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 ... 31 32 [33] 34
Feature Requests / bounding box
« on: February 06, 2013, 04:20:42 AM »
  • bounding box bottom is too subtle
  • once the model is georeferenced, bottom should be aligned to xy plane automatically
  • once the model is georeferenced, box rotations about x & y should be locked unless user wanted them free. A contextual menu with lock-toggles for each axis could do while allow panning is not a must here
  • render the bottom face differently when is facing up
  • ... last but not least. Dear Agisoft team, please, be my heroes!:  Could you please consider using different cursor styles suited to each tool/context?
Best regards
Jos? Mart?nez (Geobit)

Feature Requests / Re: Cut and trim by masks
« on: November 25, 2012, 09:51:49 PM »
I tend to agree this could be a very good idea but with exceptions (so mine is +0.99). I've noticed that oversizing masks helps to get better geometry. I mean that if you mask object zones nearby the very silhouette or intentionally mask image regions corresponding to object's faces that are very oblique to point of view, this improves geometry and help to get cleaner model. In this case if you trim the model by-mask, you'll actually destroy some good geometry parts ... :(
So, a good idea that needs to be fine tuned and carefully engineered

Feature Requests / Re: "base height field"
« on: November 25, 2012, 04:33:54 AM »
I guess that you might be wrong. height-field does not model the top envelope, if it was that simple you could just rotate your cloud 180 about x or y and model it as height-field and then rotate again and invert face normals... but my bet is that you would have the very same surface.
Height-field is agisoft's name for one implementation of some of the classic 2,5D triangulation algorithms,  probably Delaunay.

I'm not saying that your proposal is a bad idea, but just wanted to suggest a workaround.

Feature Requests / lasso selection
« on: November 24, 2012, 05:10:37 AM »
I voted for an irregular form selection tool, so THANKS.
But I just can't manage to do fine with the lasso tool unless you have a very steady hand or a digitizing board instead of a mouse. So I'd be thankful if polygonal selection by entering vertices of a fence was also possible as it works for image-masking

Feature Requests / Re: "base height field"
« on: November 24, 2012, 04:50:37 AM »
Have you tried exporting points in *.LAS format and processing them with whatever you used to generate terrains from lidar data?
Some time ago I asked one of my collaborators for a routine that sub-samples a point cloud in this way. It superimposes a regular grid on top of the cloud with the step being in size N times the typical point spacing in the cloud.
Each prismatic cell encloses a number of points usually between 0 and NxN so  if it keeps the one with the lowest z you are likely taking the ground of the sample (you can also choose keep ceiling optionally) ?does it make sense for you?. I could try with this very same dataset for you, so if you liked we could speak about how to get a copy of our program.
Anyway I suppose that much better approaches must be built in Lidar programs such as Terrasolid.


Feature Requests / refining markers
« on: November 08, 2012, 10:45:27 AM »
IMHO there is a need for improvements in the gray marker's refining workflow

I hate that they move when I just wanted to validate their current position.

In my opinion, when you click on the marker, you could open a magnifier window with accept and skip icons where the user could reposition the marker by dragging, validate the gray position as is calculated and turn it blue, or skip to close the magnifier letting marker remain in gray status. (Options for magnifier might be: magnification factor, show upsampled and border/contrast enhanced crop, crosshair cursor on button down, automatic target detection by key press... )


JMR (was LFA)

General / GCP faster (Edited)
« on: November 06, 2012, 10:16:54 AM »
I have not seen this posted before... well may be not that unseen  :-[
My trick to save time when using GPC
1. Align your project without GCP
2. Create blank markers using the right mouse button on the corresponding branch of the object tree. You must create as many as you have in your project. (To save time, I recommend using the same naming scheme for field collection work. (Since pscan 0.9.x you can just go to step 6 as it creates automatically ALL empty markers during import, and then back to 3... sorry, I didn't notice)
3. Choose three of your project GCP that frame your work area.
4. Locate at least two pictures containing each of the three GCP
5. Place markers on each photo selected by using the right mouse button on the image. This makes six unassisted marker placement.
6. (skip if done before) Go to the Control Points dialog, define its coordinate system using the settings button and then import an ASCII file containing: name, x, y, z. for each GCP
7. Click the Update button and observe gray markers for all GCP on their tentative locations.
8. select one marker Filter images by marker and refine the position of each gray marker dragging it to its exact position. Occasionally you can click Update to improve the absolute orientation of the model and thus the remaining gray markers will approximate better to their precise positions.
9. repeat step 8 with all of your GCP.
I hope this hint help you to save some time!

