1
General / Re: fbx camera name
« on: March 06, 2015, 03:29:13 AM »
Hi Alexey,
Thank you for addressing this issue.
Thank you for addressing this issue.
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.
Pages: [1]
2
General / fbx camera name
« on: February 25, 2015, 01:49:30 AM »
Hi,
I have an issue where I believe that on exporting fbx data from Agisoft, the name that is assigned to the camera is creating a namespace clash when importing into programs such as Maya or Softimage. For example I have an image in my project named "IMG_0247" and alternates from being a tif or a jpg file. It appears that the name given to the camera being exported from Agisoft is "IMG_0247.tif". Most 3d application don't like special characters so the "." is handled differently depended on the 3d application.
I only have the standard version of Agisoft, so I can't tackle this by writing my own script. The problem I am having is that when when importing the fbx camera into Maya I get a camera named "IMG_0247FBXASC046tif" and when importing the fbx into softimage I get a camera named "tif". Is anyone finding this to be problematic at all?
I have an issue where I believe that on exporting fbx data from Agisoft, the name that is assigned to the camera is creating a namespace clash when importing into programs such as Maya or Softimage. For example I have an image in my project named "IMG_0247" and alternates from being a tif or a jpg file. It appears that the name given to the camera being exported from Agisoft is "IMG_0247.tif". Most 3d application don't like special characters so the "." is handled differently depended on the 3d application.
I only have the standard version of Agisoft, so I can't tackle this by writing my own script. The problem I am having is that when when importing the fbx camera into Maya I get a camera named "IMG_0247FBXASC046tif" and when importing the fbx into softimage I get a camera named "tif". Is anyone finding this to be problematic at all?
3
Feature Requests / Re: dense point cloud only?
« on: January 08, 2013, 08:56:07 PM »
I haven't been able to do an extensive test on comparing high vs ultra calculations. But based on what I've seen, I can't justify calculating at ultra settings anymore. The program is very aggressive when it comes to creating polygons, even in exporting dense point cloud.
Maybe the ability to create additional proxy/bounding box around the sparse point cloud could help. To be able to specify the max point count per bounding box. That way your not opening a file to find out there is 600million points around and object that could of been visualized with just 1 million.
Maybe the ability to create additional proxy/bounding box around the sparse point cloud could help. To be able to specify the max point count per bounding box. That way your not opening a file to find out there is 600million points around and object that could of been visualized with just 1 million.
4
General / Re: sequence of photo alignment
« on: January 08, 2013, 08:45:34 PM »
Hey RalfH,
I'm only guessing on this one but I assume your desert scene is not composed of dunes? eh. It was just the first thing that came to mind. I think it's one of the downside of auto feature detection. Agisoft already does a good job at it, but the scene really needs a good amount of textures/patterns to do some kind of alignment and triangulations.
Sometimes when out shooting, I tend to overestimate Agisoft capabilites. "Yeah there's enough texture and data for detection. It'll work, I'm sure it will." lol.
Laying down a few markers or ping pong balls may help with alignment. I'm not sure if there is an ultimate shooting method that will work for all scenarios. Maybe I'm dead wrong.
I wish the standard version offered markers/ground controls as apart of the basic package. Matchmoving/camera tracking is a part of my profession... and I've come to hate when a programs takes full control without any user input.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time." -Anchorman
I'm only guessing on this one but I assume your desert scene is not composed of dunes? eh. It was just the first thing that came to mind. I think it's one of the downside of auto feature detection. Agisoft already does a good job at it, but the scene really needs a good amount of textures/patterns to do some kind of alignment and triangulations.
Sometimes when out shooting, I tend to overestimate Agisoft capabilites. "Yeah there's enough texture and data for detection. It'll work, I'm sure it will." lol.
Laying down a few markers or ping pong balls may help with alignment. I'm not sure if there is an ultimate shooting method that will work for all scenarios. Maybe I'm dead wrong.
I wish the standard version offered markers/ground controls as apart of the basic package. Matchmoving/camera tracking is a part of my profession... and I've come to hate when a programs takes full control without any user input.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time." -Anchorman
5
Feature Requests / ground plane
« on: January 07, 2013, 10:42:16 PM »
Hello,
Forgive me if this is a repeated request. Is there a ground plane(grid floor) in the works? It appears everything is floating in arbitrary space. It would be nice to be able to rotate the object with something in reference. Ideally I would like to export my mesh in zero space and aligned correctly.
