1
General / Re: New MacBook Pro with M1 Max chip
« Last post by Hude on Today at 05:14:08 AM »Me too ! Still wait confirm from Agisoft
Recent Posts
2
General / Re: Export model as .obj has user input precision number but what to choose and why
« Last post by CheeseAndJamSandwich on Today at 12:38:29 AM »File export model as obj name it, then up pops a panel with all sorts of settings, one is Precision and it shows 6 but no indication of what range there is and what the numbers mean,Could we please get Tooltips added to MS's dialog boxes and preferences tabs?
They're very commonplace and very, very effective at giving the user a description of the feature, variable, setting, etc, and suggesting values, when to and not to enable something...
This would help so, so much.
And it would ultimately reduce the number of forum posts!
3
General / Re: 3D viewer to be like any 3D program with rotate ball aligned to object ?
« Last post by CheeseAndJamSandwich on Today at 12:12:20 AM »The issue is, that unless you have the Professional version, we can't enter references, control points, markers, so MS can't know which way is up for whatever object you scan... Tho i think if your imagagery is from a drone, i think it does takes its orientations info from the pics? Correct???
Anyhoo...
I've made a Feature Request asking for a very basic referencing system that'll allow us to place at least 3 markers, control points down, which then allows us to correctly set the orientation and scale of the model. There's so much to MS Pro's referencing system it seems, that the subset i'm requesting shouldn't tread on the toes of the Pro version, and it's use in the industries that demand very high level of georeferencing, etc...
Having 3 or 4 basic xyz control points would just make everything really easy...
All i do after alignment is to rotate the model relative to the grid, in ortho view (5), pressing 1, 3, 7 to get the views from the top front and sides (ignore the left/right, they're actually the other way around, but it doesn't matter really).
I then scale it to the grid (set grid to 5m in Prefs), using features i know the distance of.
Then rotate and resize the region to match the model. The ball, etc then aligns with the z-up of the model.
For me, the trackball is just waaay to small, so it makes rotating the model around really twitchy and cumbersome, compared to what i was use to with good ol' CATIA V4, that i once used a lot.
So yeah, Metashape could do with some work on the 3D navigation... And if we had a choice of styles in the Preferences, with a parameter or two when required, it'd just keep everyone happy, and each user would get that bit more out of MS... Helping MS sell more copies.
Anyhoo...
I've made a Feature Request asking for a very basic referencing system that'll allow us to place at least 3 markers, control points down, which then allows us to correctly set the orientation and scale of the model. There's so much to MS Pro's referencing system it seems, that the subset i'm requesting shouldn't tread on the toes of the Pro version, and it's use in the industries that demand very high level of georeferencing, etc...
Having 3 or 4 basic xyz control points would just make everything really easy...
All i do after alignment is to rotate the model relative to the grid, in ortho view (5), pressing 1, 3, 7 to get the views from the top front and sides (ignore the left/right, they're actually the other way around, but it doesn't matter really).
I then scale it to the grid (set grid to 5m in Prefs), using features i know the distance of.
Then rotate and resize the region to match the model. The ball, etc then aligns with the z-up of the model.
For me, the trackball is just waaay to small, so it makes rotating the model around really twitchy and cumbersome, compared to what i was use to with good ol' CATIA V4, that i once used a lot.
So yeah, Metashape could do with some work on the 3D navigation... And if we had a choice of styles in the Preferences, with a parameter or two when required, it'd just keep everyone happy, and each user would get that bit more out of MS... Helping MS sell more copies.
4
General / Re: Export model as .obj has user input precision number but what to choose and why
« Last post by Bzuco on Today at 12:03:25 AM »Yes, 6 decimal places can be overkill, but for few thousands of vertices it does not matter.
The OBJ file is pure text file, so you can put "as many" decimal places as you want, because in text representation of number value you are not limited like in computer representation.
Each decimal place in OBJ cost you 3 bytes per one vertex, so more vertex - more bytes - more time needed to export/import.
Value 4-6 could be useful when taking photos of very large area and tiny object in one photo set(this will probably never happen).
JPG sould have 100% quality, but you can use PNG or TIFF if you want to be 100% sure about image quality.
The OBJ file is pure text file, so you can put "as many" decimal places as you want, because in text representation of number value you are not limited like in computer representation.
Each decimal place in OBJ cost you 3 bytes per one vertex, so more vertex - more bytes - more time needed to export/import.
Value 4-6 could be useful when taking photos of very large area and tiny object in one photo set(this will probably never happen).
JPG sould have 100% quality, but you can use PNG or TIFF if you want to be 100% sure about image quality.
