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 - CheeseAndJamSandwich

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11
Feature Requests / Re: UI: True 'Full Screen' mode
« on: February 12, 2022, 05:58:44 PM »
Is it possible that we might get this feature in the future?

I was showing lots of our models to students the other day and really wanted it.

Having the chonky toolbar and status bar sitting there, not hiding, taking up a lot of view-port height doesn't look good when displaying the models/data.

So perhaps:
Code: [Select]
Show Menu, Toolbar & Status bar in Full-Screen:  Show - Auto Hide - Hide
That would cover everyone's preferences.

« on: February 11, 2022, 10:13:45 PM »
Here you go.

I reran my scan with the new pre-release, Metashape Standard 1.8.2 build 13956, and it crashed with Error: Assertion "2391010230795" failed at line 4862 again.
I have both my dGPU and iGPU enabled, as it was still quicker for me, the last time i checked.


Python and Java API / Re: Large holes in model after updating to 1.8.1
« on: February 11, 2022, 06:32:29 PM »
Have you tried using Depth Maps instead of Dense Clouds for your reef scans?  (unless you need DCs for other tasks?)
It saved a heap of time for me and my 'little' scans, and gave better results for my purposes.  Though the blobby bug meant i've been doing most of the processing on 1.7.3.

« on: February 07, 2022, 06:41:36 PM »
I'm seeing this error when building the mesh from depth maps.
Code: [Select]
Error: Assertion "2391010230795" failed at line 4862!Is this the same as the OP's?

I've rerun the mesh job and it's crashes a different times each time.
I'm running MS Standard 1.8.1 build 13915

General / Re: Using external drives (USB)
« on: February 07, 2022, 05:42:28 PM »
You can have photos and project files on the same drive, because after adding photos into empty project and start aligning phase, the photos will be automaticaly cached in system RAM by windows.
I definitely notice this before i even add the photos to MS!
I download them off the SD Card to my SSD, and then immediately backup the SD Card to an external HDD...  That 2nd copy operation takes a fraction of the time, as all of the 3,000 jpgs are still in Windows' cache!
Here it pays to have 'too much' RAM (64GB in my case)...  Even if the applications themselves don't get faster if they've already got enough, as Windows will just use all those 'excess' GB or RAM for caching lots and lots of files.

Oh, and the other obvious point to be wary of:  Make sure the cable can't be knocked, such that the External HDD might disconnect/reconnect momentarily (Laptop users!)...  Sod's law dictates that this would certainly happen right at the end of the processing job as it's writing out the finished data!

Feature Requests / Brute-force alignment of the unaligned in MS Std.
« on: February 07, 2022, 05:24:51 PM »
I have models where a few images just refuse to align.  Even though looking at the photos before/after/around them, there's definitely some usable overlap...

This may be due to various reason.  For me, scanning underwater, if i'm scanning shallow reef/rocks on a sunny day, the light rays dancing around completely change the colours of the bottom, and confuse the heck out of MS.  Or if surge has moved me faster over a shallow area, lowering the overlaps for a couple of photos...

Could we have a feature that can use a combination of approaches to brute-force the alignments of selected unaligned photos with selected photos that are aligned...  I.e. 'these photos definitely overlap'.  MS could then use all its tricks to find tie points.  Say, using very high to very low quality settings, or some novel ways of finding the matches.

For the normal alignment process, doing this would likely send processing time exponential, but for fixing a few problematic non aligned photos, it simply wouldn't matter if it took 10x, 100x longer per alignment.  I'd happily spend/wait 5 minutes if i end up with them aligning.

I've attached two photos from one of my problematic areas, the top of a big boulder that's a bit shallow,  5m deep, and the sun rays were dancing around on it.  They are from a sequentially taken, time-lapse set, where 10 photos over the top of the rocks fail to align... There's good alignment of the photos before and after them, and to the side of them.  The 1st photo is as the end of the aligned photos, the next photo is the unaligned one... there are then 9 more unaligned, before we get back to where they start aligning again.
As you can see...  these two photos have got huge amounts of alignment!  But i assume the sun rays mess it up.  But these two should definitely be able to be aligned by force, surely???

And yes, in the Pro version, there's markers...  But these are not available for us mere Standard users.
The manual markers method would also take way, way longer most of the time too!
We just want to tell MS that "These photos are all of the same area and overlap somewhat...  Please just align them however you can?"

It sucks having a hole in a model, just because you might have forgotten one of the photos, or it's blurred, or it was sunny...


Feature Requests / Re: Process in progress box
« on: February 07, 2022, 04:09:35 PM »
Hello agluck,

In the version 1.8.1 the progress is now also displayed over Metashape icon on the system taskbar.
^^^ A tiny, but very useful new feature!

