Forum

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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 31
91
Quote
the focal length in mm, doing the formula I obtain
18.41*23.44/4000=0.1078
? it does not make sense, your focal length in mm can't be sub mm for a sensor this size

The camera calibration dialog gives you several formats when you try to save parameters. The USGS format for example, will give you values in mm for F, and principal point. as well as pixel size.

92
YES please, give us a check box in the dialog and allow us to "use same properties for following shapes until tool change" or something. Having to close this dialog at every point is painful.

GEOBIT

93
General / Re: mixing accurate photo locations with inaccurate
« on: March 23, 2020, 06:27:53 AM »
Unchecked cameras are aligned, but their coordinates don't participate in equations, so they are not disturbing the bundle adjustment.
if you have cameras with high accuracy  and others with low, you can set specific  values for each: One by one by doble click in accuracy cell and then enter value, or in groups by multiple selection, then right click and modify... accuracy.

if accuracy is similar in XYZ then enter a single value i.e. 0.005
if horizontal accuracy is higher than vertial, you can enter the two values separated by "/", i.e. 0.005/0.015
if you had independent x,y,z, accuracy estimations, you can enter the three values in the same way. i.e. 0.02/0.03/0.05

Regards
GEOBIT

94
General / Re: Best practices and advice for processing P4RTK
« on: March 12, 2020, 03:24:35 PM »
I'd gladly give you some hints if you like. Also I can show you how gcp marking in MS can be really damn fast. Do not hesitate to contact me.
regards,
GEOBIT

95
It seems this chunk has nor been referenced, that would explain no coordinates can be estimated.
A simple workaround could be to assign coordinates (with accuacy values as low as 10m) to four markers on your model defining a local system. As your main source of metric control are scale bars, dont worry about loosing accuracy because markers will be so low weighted that they will hardly have impact in your model.
Regards

96
1. Yes that the "clear" I meant. but after using it, unless you have cleared also projections, you should keep having estimated values for the marker and it should change every time you move its projections.
2. When you export the markers they all must have estimated values in coordinates unless they have no projections, so please make sure that your are checking the "save estimated values" in the export dialog

Regards
GEOBIT

pd. out of curiosity. Why do you stay 1.5.1...?

97
It seems like you are adding markers on the model and that's why they show coordinates (source values) instantaneously.
I have argued if this is the right behaviour with devs, in my opinion it may leads to confusion but there are reasons to keep it as is.
Rather than doing this way, you should add the new marker in the project tree and then place it on photos. This would keep empty the source coordinates, and the check point will behave as a checkpoint not as an additional constraint.
A workaround it is to clear location for this reference point.
Regards
GEOBIT

98
General / Re: Small Circles in ortophoto
« on: February 05, 2020, 02:12:30 PM »
This is normal (and unavoidable). This light spots are around the projection of the drone shadow. Around this point the reflection of ground surface towards the camera has a maximum. This tends to be more noticeable in herbaceous crops. You should see the same spot in every picture.
You could atenuate this effect by using average, instead of mosaic... but this often blurrs the orthoimage.
Regards
GEOBIT

99
In my opinion is overlap what makes a diference and not the subject, camera brand or model (at least I cant see a single fact related to brand or model besides pixel count). Try to compare datasets where the structure is the same.
Please let us know what you find.

GEOBIT

100
If you just want reference coordinates info to be copied, then use the export button in ref pane, but if you want also projections and status (green/blue) you can do it by using menu option file-export-markers, and then file import markers in the new chunk (active)

Tell us if that worked as your wish
Regards

GEOBIT

101
General / Re: Removing green flags on shapes and exporting photos
« on: January 16, 2020, 01:31:29 AM »
Hi Geogirl, the way to remove green flags from shape vertex is to select them and right clic to delete marker. However I think you cannot detach markers from vertices once that they are attached.
If you dont want markers on shapes, uncheck the option that makes them to be attached automatically to every shape while it is been drawn. Menu option Tools-markers-attach markers.
If you have already created lots of shapes and want to get rid of attached vertices, I can export shapes, delete and then import them again.

Good luck

GEOBIT

102
Feature Requests / Re: Add Greek Grid Geoid
« on: January 11, 2020, 04:10:10 PM »
You can add this geoid and build by yourself a variation of epsg 2100
I've just done and it worked well with the geotif in the link you posted
Regards
GEOBIT

103
Bug Reports / Re: Cylindrical orthomosaic fails
« on: January 10, 2020, 03:49:11 PM »
remains unsolved... why, friends?

104
Bug Reports / Re: Cylindrical orthomosaic fails
« on: December 28, 2019, 02:10:07 AM »
Are there any news with this issue?

105
Feature Requests / Re: GCP assignment_Trimble Inpho vs Agisoft
« on: November 04, 2019, 04:22:13 AM »
If you got used to keys pg-up pg-down to browse photos filtered by marker, rather than the double-clic you would see that marking in Metashape is possibly faster than what Inpho shows in the video, not having to move the mouse but just a little bit. In addition the "refine markers" option enabled makes this marking process insanely faster in Metashape than in competitors. That said, I agree it would be nice to have the tiled viewport, not so much for pinning or moving markers, but for reviewing many in a glance.
My biggest complanin in this marking step is that I miss more "intelligence" in mouse behaviour.
1. picking a marker icon requires too much care, and dragging sould have some aids like smart mouse speed (requiring larger mouse movements to drag a marker more precisely)
2. clicking a marker moves it slightly if one clicks slightly out of the center... that is awfull if you dont want to. There is no way to validate the current position in one click.
3. I dislike the markers icon, is gross and inaccurate, distracting and umbalanced, causing some bias in the aim appreciation. The flags and the icon itself should react to mouse cursor proximity or zoom (not only during dragging with left button down), the flag should move apart and the icon turn into something thiner, sharper, cleaner, symetrical... like when dragging, and an auto-loupe feature, like in PTGUI during control point edition would be welcome.

By the way, it is nice to see that users are worried as me about usability and GUI too slow evolution. New themes light and dark are far from being an enhancement in my humble opinion, they are a step backwards... a flaw... but maybe it's just me. It scares me to find the light theme as default since a few releases ago.

Regards

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 31