite frustrating and taking up a lot of time testing, recalculating meshes, comparing them, using different versions, etc.

I really hope, this can soon be improved,

Hi Alexey,

thank you for your reply and the information. I tried again with the suggested tweak and several different common point threshold values down to 5 and even though more images are used, the holes in the mesh constructed by V1.71 persist.

Attached you find a screenshot of a reconstruction of part of a violin with V1.71 compared to V1.65. It's the exact same Metashape file with the exact same .dng images used, opened and processed in each corresponding version. This time interpolation is turned on, so the holes are closed, but the topography is much cleaner in V1.65.

What could be the reason, that V1.71 seems to have much more trouble reconstructing the surface from the exact same data set? I would like to send you the data set to verify the problem but it is a very large set with 655 .dng files - how could I transfer this to you?

thank you and best regards,


In a project with a depth maps based reconstruction of a whole violin I am getting a mesh with holes in V1.71 where V1.65 was able to build a continuous closed mesh - this is independent of mesh interpolation turned on/off and Depth Map filterering paramter (mild vs. aggressive). I noticed in the log file, that a lot of images are not used in the depth maps generation due to:

"2021-02-09 10:30:33 filtering neighbors with too low common points, threshold=50..."

In V1.65 all images were used.

@Alexey: Is there maybe a Tweak to change the threshhold so images with less neighbors are used as well? Do other people experience similar problems, where meshes are reconstructed worse in V1.71 than in the previous version?

Thanks and best whishes!

General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 1.7.0 pre-release
« on: January 24, 2021, 04:52:38 PM »
Hello Andreas,

Please create the following tweak via Advanced Preferences tab:
BuildDepthMaps/pm_convert_16u_to_8u and set its value to True.

Thanks Alexey, this seems to work - both my GPU's are now used again.

best whishes, Andreas

General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 1.7.0 pre-release
« on: January 23, 2021, 09:51:04 PM »
Thanks for this information Alexey. I just tested with a set of 55 Nikon D850 raw images and had the same problem with the updated 1.71 version. The GTX 1660 Ti with 6GB of VRAM ist ignored. Could you please provide the mentioned tweak to reduce the images to 8 bit for DM creation?

thanks again,

General / Re: What am I doing wrong? coins photogrammetry
« on: January 15, 2021, 07:03:44 PM »
hello spogna,

I am doing a lot of close range photogrammetry on cultural heritage objects as I am an art restorer specializing in bowed musical instruments. A couple of ideas concerning your project from my side:

  • try maybe using a lens with less focal length (a wider angle of view), so the images will have more z-axis information to process. I've noticed a couple of times when working with my 105mm Nikon macro lens, that precision of the "height" reconstroction was quite bad when working with images taken only parallel to the surface. Of course, working at such a short distance you immediately loose the necessary depth of field when rotating the camera - so using a wider angle of view with for example a 24mm lens usually gave me much better results
  • the artefacts you're getting in the mesh look to me, as if they could be related to strong reflexions of light on the metallic surface. What kind of lighting are you using? Could you maybe try taking the images in a light tent in order to get the most diffuse lighting possible? Is matting the surface (for example with a volatile substance) an option?

hope you find a solution - best whishes


General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 1.7.0 pre-release
« on: January 13, 2021, 09:13:57 PM »
Hello Alexey,

thank you for your reply. Attached you find a log file with the mentioned problem.

I usually work with .dng files, converted from Nikon D850 .nef Raw files - so a resolution of 8256x5504 pixels and a bit depth of 14bit.

thanks for your help,


Pages: [1] 2