31
General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 2.2.0 pre-release
« on: November 25, 2024, 12:56:18 PM »
Saving animation video as mp4 H-264 ends wih a crash. (Catastrophic error)
Geobit
Geobit
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.
32
General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 2.2.0 pre-release
« on: November 25, 2024, 12:49:58 PM »After running Align Photos... I selected photos that were not aligned, then right clicked and chose Align Selected Cameras. In the Workspace panel it indicates more of the photos aligned, but in the Model view the tie points from the original alignment are gone.
I can confirm the issue.
33
General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 2.2.0 pre-release
« on: November 18, 2024, 11:50:49 AM »
What is the NVIDIA 565-566 drivers bug? I am currently using Metashape Pro version 2.1.3 build 18946 with NVIDIA driver 566.14, after running Build_Texture the texture looks really messed up, but Build Orthomosaic works fine. What version NVIDIA driver is recommended?
I just saw the thread for the pre-release this evening. I downloaded it and will start using it.
Hi, bisenberger
I'm with 561.09 and no issues.
Cheers
34
General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 2.2.0 pre-release
« on: November 15, 2024, 01:52:02 AM »
Yes, it was gpu driver... Thank you
35
General / Re: Agisoft Metashape 2.2.0 pre-release
« on: November 13, 2024, 12:41:01 AM »
Hello, Agisoft
Texturing a mesh with well aligned spherical images leads to a complete mad texture.
Regards
Geobit
Texturing a mesh with well aligned spherical images leads to a complete mad texture.
Regards
Geobit
36
Feature Requests / Re: Add Vertex to polyon without altering existing boundaries
« on: November 07, 2024, 01:26:53 AM »
Hello DayGeckoArt:
I sincerely do not want Agisoft to change the way the vertex addition works now. I understand your wish but there are many good reasons to keep it as is because it makes a lot faster and easier to densify a shape.
But there is a workaround to solve your problem.
1. draw your rectangle.
2. set snap mode to edge and draw a polyline with the shape you want to divert snapping on the edges that you want to keep
3. select again your rectangle and add as many vertices as required to copy the shape of the polyline. Don't care if they distort your rectangle.
4. set snap mode to vertex and drag your new vertices to the desired location snapping to the auxiliary polyline.
I hope the solution is good enough for you.
Regards,
José Martínez
Accupixel
I sincerely do not want Agisoft to change the way the vertex addition works now. I understand your wish but there are many good reasons to keep it as is because it makes a lot faster and easier to densify a shape.
But there is a workaround to solve your problem.
1. draw your rectangle.
2. set snap mode to edge and draw a polyline with the shape you want to divert snapping on the edges that you want to keep
3. select again your rectangle and add as many vertices as required to copy the shape of the polyline. Don't care if they distort your rectangle.
4. set snap mode to vertex and drag your new vertices to the desired location snapping to the auxiliary polyline.
I hope the solution is good enough for you.
Regards,
José Martínez
Accupixel
37
Feature Requests / Re: Frame index zero fill option for movie import function
« on: October 16, 2024, 10:22:20 AM »Hello KotaYonezawa,
You can use the following filename template:Code: [Select]frame{filenum:04}.png
Thus you will get frame00000.png, frame00001.png, frame00002.png labeling for the produced frames.
Hi, Alexey
Where can be found some documentation about templates usage?
Thanks
38
Feature Requests / Re: Selection Toolset -> Add Polygon Tool
« on: October 15, 2024, 11:20:26 PM »
Please Agisoft give us a proper polygon selector. Lasso tool is okay for isolated clusters of points or triangles, but NOT GOOD for fine selection. Add a modifier to the current tool allowing drawing an irregular fence in the same way we draw polygon shapes. clic-clic-clic-clic... tab or doble clic
Please
Please
Please
And also PLEASE USE CURSOR ICONS TO LET USER KNOW WHICH KIND OF TOOL IS ENGAGED.
It's been nearly twenty years loyaly using Photoscan/Metashape and you keep ignoring this simple request, come on!... Almost twenty years blaming myself (and blaming you too) every single day when I do a wrong move of the bounding box, rotate rotate object, or selected something when I just wanted to do a different thing.
