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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 34
General / Re: Waving a white flag
« on: June 09, 2022, 09:19:57 PM »
Not sure what you mean about the names not being important, please clarify. I need to match the names to update the coordinates from the GCP file. (That's a minor issue, as you can edit the GCP csv to match the labels, i.e. "point 1".)
In the import reference dialogue there is a checkbox that "ignore labels", try it and you will understand. Metashape manages to match markers and ground points on its own (obviously it can fail if points distribution is too much regular making several matches plausible)
Also you may need to see if by enabling "refine markers" under tools menu, you get the boost you want for your workflow. (also needs some user care, that is why it is not enabled by default)
Best regards,

José Martínez
Geobit & Accupixel
Metashape traning

General / Re: Waving a white flag
« on: June 08, 2022, 09:38:55 PM »
I'm not sure I'm understanding you well. I guess you are not fully understanding the different methods to add a control point to the chunk. Place marker vs add marker. Also I wonder if you know that naming markers the same as the gcps in the file is not as critical as it may appear.
Of course there is no need for coding for turning white flags into green, and even if it was doable, I guess it would be hardly acceptable. Green flags are marker projections placed by the user on a given pixel location very consciously, nothing to be automated.
Blue flags are projections placed by the software based on previous user input that have same value for calculations as green ones, (all blue flags need to be inspected by the user if only one is found to be off its expected location in some instance), and white flags are projections suggested by the software by projecting a ray from the 3d point location to the camera center, they play no role in calculations.

José Martínez
Geobit & Accupixel
Metashape traning

I second it too. In meantime you can use filter by confidence, select all points with confidence under desired threshold and assign Low Point(noise) class to the low confidence points so they can be excluded by class.

José Martínez

General / Re: reconstruction has wrong orientation after alignment
« on: November 29, 2021, 12:24:49 AM »
there is one specific tool for rotating object. Find it in the toolbar 9th button.
If your reference data is wrong (tilted and possibly badly scaled too due bad quality GPS records likely) then you need to reset chunk transform in order to be able to rotate, but then you need to set scale by entering a scale bar as reference.

Bug Reports / Re: zero tie points
« on: October 25, 2021, 01:12:01 PM »
Seen at least 3 times with 1.7.4, the issue required built tie points command and everything worked as expected.
not yet seen/tested with 1.7.5


Bug Reports / zero tie points
« on: October 22, 2021, 01:04:58 AM »
Recently my colleague Simon Brown has had this weird issue. Right after aligning successfully a set of photos, there is no region and no tie points. How is this possible?
Repeating alignment has worked again as usual.
I'm lost.


Have you noticed there is a drawing report function? select several shapes, right click for measure and find the pdf report export button in the dialogue. Maybe it is not exactly what you want, but it's a start.

José Martínez
Metashape training

Hi, Nola:
I understand better now. But still I think it can be done with non coded targets and they are cheaper to produce and do not need to be too large to be auto-detected.
Metashape can autodetect circular or chess type targets. You could use any of them and you can mark with paint around a selection of ground marks that are surveyed. The surveyed points should provide a good framework for referencing the job, with even distribution and including some in the inside area.
I guess you wont need to survey but a small fraction of the whole amount of markers. Even with only 10% could be enough although it depends on the actual properties distribution and your flight structure and some factors that would require more insight of your case.
José Martínez
Agisoft training

In my humble opinion, using coded targets for aerial survey is pointless. Targets are very easy to identify without using them, even in case of non referenced images. Can you please tell us why do you think you need them? perhaps we can tell you a simpler approach.

José Martínez
Agisoft Training

Feature Requests / Re: Using Survey points Just like GCPs
« on: October 04, 2021, 08:47:33 AM »
Vertical GCPs can be used already. Just by entering accuracy for the point as 1000/0.01 it will tell Metashape this point is 1cm accurate vertically while XY position is negligible.

José Martínez
Metashape training.

General / Re: Drawed lines or polygons deform on other photos
« on: October 04, 2021, 12:23:18 AM »
This is normal, when you draw on a photo, your vertices will take 3D position from available underlying 3D source: mesh, DEM, dense cloud... so you click on a given pixel (2D) but you are creating a point in the model scene(3D). When this 3D point is back-projected to other photos, it can be misplaced because the 3D source can be defective at this point or some obstacle is intersected at different position along the projective ray.
To solve it, you need to attach markers to vertices. Attached markers behave very much like regular markers, so when you pin a marker in two or more photos, you are determining the 3D location by multiple ray intersection rather than by intersection of a 3D object.
If your photos are well oriented, then the reprojections will appear in the right places in all of them.

I hope it helped.

José Martínez
Metashape training.

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).

José Martínez
Metashape training

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.

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

José Martínez
Geobit & Accupixel
Agisoft training.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 34