Agisoft Metashape 1.5.0 pre-release

[Alvaro L]

Hi

One thing I have noticed with new the meshing method based on depth maps is longer times to build textures, which is expected working with more detailed meshes, but I would be great if this department could get some boost in future versions.

[Alexey Pasumansky]

Hello James,

The workaround with Python would work for any depth maps filtering option, it just changes the meta information for the available depth maps to "Mild".

As for the "null dense cloud" problem, what were the processing parameters of the task that you have sent for processing in the cloud?

Hi Alexey,

The processing parameters for the log previously supplied were according the attached screenshot. The process was then started and left to its own devices. When I synced the project, a set of depth maps with aggressive filtering were delivered back. There was not explanation why. I then tried to run the process again, just as you see, but with the reuse depth maps option checked. It was then that the "null dense cloud" error message was returned.

As you have pointed out, the program will have of course become confused, given the default settings in operation as you have previously outlined.

Regards,

James

P.S. Update. I have run the project with the default settings for visibility consistent mesh generation. The process still failed. Depth maps were generated in 1hr33min, with aggressive filtering, despite this not being specified. The project has then synced to the local machine, with no error message. I will now try specifying the set of  depth maps using python.

Hello James,

There might be a problem with the new meshing method started in the cloud solution, we'll try to fix it as soon as possible. Currently looks like the arguments of the task are not properly interpreted by the cloud and it still tries to build the mesh from the dense cloud, while there's no cloud ("Null dense cloud" error is raised).

[bisenberger]

Hello James,

Currently depth maps based mesh generation option is creating the depth maps with the Mild Filtering by default and requires it on input, so depth maps calculated with the different filtering option cannot be re-used for this method (at least in the version 1.5.0). There's, however, a workaround how to make it possible to re-use aggressive and moderate depth maps - it's necessary to modify the meta information of the depth maps instance in the chunk, for example, using Python console:

Code: [Select]

Metashape.app.document.chunk.depth_maps.meta["depth/depth_filter_mode"] = "0"After that the available depth maps could be re-used. However, the Mild option tends to produce better results in most projects.

In the version 1.5.0 the depth maps generation procedure has been revised and optimized, so you shouldn't expect noise for mild filtering depth maps. Moreover, new meshing method should be good for internal noise suppression.

I can try to compare the processing time for some rock-art / stone carving projects that we have for dense cloud and depth maps based meshing methods (both for mild and aggressive filtering) and provide the comparison chart. the new meshing is exploiting GPU for reconstruction, so it can be accelerated with the good discrete GPU cards, whereas the dense cloud reconstruction (especially dense cloud filtering part) time is quite dependent on the image overlap, while the old meshing method could be very RAM demanding for large datasets (hundreds of photos) in High / Ultra quality.

As for the issues that you have been observing with the cloud, could you specify, when does it happen?

Good information on the new meshing. Will eliminate a lot of trail and error.
Thanks Alexey

[james_AU]

[/quote]

Hello James,

There might be a problem with the new meshing method started in the cloud solution, we'll try to fix it as soon as possible. Currently looks like the arguments of the task are not properly interpreted by the cloud and it still tries to build the mesh from the dense cloud, while there's no cloud ("Null dense cloud" error is raised).
[/quote]

Hi Alexey,

Indeed, there does seem to be a problem with the arguments.

I changed the metadata, using the line of code provided. However, I think it exceeded the storage quota (I received a mail to that effect). What is a little strange is that it didn't save the file.  I have exceeded the quota before by 3-7GB before, but in those cases the file was still saved in its entirety.  I think it is a good feature that one is able to exceed the storage capacity temporarily, and if necessary pay for that excess. However, in this case, that did not happen. I am running mesh generation from the depth maps again to see if the same thing happens.

Regards,

James

[Zakhar]

Hello James,

There might be a problem with the new meshing method started in the cloud solution, we'll try to fix it as soon as possible. Currently looks like the arguments of the task are not properly interpreted by the cloud and it still tries to build the mesh from the dense cloud, while there's no cloud ("Null dense cloud" error is raised).

Hi Alexey,

Indeed, there does seem to be a problem with the arguments.

