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 - JMR

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 30
General / Re: Rigid Multi Camera Workflow
« on: August 04, 2021, 11:15:08 AM »
Renaming is not necessary put your 5 folders inside a parent folder and drag this folder to Metashape. It will notice this is a multicamera setup and will organise project accordingly. There is only one need. all 5 folders must contain the same number of images. One camera will behave as master while the others will be slaves relative to that one. I suggest you to use nadir as master.
Offsets, even if they are small, and are additional constraints and are not negligible, if they are specified by foxtech, you have opportunity to enter relative distances and angles in the camera calibration dialogue. If not, you can calibrate with a calibration project that must be done in a very well constrained scenario.

Best regards.
Geobit & Accupixel
Metashape training.

General / Re: Dense Cloud avalanche point errors
« on: July 20, 2021, 08:06:04 PM »
I think these parts reveal badly aligned photos. Check pixel errors for all cameras and try to identify alignment problems.


General / Re: Vertical structure orientation, external reference
« on: July 08, 2021, 08:10:27 PM »
Not sure if this will solve what you want, but you can select all photos after loading them, and right click on the list, then choose modify, select pitch and enter 90 as you desire.
I dont think your model will come out in the right position after alignment, because I think camera center will rule the final global orientation. So I do not really understand what is causing your model to have incorrect xyz
Can you post a screenshot showing input camera coordinates and resulting 3D view?


General / Re: Importing a geoid into Agisoft
« on: July 08, 2021, 07:53:55 PM »
GGF can be imported, just go through custom coordinate reference system making instructions. Find here the how-to
José Martínez

Orthomosaic coordinates are 2D, but to obtain reprojections on source oriented images you need the 3rd coordinate. So you must have at least a dem under the orthomosaic to get what you want.
So I guess the workflow is
Ortho image coordinates (2D) >> world 2d coordinates >> projection on DEM/model to gather Z >> reproject 3D point to source images >> get reprojection pixel coordinates.
You need python but is doable.

General / Re: Import Markers to New Workspace - Offset Issue
« on: June 18, 2021, 12:15:13 AM »
how about to assign absolute coordinates to four of the markers.


General / Re: build mesh from depth maps vs dense cloud
« on: June 18, 2021, 12:04:00 AM »
extrapolated triangles are normally of bigger size. You can try to select triangles (gradual selection) by size and see if it helps up to certain point.

General / Re: image stabilisation - yes or no
« on: June 11, 2021, 03:15:46 AM »
I'm open to learn, but to my understanding, IS means lots of changing conditions in calibration parameters between shots. This is mainly in terms of principal point, but also, with modern 5 axis IBIS, I guess also more parameters are involved. Do you, Wojtek, mean this is nothing one should be worried about at all
Or... is there something to be added to your "why not IS?" like "however, you would need to un-group cameras in calibration". Thanks

General / Re: Should I build dence point cloud at all now?
« on: June 05, 2021, 02:19:38 AM »
For me the main reason to use dense cloud rather than depth maps is the ability to apply classification and also because it is easier to remove unwanted parts from a dense cloud than editing a mesh. Better mesh editing tools and improved selection tools would be greatly welcome.


Bug Reports / cylindrical dem
« on: May 25, 2021, 04:01:53 AM »
Hello Alexey: Have your fixed known issues with cylindrical dem>ortho?

Best regards,

General / Re: Measure 3D height from 2D image
« on: May 10, 2021, 12:55:52 AM »
Hello, Paul.
Drawing a point on one single photo (2D) is a risky idea. If one wants to use monoscopic approach it is necessary to use markers attached to the shape (point in your case). By means of this special type of markers, the user can pin the same vertex on different images and it leads to a perfectly well determined elevation.
Using stereo input is very well suited for the task but honestly I would not recommend anyone to use anaglyph method for longer than 5 mins. If one wants to use stereo, having a professional stereo display like Pluraview is a must.
I would suggest to the OP to draw a few points on one photo where he/she sees the tip of the trees, then select all points and attach markers by context menu (this can also be automated in tools/markers/attach markers). Then jump to next image and move markers to same corresponding points on trees, a third photo will give chance for check or further refinement.
This type of markers cannot be hidden or removed in 1.7.2 but will be removable in next version coming soon.
By using foint shapes for the measurement one gains interesting advantages over using regular markers:
  • Shapes can hold attriutes (like tree species, log diameter, etc)
  • Shapes can be organised in layers
  • Shapes can be exported as text or CAD files
  • Points with markers attached wont play any role on alignment and wont be in conflict with actual markers used for reference

José Martínez
Geobit & Accupixel
Metashape training

Feature Requests / quantities to attributes
« on: May 04, 2021, 08:15:17 PM »
It would be a good idea an option to write the result of volume measurements to the attributes of the shapes used for their estimation.
Along with quantities the list of attributes should include method and parameters used for fill/cut calculation and perhaps timestamp so quantities can be linked to a given DEM status or creation date?

Best regards.


General / Re: Difference between Add Marker and New Marker
« on: April 30, 2021, 02:25:06 PM »
add marker tries to find something intersecting the projection ray that passes through the pixel and something else (mesh, dem, dense cloud) if that occurs, the marker will be created on the 3D space with source coordinates filled taken from the aforementioned source item.
place marker new, just creates one marker projection in the current photo (2D) source coordinates remain empty. The marker will become apparent in the 3D space once that you (or the program on its own means) place another projection of same marker on a different photo. but still the marker remains with empty source coordinates.
to align unreferenced chunk to a referenced one by markers shared between the two, you don't need source coordinates, so you can use whatever type of marker. what you should not allow it it to have "source" marker coordinates on the non-referenced chunk while having the marker checked in ref pane list (otherwise they would be in conflict with destination coordinates)

Agisoft endorsed training

General / Re: Use of markers and marker corrections
« on: April 11, 2021, 10:00:31 PM »
Manual target placement accuracy depends on human factors and also on image quality, while automatic (computer) placements is supposed to be very reliable and less prone to bias.
If you find blue auto-markers misplaced in some photos there must exist a reason and they need to be corrected.
You have two options: to remove projection or to move manually to a better location. If your preferred option is to move, I also recommend you to remove first and place later. This way you'll see the expected location of a marker (gray flame) and perhaps it gives you some keys to understand the bias.
Removal or movement of a few marker projections to different image coordinates makes little difference in the alignment if you only update transform. Affected cameras wont vary their relative orientation but only global scale and rotation may change very slightly so the answer is you must OPTIMIZE to make your corrections meaningful.
Check individual pixel error per marker projection by using marker info tool, and check which projections are worse placed.

Geobit & Accupixel
Agisoft endorsed training.

General / Re: Profiles
« on: April 08, 2021, 01:11:26 PM »
by sectioning model I guess you mean the mesh, dont you? I normally use Polyworks but cloud compare can work for that as well.

Geobit and Accupixel
Metashape training.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 30