Forum

Author Topic: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach  (Read 3472 times)

Michael_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Dear all, dear Alexey,

I've been using Photoscan Pro for some years now to build insect models. The visibility-consistent mesh generation was a great (!!!) step forward, allowing tiny structures and very flat structures like wings to be reconstructed without any holes. In combination with the strict volumetric masking the results were nearly perfect (see some examples on www.sketchfab.com/disc3d).
After updating to Metashape, however, the new depth maps reconstruction approach seems to be a significant step back. Again, thin surfaces have holes and fragile elements are thinned or completely lost.
Hence, I have downgraded to Photoscan again, but now observe an error: with larger datasets the programm stops working in the step "estimating best cut".

I wonder if Metashape wil have the visibility-consistent meh generation feature again (or is there a workaround to use it in Metashape???), or if the quality of that approach will come back to Metashape.

Thank you.
Best wishes,
Micha

Mak11

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2019, 06:25:52 PM »
From my experience, the depth maps workflow in Metashape 15.2 is now worst that it was in 15.1/15.0 (holes in meshes, slower etc). Hopefully it will be fixed and back to previous quality so that strict volumetric masking can become useful again.

Mak
« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 01:47:01 PM by Mak11 »

SP74

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2019, 05:12:57 AM »
Hi,

I concur with this, I am seeing poorer 3D modelling directly from depth maps.  I am processing an airborne imagery of an industrial facility with overhead conveyor structures.  Processing a point cloud in ultra-fine/mild filtering reconstructs these overheard objects, but with same settings for depthmap based 3D model, very poorly reconstructs these objects, with large gaps in these features.  I am happy to provide the source data-set to Agisoft to assist development.

Cheers,

Stu.


Mak11

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2019, 01:45:37 PM »
SP74,

Don't hesitate to send the data to support@agisoft.com with a message describing the issue.

Did you get better results in 15.1?

Cheers

Mak

Michael_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2019, 08:35:55 PM »
...any comments from Agisofts side?

Thanks, Micha

Alexey Pasumansky

  • Agisoft Technical Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14103
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2019, 03:47:10 PM »
Hello Michael, hello Stu,

If you could share the sample image data and project file with the alignment and mesh model, we would have more information regarding the problem and can suggest, which settings could be used to get better result.
Best regards,
Alexey Pasumansky,
Agisoft LLC

Michael_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2019, 04:25:37 PM »
Dear Alexey,

OK - I've reconstructed a beetle with Metashape, using the dense cloud in Photoscan and now I'll do it using VCM in Photoscan.
Once finished, I will send you a link to access the image data and all relevant information. So you can compare the results of all three approaches...
Which EMail-Adress should I use?

Best wishes,
Michael

Alexey Pasumansky

  • Agisoft Technical Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14103
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2019, 04:34:06 PM »
Hello Michael,

You can send the download link to support@agisoft.com
Best regards,
Alexey Pasumansky,
Agisoft LLC

SP74

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2019, 11:06:22 AM »
Hi Alexey,

Sorry for the delay, production has been very busy.  I too have emailed a link to my data-set.

I have included the project files/folder with raw frames.  Within the project there are 2 3D Models.
One has been created from the Dense Cloud and the other using the Depth Maps. 

To the east there are some overhead conveyors that have picked up in the Dense Cloud 3D model, but missing in the Depth Map 3D model.

The point cloud and depth maps were both processed at ultrahigh/mild settings.  Mesh settings were both high.

Cheers,

Stu.

SP74

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2019, 09:26:17 AM »
Hi,

Is there any follow up to this issue,

Cheers,

Stu.

Steve003

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: Visibility-consisten mesh generation vs the "new" depth maps approach
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2019, 11:37:32 PM »
Hi,
I have just eventually got Metashape to run, and downloaded 1.5.3 just in case any problems were fixed, it was a combination of Agisoft AND kaspersky freezing up PC.

However I had got far  better results with photoscan 1.2.6 than 1.4.5 and a mess with Metashape 1.5.2 on the same set of pics. Agisoft support trying to solve why the images taxed and failed Metashape yet 1.2.6 had no problem.

I see in the website promo that using depth maps in metashape which is not available in 1.4.5 will speed up process 175images 19hrs to 9hrs.

I am after great finesse, reading this thread has the issue the thread is about been resolved in 1.5.3 ?

Would I be better off with Photoscan 1.4.5 and densepoint clouds ?

I have turned on this 'visibility consistent feature' and see one has to tick it in mesh options>advanced. Hope it makes a difference. so where has this gone to in Metashape then ?

Steve
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 12:01:11 AM by Steve003 »