Messages

31

General / Re: Is a dense cloud necessary to obtain a reliable orthophotomap?

« on: September 07, 2021, 03:34:16 PM »

Building a DEM from depth maps makes unnecessary to build the dense cloud. So if your orthomosaic is built on this DEM why would you need the dense cloud at all? The only reason that remains valid for building the dense cloud is when one want to classify dense points to get a DTM, but this is not required if orthomosaic is the only wanted deliverable (in fact orthomosaics should be based on DSM rather than on DTM).

Regards,
José Martínez
GEOBIT & ACCUPIXEL
Metashape training

32

General / Re: "Y-up" trackball rotation (orbit)?

« on: August 28, 2021, 10:36:46 AM »

This navigation mode Z-UP is already available as "terrain mode" under model/navigation mode, but to my taste is too much inconsistent with object navigation, and hurts my brain every time I use it... once again I can't understand Agisoft. At least they have corrected at some point the wrong tilt direction.
Regards

By the way Y-UP... omg, why? it must be an OP mistake

José Martínez
Geobit & Accupixel
Agisoft training.

33

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.

34

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.
Regards

Geobit&Accupixel

35

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?

Regards,
Geobit&Accupixel

36

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
https://agisoft.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000148332-how-to-use-height-above-geoid-for-the-coordinate-system
Regards,
José Martínez
Geobit&Accupixel

37

General / Re: Getting the corresponding pixel in the original image from a pixel in the ortho

« on: July 08, 2021, 01:43:34 PM »

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.

38

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.

Regards
Geobit

39

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.

40

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

41

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.

Geobit

42

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,
José

43

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

Regards
José Martínez
Geobit & Accupixel
Metashape training

44

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.

GEOBIT

45

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)

Regards,
Geobit
Accupixel
Agisoft endorsed training