5
General / Re: Mesh from Dense Point Cloud vs. Depth Maps
« Last post by Bzuco on October 18, 2021, 11:29:05 PM »@bgreenstone
Blobbiness issue: The blob mesh should have very large polygons. If you export the mesh to meshlab, there is function "select faces with edges longer than..." with edge threshold slider and preview options. You should be able to select and delete faces of the blob only, because the rest of the mesh should have much smaller polygons. Then export/import back to metashape. Maybe this will help you until it will be corrected somehow in metashape.
As I know from cloudcompare/meshlab, when creating mesh from points using poison surface reconstruction function, one of it's parameter/options is creating this blob shape unwanted mesh, other options are creating just flat surface at the edges of the object. Maybe metashape is using this method or something similar. It also does not happend everytime and on every object, but I dont know exactly what is needed to prevent the blob effect.
Blobbiness issue: The blob mesh should have very large polygons. If you export the mesh to meshlab, there is function "select faces with edges longer than..." with edge threshold slider and preview options. You should be able to select and delete faces of the blob only, because the rest of the mesh should have much smaller polygons. Then export/import back to metashape. Maybe this will help you until it will be corrected somehow in metashape.
As I know from cloudcompare/meshlab, when creating mesh from points using poison surface reconstruction function, one of it's parameter/options is creating this blob shape unwanted mesh, other options are creating just flat surface at the edges of the object. Maybe metashape is using this method or something similar. It also does not happend everytime and on every object, but I dont know exactly what is needed to prevent the blob effect.
6
Bug Reports / Re: what OS will run metashape 1.7.4 cannot see OS requirement anywhere !
« Last post by Eric Baird on October 18, 2021, 10:44:07 PM »You can also download the software and run it in "demo" mode to reassure yourself that it installs and runs okay on your specific system. Without the authorisation key, I think that it'll probably let you test out almost everything except features related to saving (which is fair enough). Once you're satisfied that it works, you can buy an authorisation key and enable the rest of the program without having to reinstall. Convenient.
7
Bug Reports / Re: 1.7.4 Holes in mesh
« Last post by Eric Baird on October 18, 2021, 10:31:39 PM »Quote
Yes, can confirm that 1.8.0 has the same issues found in 1.7.4 and 1.7.5
Yep, agree, issue still present on 1.7.5 .
I'm finding that sometimes a model of a public statue on a plinth (which is not a closed surface) ends up with its interior riddled with "intestines" -- blobby interlinked networks of tunnels. And sometimes the interior ends up with a whole new hollowed-out interior surface. There must be some collision-avoidance or proximity-sensing code in action, because in the second case, the "new" interior surface seems to be a fixed distance below the real surface, and parallel to it.
8
General / Re: Export model as .obj has user input precision number but what to choose and why
« Last post by Steve003 on October 18, 2021, 10:28:51 PM »Thanks, I altered it to 20, it never said limit of 10 reached or anything, so is 6 the tops limit or average or is it dependent on size of object as 6 decimal places in metres can be overkill for a building or crude for a beetle.
I wonder what the quality setting is for the jpg offered there if the model features a jpg texture, there is no choice and I dont like anything other than deciding myself and normally go for max quality.
Steve
I wonder what the quality setting is for the jpg offered there if the model features a jpg texture, there is no choice and I dont like anything other than deciding myself and normally go for max quality.
Steve
9
Bug Reports / Filter by Confidence selection.
« Last post by tweezlednutball on October 18, 2021, 10:19:33 PM »In previous versions I was able to filter by confidence, then select the cloud and invert selection and delete the low confidence points in the dense cloud. this trick no longer works. I am not sure what version it stopped working but I did it many times in the past and it is no longer working. Maybe the workflow has changed and I am unaware? Thank you.
10
General / Re: Is it possible to download older versions of PhotoScan?
« Last post by Eric Baird on October 18, 2021, 10:03:23 PM »Thanks, Alexey!
I've just found the link by looking at an old version of the download page using the Wayback Machine http://web.archive.org/ (June/July 2021).
Archive.org don't archive the installation file itself, but they archive the old download page that includes the link to it. Thanks for keeping that downloadable file "live".
And also ... thank you very much for writing and maintaining this software. I know that it may sometimes sound as if we folk on the forum are always whingeing, but we really do appreciate this software, and are genuinely grateful for the support and updates. It's really helped to make high-quality photogrammetry accessible to a wider range of people.
I've just found the link by looking at an old version of the download page using the Wayback Machine http://web.archive.org/ (June/July 2021).
Archive.org don't archive the installation file itself, but they archive the old download page that includes the link to it. Thanks for keeping that downloadable file "live".
And also ... thank you very much for writing and maintaining this software. I know that it may sometimes sound as if we folk on the forum are always whingeing, but we really do appreciate this software, and are genuinely grateful for the support and updates. It's really helped to make high-quality photogrammetry accessible to a wider range of people.
