Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General / Re: Mac M3 chip
« Last post by PierreD on Today at 04:40:15 AM »
Yes, it is the MSI GT77, and I placed an order for it today. Should get it in a week or so.

Thx for the tip regarding undervolting GPU's and CPU's Bzuco. I had no idea it could be done.
I've leaned so much on this forum and I can't wait to download Metashape and start tinkering with it.

Cheers gentlemen,
and please, keep posting. This is good stuff!
General / Re: Export Laserscans as E57 in structured format?
« Last post by jedfrechette on May 22, 2024, 07:24:29 PM »

Did you try LAS?

How do you store structured scans in LAS?
General / Re: Suitable hardware for Agisoft matashape Pro ver 2.0.2
« Last post by Nuiosk on May 22, 2024, 07:16:14 PM »
I have concerns that metashape code is not using L3 cache at all in terms of vectorizing data using modern processor instructions. The processed data are large and in uncompressed formats stored in RAM and cannot fits even in large L3 cache. Maybe if the data are processed at smaller pieces, this is question for devs.

7900x has 32MB cache for each 8-core chiplet so 2x32MB. X3D variant has the whole L3 cache shared between all cores of all chiplets. The X3D cache is consumming significant amount of energy, not ideal for all core CPU frequency if L3 cache is not used at all.

Instead of 5800x you should grab 7700x - better manufacturing process, much higher performance per watt. If you have larger budget, then 7950x is the best what you can have.

If your projects are using at least 16Mpix photos and you will be processing depth maps at highest quality(full photo resolution), then it makes a lot of sense buy 5800x/7700x and spend more money on faster GPU.

According to your comments, I decided to go with 7700x and my GPU 6700XT. 

Thank you very much for your very kind assistance.
General / Re: Depth maps incomplete for some images
« Last post by marcel.d on May 22, 2024, 06:18:25 PM »
Beware that my solution [point_cloud.renderDepth()] generates an image which looks like depth, but is not.

While a true depth image (like the ones that can be exported from Metashape) represents the depth along the Z axis going thru the camera plane (all rays are parallel), the images generated with [point_cloud.renderDepth()] show the distances starting from the camera center (all rays intersect).

The above statement applies to Metashape v.2.0.2. I did not test it for any later version.
Hi Paulo,
Yes, I checked the matches and between thermal and rgb it is usually not more than 10 matches, whereas between rgbs there are around 1000 matches per pair. Sure, I can share a few sample images.
General / Re: Export Laserscans as E57 in structured format?
« Last post by olihar on May 22, 2024, 04:59:49 PM »

Did you try LAS?
Bug Reports / Re: Imported point cloud incomplete
« Last post by marcel.d on May 22, 2024, 03:59:12 PM »
Hi Egor,

Thank you very much!

Your workaround seems to work well and is a lot more reliable than my method of adding extra points outside the ROI.

Here is the code in case anyone has the same problem:

Code: [Select]
new_cloud = chunk.point_cloud

Kind regards,
General / Export Laserscans as E57 in structured format?
« Last post by Dieter on May 22, 2024, 02:34:24 PM »
we work a lot with laser scanning in conjunction with photogrammetry. For this purpose, the laser scans are aligned in Metashape. I would now like to export these aligned laser scans to the autodesk recap or Faro scene for further processing. When I try to read these exported E57 files into the other programs, I get error messages. Something must be wrong with the format here. The only program that reads the exported E57 files is cloudcompare.

However, the point data is then no longer structured, but pure point clouds without a point of view.

Is there a trick here to output the data as structured laser scan data?

General / Re: Accuracy rtk
« Last post by olihar on May 22, 2024, 01:47:44 PM »

Yes because calculations are made with the accuracy numbers, so accuracy of 10 meters will make everything else seem accurate.
General / Re: Accuracy rtk
« Last post by gheflorian on May 22, 2024, 01:04:26 PM »

But looks like no RTK in first screenshot, so you have fixed the accuracy to 10 meters.
actually the first screenshot has the best accuracy. I get 5cm on alignment and on the 2nd only about 20cm.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10