Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
General / Re: Wonky DEM of scanned images
« Last post by sfrederickson on January 17, 2023, 05:35:14 PM »
I'm guessing that the issues I'm having are more of option A. Is there a fix to this or a step I should've ran before generating the DEM?
92
Feature Requests / Re: Croatian datum HVRS71
« Last post by Alexey Pasumansky on January 17, 2023, 04:36:34 PM »
Hello,

On our web-site we only publish frequently requested geoid models which are published in any form on external resources and are available for public.

For proprietary and custom geoid models it is suggested to use the second part of the following instruction, providing that the undulation grid is available in some format:
https://agisoft.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000148332-how-to-use-height-above-geoid-for-the-coordinate-system
93
Feature Requests / Re: Croatian datum HVRS71
« Last post by vucko87 on January 17, 2023, 03:29:14 PM »
Have you managed to get HVRS71?
94
Agisoft Cloud / Re: Agisoft Cloud Release Notes
« Last post by Ilya Shevelev on January 17, 2023, 02:27:29 PM »
Released on 2023-01-17

New features

95
General / Re: Wonky DEM of scanned images
« Last post by Garfields_Lasagna on January 17, 2023, 01:09:50 PM »
Option A,
You should check the original images. I would assume that there is a difference in lighting/ exposure. This sometimes leads to changes in focus. And this can lead to blurry/ detailed DEMs. It looks to me like that.

Option B,
I also see that the overlap in this area is reduced or that the images are not homogenously spread. This can cause artefacts in a DEM.
96
Bug Reports / Re: GLB 3d Model rotated after export
« Last post by FabianN on January 17, 2023, 12:33:17 PM »
Hi Alexey,

In my case, it is happening in the geographic/projected CS.

97
General / Manual entering of camera accuracy vs. marker accuracy
« Last post by Garfields_Lasagna on January 17, 2023, 12:13:39 PM »
Dear Agisoft-Team,

what is the effect of the manual entering of the camera accuracy vs. marker accuracy?

I have a project where I want to use RTK-data from a drone (estimated precision 10cm) and combine it with RTK-marker (estimated precision 2cm). Does this have any effect on the precision of the final location? How well do my estimations for the precision need to be?

In one project the precision of the camera location was wrongly set to 2 meters. Does this mean I have to calculate the full dataset again?

Best regards,
Johannes
98
General / There is not enough space on the disk (112) error.
« Last post by BenW22 on January 17, 2023, 12:11:51 PM »
Hi All,

I ran out of space on an external hard drive when trying to create a mesh. The job was processing for 9 hours. Looking at the log file, alot of zip files for the depth maps have been created. Is there any way I can use these files created instead of starting again?


The mesh was the first thing I tried to process after the tie points. There is no dense cloud, DEM etc in the project.

Log File extract -
2023-01-17 16:27:29 Depth reconstruction devices performance:
2023-01-17 16:27:29  - 8%    done by [GPU 1] Intel(R) UHD Graphics = [propagation 359.887 s (46%) + refinement 368.775 s (47%) + filtering 34.03 s (4%) + data preps 9.645 s (1%) + gpu data transfer 5.666 s (1%) + others 3.383 s (0%)]
2023-01-17 16:27:29  - 8%    done by [GPU 2] Intel(R) UHD Graphics = [propagation 373.283 s (47%) + refinement 362.232 s (46%) + filtering 28.491 s (4%) + data preps 11.756 s (1%) + gpu data transfer 7.147 s (1%) + others 2.986 s (0%)]
2023-01-17 16:27:29  - 42%    done by [GPU 3] NVIDIA T1200 Laptop GPU = [propagation 235.843 s (36%) + refinement 237.015 s (36%) + filtering 40.564 s (6%) + data preps 64.209 s (10%) + gpu data transfer 56.393 s (9%) + others 16.216 s (2%)]
2023-01-17 16:27:29  - 42%    done by [GPU 4] NVIDIA T1200 Laptop GPU = [propagation 230.424 s (35%) + refinement 241.931 s (37%) + filtering 42.263 s (6%) + data preps 67.02 s (10%) + gpu data transfer 58.55 s (9%) + others 17.47 s (3%)]
2023-01-17 16:27:29 Peak VRAM usage: Camera 2219 (16 neihbs): 790 MB = 530 MB gpu_neighbImages (67%) + 64 MB gpu_tmp_hypo_ni_cost (8%) + 49 MB gpu_neighbMasks (6%) + 48 MB gpu_mipmapNeighbImage (6%) + 12 MB gpu_tmp_normal (2%) + 11 MB gpu_refImage (1%) + 11 MB gpu_depth_map (1%) + 11 MB gpu_cost_map (1%) + 11 MB gpu_coarse_depth_map_radius (1%) + 11 MB gpu_coarse_depth_map (1%)
2023-01-17 16:27:29 Summary time: images preps 49.681 s (6%), depth estimation 798.696 s (94%)
2023-01-17 16:27:29 47 depth maps generated in 848.668 sec
2023-01-17 16:27:32 saved depth maps block in 3.202 sec
2023-01-17 16:27:35 saved project in 0.019 sec
2023-01-17 16:27:35 Finished processing in 23393.2 sec (exit code 0)
2023-01-17 16:27:35 W:/S210676d UAV Lot 1/Metashape/Metashape 3d all photos/Metashape 3d All photos.psx: Can't write file: There is not enough space on the disk (112): W:/S210676d UAV Lot 1/Metashape/Metashape 3d all photos/Metashape 3d All photos.files/3/0/depth_maps.4/inliers25.zip

Thanks
Ben
99
General / Re: Import Orthomosaic
« Last post by Alexey Pasumansky on January 17, 2023, 11:57:38 AM »

So, typical geo.tiff files generated by Metashape and the other main stream processors can not be imported into MS?


Hello Dave,

When you get Empty Frame Path error you need to save the project in "Metashape Project (*.psx)". For newly created (never saved) projects and projects saved in "Metashape Archive (*.psz)" format it is not possible neither to import orthomosaic / DEM or tiled model, nor to build those assets.

But if the project is saved in PSX format (as described above) you would be able to import properly georefernced GeoTIFF file via Import Orthomosaic command.
100
General / Re: Import Orthomosaic
« Last post by Kiesel on January 17, 2023, 09:27:53 AM »
Hello dpitman,

the PSX format is the actual "new" native Metashape project format, in formerly versions it was PSZ format.

Best regards

Kiesel
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]