Could it also be possible to add the Overall Elapsed time to the Processing in progress dialog box?
At the moment, it only includes the elapsed time of the stage it's on.


Feature Requests / Re: Standard Plus (i.e. Medium) version please!
« on: February 03, 2022, 04:30:55 PM »

Though, it would be good to see a subset of the reference features feature in the Standard version, at the Standard price.
We're not mapping million dollar mine sites to cm accuracy, but we still need to position things to a degree of accuracy, and the markers can be useful for so many other things, like joining problematic alignments.

We could consider all of Metashape's jobs, not just depth maps...

If you look at the console, MS is going through cycles and cycles, stopping to write out zips, over and over again, then moving on to other stages, and more and more cycles...
Many, or all could be considered checkpoints and could trigger an 'autosave', where it could write out the progress done so far and committing the data to disk...  Some jobs would allow multiple, frequent autosaves, with no performance hit... Some might want to run for longer as it's all in RAM...  Whatever...

Then, if there was a system crash, or whatever, whereby we'd consider the data/settings to be good, we could then opt to tell it to resume from the last good checkpoint.
IF the dataset was bad, or the settings chosen wrong, or a stubborn bug, then we might choose to just tell MS to run the job(s) from scratch (as we have to now).

Metashape is only gonna be employed for bigger and bigger projects in the future... and something like this would allow it to scale up to those tasks.

Having MS crash after almost getting to the end of a 4-day alignment is not fun, i can tell you... And for a lot of people, that would be costing money.
Being able to resume from where it got to, maybe loosing an hour of processing, would easily acceptable.

Bug Reports / Reduce Overlap = Error: empty geometry
« on: January 05, 2022, 08:02:48 PM »
Metashape Standard 1.8.0 build 13794

Aligned, done some mild Gradual Selection, ran Optimise Cameras, then created a mesh from Tie Points (i guess this is 'Sparse Point Cloud' renamed??)... Mesh looks normal.
Then, running Reduce Overlap set to 9 gives the Error: empty geometry.

Code: [Select]
2022-01-06 00:50:33 Reducing overlap...
2022-01-06 00:50:33 Building params...
2022-01-06 00:50:33 ROI: [-123.287, -95.6844, -12.6808] - [138.38, 146.938, 5.44214]
2022-01-06 00:50:33 n voxels g: 292 -> 250
2022-01-06 00:50:33 n voxels n: 292 -> 292
2022-01-06 00:50:33 voxels in meter g: 0.955414
2022-01-06 00:50:33 voxels in meter n: 1.11592
2022-01-06 00:50:33 restricted distance in voxels g: 15
2022-01-06 00:50:33 capture distance in voxels g: 1
2022-01-06 00:50:33 margin g: 3
2022-01-06 00:50:33 restricted distance in voxels n: 17
2022-01-06 00:50:33 capture distance in voxels n: 1
2022-01-06 00:50:33 margin n: 3
2022-01-06 00:50:33 filling geometry...
2022-01-06 00:50:33 fillGeometryInfo : fill
2022-01-06 00:50:33 fillGeometryInfo : no voxels found
2022-01-06 00:50:33 filling geometry...
2022-01-06 00:50:33 fillGeometryInfo : fill
2022-01-06 00:50:33 fillGeometryInfo : no voxels found
2022-01-06 00:50:33 Finished processing in 0.019 sec (exit code 0)
2022-01-06 00:50:33 Error: empty geometry

This workflow i've done dozens of times before on 1.7.n


Feature Requests / Re: Modify Trackball size
« on: January 05, 2022, 05:13:57 PM »
Spotted this in the release notes...

Code: [Select]
Version 1.8.0 build 13597 (30 November 2021, preview release)
Standard and Professional editions

• Added trackball size setting to Preferences dialog.

And it's working exactly as hoped.
I'm using 80% at the moment, and it's much, much easier to use, way less twitchy, and very easy to make tiny adjustments to get the viewing angle just right.

Many thanks!!!  :-*

Suggestion; Run sequential. Then re run alignment with sequential off (generic) and reset alignment ticked off. This should at least align parallel track images.

Just tried this, and the adjacent track, that had good overlap, created a hilariously bad '2nd skin'...  a few inches above the other one where they overlapped.

Will try again with 'Estimated' set...

Feature Requests / Total Elapsed time in Processing in Progress dialog
« on: December 19, 2021, 09:18:06 PM »
When processing a batch/task, the Processing in Progress dialog doesn't tell us how long it's taken in total...  Only the elapsed time for the current task.
Can we have it display this total time please?


We need something that also works for us lowly 'Standard' users too...
We can't run scripts.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11