processing time

[jerry]

Hi there,

i testing out agisoft demo, and use a lot of pictures ive done nearly 150 (3 loops around a head)
now i load in this pictures in agisoft software, it needs 3 hours for for calculating points,
i say to my self ok lets wait ;-) so after that i want processing the mesh and the dialog windwo shows me that it need more than 15 hours!!!
is this right??
i testen out 123d catch with the same pictures and i need only 20-30 min of processing time.

is there a solution?? 

jerry

[Kjellis85]

You probably don't need that many images. It depends on what you are using it for. But if you only want to test the software I recommend using only some of the images as well as setting the settings to low. The higher quality settings are really demanding on your hardware, so unless you have a top-of-the-range machine and some serious amounts of RAM, I would recommend you start out low. What are your hardware specifications?

[Alexey Pasumansky]

Hello Jerry,

Processing time depend both on settings used and system parameters.

You can speed up Align photos stage by using Medium/Low quality or using Generic preselection.
Build geometry stage is more resource demanding process, so the suggestion to lower the quality setting is correct. In low quality you'll get the model quite fast.
Also it is possible to speed up this stage by enabling OpenCL optimization in PhotoScan preferences.

[akemono]

Well the comparison to 123D Catch (awful name, liked photofly a lot better) is not really fair.

123D does all the processing on a cluster of pc's over at Amazon and were just using our consumer grade hardware. Of course there will be a huge time difference

You could try Alexey's suggestion on lowering the quality settings, which should translate into your model being generated a LOT faster.

Best,
Mike

[bill0756]

I'm new, and paid for Photoscan without fully researching it, so help me...

The reason I got Agisoft? 
1)Quality.  I'm not sure about this, so if an experienced user or forum moderator from Agisoft could go over what exactly Agisoft has over 123d catch, I would appreciate it.  Some people suggested lowering the quality settings for faster processing, but then would you have a final result that was as good as 123d catch?
2) copyright issues.  123catch takes all rights to your creations, from what I read(terrible trend to claim rights of others, btw).
3) the pros seem to use Agisoft, so I'm trusting their judgement.  I'm not sure why, but maybe it is only for the simple fact of copyright?

I'd love to see a cloud service offered among users to quicken the processing time.  I guess ill upgrade to an 8 core with tons of ram.

[Andrew]

I haven't used 123D Catch for ages, but from what I remember it allowed maximum of 70 photos at maximum 3Megapixels (higher resolutions would be resized down to 3mpix by software while submitting to cloud. In contrast, Photoscan lets user decide the processing speed vs accuracy.

As for differences other than speed, there are too many to mention (disclaimer: I haven't used 123D since last Fall, they could have caught up by now), here's a few: Agisoft doesn't claim copyright to your work, Photoscan it allows mix of landscape/portrait photos, it allows exporting model for touch up and good UV layouting in external 3D packages and lets you re-project texture on a clean and efficient model, it allows ultra high quality results (provided that input photos are good enough and provided that you have enough memory and horsepower in your rig).

Cheers,
Andrew

[jedfrechette]

2) copyright issues.  123catch takes all rights to your creations, from what I read(terrible trend to claim rights of others, btw).

This claim has been made on this forum and in other places, but I'm still not convinced it is true. I'm not a lawyer and I may very well have missed something, but at least when I read through AutoDesk's terms and conditions I could not find any statements indicating that they claim copyright over your work. In fact, there were some pretty clear statements indicating that you retain ownership. If you decide to share your work on their gallery they do require that you give them a license, but that shouldn't be surprising.

As for why I use PhotoScan: flexibility. As Andrew noted being able to work with models that have been modified, or created entirely, in other applications is hugely useful. It also uses standard, well documented, camera models so interacting with other applications is pretty easy. The HDR features are also becoming increasingly useful.

[Wishgranter]

the 123Catch work now so that everything you process is shared with all people, so if process something "special" say some excavations and etc. it will be aviable to general public....... When it started it was with the owner rights so that it was a Autodesk stuff, not yours. afther "BETA" stage was done in direction of us - owners of the stuff that we reconstructed with it. Where is it now ? hard to say, someone could digg intro it, but why ? they plan to use it so you need to PAY that they share it NOT with genereal public :-)


For beginner its great tool, but they have NO adjusting setings except for "quality" The reconstruction part is from the Acute3D, aligning is part of Autodesk stuff. You cannot define texture quality, size and etc. From my testings it lack of quality, even the original Accute sw solution - that mean you get lower quality mesh and texture as with pscan. not to say about no editing of align process, removing "bad" images and etc.... It could be OK with GIS application but when want use for say fullbody scans, archeology stuff and other, more complicated stuff with a lot of images you need a professional app..



If someone want use 123 Catch, go and use it, Pscan is for people who clearly understand the "problematic" behind photogrammetry. Im would say 123Catch is the entry level of photogrammetry, as you grow with knowlege and experience you will get back here and use Pscan, or other NOT FREE sw solution.

Pscan is defacto standard in archeology and other areas from what im hear, read, and see.... Still is "just" 0.9.1 version but its already stuffed wih a lot of things, great texture extraction process, OpenCL based reonstruction, great support, implementing a L O T of our stuff, sometimes under 1 week and etc.... so decide what you really need, if amateur, use 123C, if professional, use Pscan or other sometimes expensive solution.......

   

[Infinite]

so decide what you really need, if amateur, use 123C, if professional, use Pscan or other sometimes expensive solution.......

This. There really is no comparison between the two. Agisoft Photoscan is far superior, in flexibility and output quality.

[jedfrechette]

Has anyone tried Autodesk's new ReCap Photo? It's described as the "professional" version of 123D catch and allows you to do things like georeferencing and defining a scale that you can't do in PhotoScan Standard.

[Infinite]

I haven't tried that version but there is something about Autodesks algorithm that is just undesirable. It creates a strange kind of soft, warped effect on the meshes. Not as sharp and clean as Photoscan.

I've yet to see any good full body scans from it as an example. It might be OK for scanning toys, props and aerial landscapes though.

[Wishgranter]

Yes im have tested it 10-15 days back   

But is the "same" quality of model is when im compare it to pscan as you set say MEDIUM, eventualy  HIGH settings on same project. For my castles and few other tests its unusable :-( the mesh quality is automaticly resampled down, without any control about it and im get a lot of blobs, or better unvanted mesh stuff going out of model without any reason........

From my perspectve its the same as 123 Catch for now, it stil in "BETA" or development. im could not find any menu for GCPs. Its not easy to find it, when want make some tests let me know, wil direct you how to do it...

But im think for GIS application it could be OK ( without GCP editing and etc... ), but if you do a lot of stuff like me, its no way for now...

Best if try on own datasets, but im little angry because of slow UPLOAD, just aprox 500-700KB/sec so im have tested it only with 70 images....

[jedfrechette]

Best if try on own datasets, but im little angry because of slow UPLOAD, just aprox 500-700KB/sec so im have tested it only with 70 images....

Yeah, that seems like one of the biggest issues with trying to use any of these Cloud services on a reasonably sized project. Lots of transfer time and little control.