I take this point to suggest AGISOFT team to improve the gray marker's refining workflow. I hate that they move when I just wanted to accept their current position.
In my opinion, when you click on the marker, you could open a magnifier window with accept and skip icons where the user could reposition the marker by dragging, validate the gray position as is calculated and turn it blue, or skip to close the magnifier letting marker remain in gray status. (Options for magnifier might be: magnification factor, show upsampled and border/contrast enhanced crop, crosshair cursor on button down, automatic target detection by key press... )



Feature Requests / Advanced selection. Was "Cull/Cut by Low-Density tool."
« on: September 07, 2012, 11:33:03 AM »
Hi all:
Thanks Alexey, that was a very good feature addition
I have a more ambitious suggestion. I'd call it Advanced Selection Tool dilalog
On top three Radio buttons for Selection mode: "select" "deselect" "toggle"
Main select box for: Islands, Triangles
Options for "Islands" aka "shells":
  • With poly count >= than X
  • with poly count <= than Y
  • with poly count between X and Y

Options for Triangles: by area, by aspect(Lmax/Lmin), by diedral angle, by longest edge lenght
  • value >=X
  • value <=Y
  • value between X and Y

This would help to clean meshes by deleting "spikes", noisy areas, and the so-called low density areas

Apply button should run selection over existing selection set if existed according to selection mode: "Select" will add new elements to current selection set, "deselect" will do the opposite and "toggle" would alternate current status for selected and non selected elements. A similar selection mode behaviour should also be available for all already existing selection tools in addition to the hopefully comming very requested irregular fence/laso selection.
Very best Regards!

JMR (Geobit)

General / Re: arc of point clouds
« on: August 31, 2012, 01:46:16 PM »
Bad calibration.
Autofocus enabled?
Sensor-shift or lens shift IS enabled?

Feature Requests / Re: Lasso tool
« on: August 28, 2012, 08:50:28 PM »
+ 10 yes please.

Feature Requests / Re: more view options
« on: August 28, 2012, 08:47:16 PM »
+ 6 Standard views are a must, please! isometric could also be welcome.
+ custom view save/load
+ screenshot 3d scene capture at any resolution selectable by % of the actual screen resolution and/or by fixing either width or height of the snapshot. png with transparent background would be lovely.


General / Re: Agisoft PhotoScan 0.9.0 pre-release
« on: August 20, 2012, 02:01:22 AM »
Dem export gives a pure black and white (just) image. Am I missing something? On the contrary the report contains a colorfull DEM. By the way, I'd suggest to add a map for errors in control points.
some ideas:
Plot ellipses onto GCPts with axes proportional to x and y errors and colored by elevation error
Create a vector field plot for xy errors and overlay a "temperature" map showing z error (signed).

PD. Great moves in 0.9.0!!!

Feature Requests / lock bounding box rotations
« on: August 19, 2012, 05:10:16 AM »
I think that bounding box should be optionally liked to ground coordinate system once that absolute orientation is done by means of GCP. Height-field would then be exactly calculated.
My suggestion is to allow user to choose this behavior and also to lock bounding box rotations around x and y so that "gravity" direction kept aligned to z axis ruling the mesh creation as does in the actual terrain modeling. (the third rotation and re-sizing should be kept up to user).
regards and congratulations for last improvements.


General / export points and marker's image coordinates
« on: May 15, 2012, 01:45:08 PM »
I guess there is no way of import/export pixel/image coordinates for feature points nor for markers. Am I wrong?
I think it could be an interesting addition as it would allow us test different feature extraction algorithms or use third party tools to place markers

Feature Requests / Re: Automatic Masking.
« on: May 04, 2012, 01:52:07 AM »
I know your work, and I sincerely admire it.
but I still think that your case is not that common. I might have misunderstood something but
these are its specifics to my understanding.
1. You have more than one camera. (how could the more common single camera user do the trick of taking all photos with and without subject?).
2. Your subject is not only separated from the background, but also removable.
3. You would probably like to mask thousands of photos that share the same attitude and background to subtract. It is indeed a reasonable desire because it sounds boring... but still rather specific imho.
I wish I could say I have the same needs as you because that would mean I have your flock of cameras and your magic hopefully.

Let me point that in your setup there are interesting invariants that could be exploited if photoscan allowed that, and here (again imho) it could make a little more sense to ask for such a feature. As long as your setup is fixed in all aspects but the subject. Why the need of calculating external parameters for each set of simultaneous photos. and why not fix the bounding box too. You should be allowed to do it just once in that cases and go directly to dsm phase.

For automating  masking, let me think aloud about Tezen's approach.
suppose you have the sparse cloud, then you can resize and orient the bounding box to fit your subject... back-project the 3D points inside the box to all images and think about this new planar cloud onto your images. how could we convert that cloud into a mask?
Tezen suggest a trick that works as if those pixels were binarized and expanded until they fill a certain  region but that would probably exceed subject's boundaries (which is bad) and leave holes where little feature points were found... we need a better hint.

Convex-hull is my first bid

Here starts the game: share your thoughts

my kindest regards

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34