Users, please, tell me! Is not the same thing happening to you quite often?
Regards,
Geobit & Accupixel
Please
Please
Please
And also PLEASE USE CURSOR ICONS TO LET USER KNOW WHICH KIND OF TOOL IS ENGAGED.
It's been nearly twenty years loyaly using Photoscan/Metashape and you keep ignoring this simple request, come on!... Almost twenty years blaming myself (and blaming you too) every single day when I do a wrong move of the bounding box, rotate rotate object, or selected something when I just wanted to do a different thing.
Users, please, tell me! Is not the same thing happening to you quite often?
Regards,
Geobit & Accupixel
39
Feature Requests / Re: Selection Toolset -> Add Polygon Tool
« on: October 15, 2024, 11:04:27 PM »
Please Agisoft. Lasso tool is for small isolated clusters, but not for fine selection.
40
General / Re: Custom processing boundary
« on: October 11, 2024, 03:03:24 AM »
Hello, MarijnS:
There is no such a tool for processing only inside of an irregular boundary shape, but theres is a workaround that can do something similar. Besides what Olihar suggests that is to srink the bounding box to a size that encloses only what you need, I must agree with anyone complaining about this method not being very cost-effective in many cases where a box shape is not what we want, but rather is a U or an S or a circle shape.
For example lets say you have aligned a full dataset covering an island with round shape and 5km radius, and now you only want an ultra-high quality model of the coast with only 30 metres width without having to spend days processing the interior. In that case you would love to have a way to workaround. Well, here is one.
Right over the sparse cloud draw a polygon enclosing the area that you want (do not try to be super precise), then right clic on the shape and pick filter photos by shape. Then select all photos remaining on the photos pane and then go to the 'Edit' menu to pick 'Invert Selection' so that everything but the the wanted photos become selected (and turn pink)
then right click on the model viewport and use 'disable images' (and deselect all by selecting nothing with the fence tool in the air)
You are now ready to process just the subset of images that matter for the area you wanted and afterwards you will be allowed to use a proper boundary shapes to either clip outside or inside your deliverables.
I hope it helps you and If you wish really to shorten your learning curve from Pix4Death... just let us know.
José Martínez & ACCUPIXEL
your Metashape therapists ;-)
There is no such a tool for processing only inside of an irregular boundary shape, but theres is a workaround that can do something similar. Besides what Olihar suggests that is to srink the bounding box to a size that encloses only what you need, I must agree with anyone complaining about this method not being very cost-effective in many cases where a box shape is not what we want, but rather is a U or an S or a circle shape.
For example lets say you have aligned a full dataset covering an island with round shape and 5km radius, and now you only want an ultra-high quality model of the coast with only 30 metres width without having to spend days processing the interior. In that case you would love to have a way to workaround. Well, here is one.
Right over the sparse cloud draw a polygon enclosing the area that you want (do not try to be super precise), then right clic on the shape and pick filter photos by shape. Then select all photos remaining on the photos pane and then go to the 'Edit' menu to pick 'Invert Selection' so that everything but the the wanted photos become selected (and turn pink)
then right click on the model viewport and use 'disable images' (and deselect all by selecting nothing with the fence tool in the air)
You are now ready to process just the subset of images that matter for the area you wanted and afterwards you will be allowed to use a proper boundary shapes to either clip outside or inside your deliverables.
I hope it helps you and If you wish really to shorten your learning curve from Pix4Death... just let us know.
José Martínez & ACCUPIXEL
your Metashape therapists ;-)
41
General / Re: Batch Process offers "Point Spacing" for "Build Point Cloud"...
« on: October 09, 2024, 08:28:37 PM »
Dense point cloud can be built straight from depth maps when you follow the old-fashioned workflow. In that case yo have no chance to set the spacing to a given value, but rather it comes out as preset according to the quality chosen your depth maps.
Still you can use tools/point cloud/filter point cloud to resample the cloud afterwards to a given distance
Another way to get a dense cloud is to sample it onto the mesh, and in this modern way you gain the ability to set the desired regular spacing. Choose the mesh as source. The method come with some advantage as well because the dense cloud inherits the consistency of the mesh, and most of the times comes out a lot cleaner and free of disgusting artefacts we often see in old style dense clouds, such as noisy and sky tinted points.