It just becomes a bit of a pain when I export a mesh for cleanup, in the 3d application it shows up in some random position, I have to manually orient it to clean it up, then reset the mesh to its original position so that it realigns when importing to agisoft.
Forgive me if this is a repeated request. Is there a ground plane(grid floor) in the works? It appears everything is floating in arbitrary space. It would be nice to be able to rotate the object with something in reference. Ideally I would like to export my mesh in zero space and aligned correctly.
It just becomes a bit of a pain when I export a mesh for cleanup, in the 3d application it shows up in some random position, I have to manually orient it to clean it up, then reset the mesh to its original position so that it realigns when importing to agisoft.
6
Hello,
I've been using Agisoft for a while now for personal projects and I thought I share some of my findings.
I don't have a super computer so I've always needed to find a way to optimize my projects... My machine is an 8core amd, gtx 660 2gb, with 16 gb of ram (hoping to upgrade to 32). So when processing my projects I usually run out of ram.
I shoot with a 5D mark II and my projects image count run bw 25-50, depending on my subject. Most of the time I can process my project at medium resolution without my computer locking up. So obviously when changing the setting to ultra, my machine will always lockup.
My main issue was losing precious calculation time when I ran into a memory block. I wanted a two step process.
1. calculate depth map and save.
2. build geo without calculating depthmap
So my solution was to export a dense pointcloud, choose ultra settings, which saves a file to text and use far less ram. Upon finishing I would save since now I have my depth maps calculated at ultra high settings.
I will now build geo, with build depth map unchecked, and for my personal needs I limited my mesh to 5million. This method so far has saved me a lot of time compared to doing everything in one go.
Hope this may be helpful to somebody.
I do have a question about depth map, if anyone can chime in. I've notice sometimes that there will be an x amount of image where agisoft could not calculate a depth map and I don't know why that is. Can anyone explain this? I try to shoot most of my images with a greater depth of field and decent amount of overlap. Is agisoft expecting a sequence of images to calculate depth maps? If I break the sequence and shoot another angle, does that hurt the depth map calculation process?
I've been using Agisoft for a while now for personal projects and I thought I share some of my findings.
I don't have a super computer so I've always needed to find a way to optimize my projects... My machine is an 8core amd, gtx 660 2gb, with 16 gb of ram (hoping to upgrade to 32). So when processing my projects I usually run out of ram.
I shoot with a 5D mark II and my projects image count run bw 25-50, depending on my subject. Most of the time I can process my project at medium resolution without my computer locking up. So obviously when changing the setting to ultra, my machine will always lockup.
My main issue was losing precious calculation time when I ran into a memory block. I wanted a two step process.
1. calculate depth map and save.
2. build geo without calculating depthmap
So my solution was to export a dense pointcloud, choose ultra settings, which saves a file to text and use far less ram. Upon finishing I would save since now I have my depth maps calculated at ultra high settings.
I will now build geo, with build depth map unchecked, and for my personal needs I limited my mesh to 5million. This method so far has saved me a lot of time compared to doing everything in one go.
Hope this may be helpful to somebody.
I do have a question about depth map, if anyone can chime in. I've notice sometimes that there will be an x amount of image where agisoft could not calculate a depth map and I don't know why that is. Can anyone explain this? I try to shoot most of my images with a greater depth of field and decent amount of overlap. Is agisoft expecting a sequence of images to calculate depth maps? If I break the sequence and shoot another angle, does that hurt the depth map calculation process?
7
Feature Requests / Re: dense point cloud only?
« on: January 05, 2013, 11:23:37 PM »
Hello,
I have exported a dense pointcloud ply file which is somewhat heavy. Around 4.5gb generated on high settings. The point cloud doesn't import into meshlab without crashing so I thought I give rhino 5 a go.
What is the unit scale that the dense pointcloud is exported to? In rhino it is asking me if my file is in centimeters, mm, ft, etc.
Since I don't have a lot of ram, I rather use a dense pointcloud as a Lidar alternative.
I have exported a dense pointcloud ply file which is somewhat heavy. Around 4.5gb generated on high settings. The point cloud doesn't import into meshlab without crashing so I thought I give rhino 5 a go.
What is the unit scale that the dense pointcloud is exported to? In rhino it is asking me if my file is in centimeters, mm, ft, etc.
Since I don't have a lot of ram, I rather use a dense pointcloud as a Lidar alternative.
Pages: [1]