Regards
Still you can use tools/point cloud/filter point cloud to resample the cloud afterwards to a given distance
Another way to get a dense cloud is to sample it onto the mesh, and in this modern way you gain the ability to set the desired regular spacing. Choose the mesh as source. The method come with some advantage as well because the dense cloud inherits the consistency of the mesh, and most of the times comes out a lot cleaner and free of disgusting artefacts we often see in old style dense clouds, such as noisy and sky tinted points.
Regards
42
General / Re: Differential scaling
« on: September 30, 2024, 02:26:36 PM »
Hi Paul: Yes this is an intrinsically weak use case. So the way to prevent the strong correlation between interior and exterior params, would be to precalibrate and fix lens calibration. I have worked with a company whose specialty is manhole inspections, and they also had weird issues with fisheyes.
Feel free to contact if you need help for calibration.
Regards
José Martínez
Feel free to contact if you need help for calibration.
Regards
José Martínez
43
General / Re: Differential scaling
« on: September 27, 2024, 01:25:07 AM »
Hi, Paul:
Can you describe how this object has been photographed? It looks like it has been photoscanned through the upper hole, making it difficult to obtain a good cameras structure. How are base lineas aligned with respect to the optical axis? it seems to me that there is a problem with your intrinsic parameters calibration. I've seen cases where the vertical axis (along optical axis) is badly scaled with respect to horizontal (perp to optical axis) and I've found they are linked to a badly estimated focal lengh. My suggestion would be to use the same lens+camera on an object that offers favorable shotting conditions for a good autocalibration and then save interior params to be reused And work on this problematic case as precalibrated or at least the lens calibration params you saved, keyed in as initials before alignment.
I'm curious, what camera and lens combo has been used? do photos come with right focal lenght written on EXIF or are they null and have been guessed by Metashape?
Best regards
José Martínez
Can you describe how this object has been photographed? It looks like it has been photoscanned through the upper hole, making it difficult to obtain a good cameras structure. How are base lineas aligned with respect to the optical axis? it seems to me that there is a problem with your intrinsic parameters calibration. I've seen cases where the vertical axis (along optical axis) is badly scaled with respect to horizontal (perp to optical axis) and I've found they are linked to a badly estimated focal lengh. My suggestion would be to use the same lens+camera on an object that offers favorable shotting conditions for a good autocalibration and then save interior params to be reused And work on this problematic case as precalibrated or at least the lens calibration params you saved, keyed in as initials before alignment.
I'm curious, what camera and lens combo has been used? do photos come with right focal lenght written on EXIF or are they null and have been guessed by Metashape?
Best regards
José Martínez
44
General / importing E57 scans. I'm lost
« on: September 24, 2024, 04:04:41 PM »
Hi, Agisofties
Why some e57 exported from a terrestria laser scanner turns into an equirectangular depth panorama and sometimes as a set of cube faces, and sometimes there is no image version at all. Is there a way to choose how Metashape reads a scan, and more importantly, is there any reason to consider one format result comes with any particular benefit or is better suited for any workflow.
The following image shows the result of importing three E57 scans, and ech behaves differently even if I use same settings at import dialog.
Best regards
JMR
Why some e57 exported from a terrestria laser scanner turns into an equirectangular depth panorama and sometimes as a set of cube faces, and sometimes there is no image version at all. Is there a way to choose how Metashape reads a scan, and more importantly, is there any reason to consider one format result comes with any particular benefit or is better suited for any workflow.
The following image shows the result of importing three E57 scans, and ech behaves differently even if I use same settings at import dialog.
Best regards
JMR
45
General / Re: Orthomosaik in greyscale
« on: September 06, 2024, 06:40:52 AM »
Metascape takes the output channels from the input with the fewest channels at least for texture and vertex coloring. So you need to disable all single-channel input (scans and black-and-white panoramas) before building texture or colorize vertices. I'm not totally sure it the same applies also for the orthomosaic... I would just duplicate the chunk and remove any source data with just 1 channel.
Regards,
Geobit
Regards,
Geobit