I changed the metadata, using the line of code provided. However, I think it exceeded the storage quota (I received a mail to that effect). What is a little strange is that it didn't save the file.  I have exceeded the quota before by 3-7GB before, but in those cases the file was still saved in its entirety.  I think it is a good feature that one is able to exceed the storage capacity temporarily, and if necessary pay for that excess. However, in this case, that did not happen. I am running mesh generation from the depth maps again to see if the same thing happens.

Regards,

James

Hello James,

As for "exceeded the quota" I suppose it was a problem with our email engine, recently it resent some messages that had already been sent.

[james_AU]

Hello James,

There might be a problem with the new meshing method started in the cloud solution, we'll try to fix it as soon as possible. Currently looks like the arguments of the task are not properly interpreted by the cloud and it still tries to build the mesh from the dense cloud, while there's no cloud ("Null dense cloud" error is raised).

Hi Alexey,

Indeed, there does seem to be a problem with the arguments.

I changed the metadata, using the line of code provided. However, I think it exceeded the storage quota (I received a mail to that effect). What is a little strange is that it didn't save the file.  I have exceeded the quota before by 3-7GB before, but in those cases the file was still saved in its entirety.  I think it is a good feature that one is able to exceed the storage capacity temporarily, and if necessary pay for that excess. However, in this case, that did not happen. I am running mesh generation from the depth maps again to see if the same thing happens.

Regards,

James
[/quote]

Hello James,

As for "exceeded the quota" I suppose it was a problem with our email engine, recently it resent some messages that had already been sent.
[/quote]

Hi Zakhar & Alexey,

Interesting about the email engine Zakhar. The process has just failed again with the 'null dense cloud' error when trying to run reusing the depth maps. Therefore, Alexey's conclusion holds.

Regards,

James

[bisenberger]

Is there a way to export a Tiled Model in any of the formats that a 3D Model can be exported in?

The area of model actually isn't that large, I just can't as good of results with the other meshing methods.

I would like to take the Tiled Model into another 3D application for editing and retopo.

[Alexey Pasumansky]

Hello bisenberger,

You can try to export the model using Agisoft Tiled Archive format in .zip archive, then unpack it and see the common models related to the tiles of the different zoom level.

In principle, it should be possible to open in some model editing application the models related to the bottom (most detailed) level and merge them, however, note that the tiles are generated with some overlap and there wouldn't be a possibility to import the tiled model back.

[bisenberger]

Thanks Alexey,
I had a look at the zip. I can load the models but the placement of the many mesh pieces are all centered at the origin (on top of each other). It would be a huge job to snap all the pieces to place. Put it on the wish list to be able to export a higher resolution mesh from a Tiled Model in a more common format.

The thing that the Tiled Model did that I can't duplicate with the other methods is to remove a lot of trees and give me a good mesh of the ground surface. Do you have any suggestions on how I can achieve this with the other meshing methods?
Bill

[Chris3D]

Hello Guys,

Just a "heads up" from me. I encountered the error message "unexpected channel count"  during building a dense cloud.
Apparently this error occurs when one or more images have more than one alpha channel
If you have multiple alpha channels in an image, delete the ones you do not need and you should be good to go.


Best Regads,
Chris

[bisenberger]

Hi Alexey,
I was mistaken about the quality of the other meshing options. Build Mesh with Depth maps Ultra high is very close to the Tiled Model. What made me think it was different was that I was using Split in chunks script with Build Mesh, Ultra, and Arbitrary settings. I assumed that it used the same meshing routine as Build Mesh with Depth maps Ultra high from the Workflow pulldown. Apparently that is not the case. Would it be possible to modify the script to use the same meshing routine as the Workflow/ Build Mesh command with Depth maps?
Bill

[Dieter]

Hi,

I tried the last Version metashape yesterday but i have a Problem with showing my photos. After a doubleclick on a Photo i See the tiepoints and the Markers, But there is no Photo and the horizontal Photo-Menü is empty.

I have a lapop with i7 and gpu NVIDIA 965, the buildin gpu is dismarked in the Settings.

Photoscan is working  error-free.

Thanks
Dieter

[Alexey Pasumansky]

Hello Dieter,

You need to install latest NVIDIA drivers.

[Dieter]

It works,

thank you.

[Alexey Pasumansky]

I was mistaken about the quality of the other meshing options. Build Mesh with Depth maps Ultra high is very close to the Tiled Model. What made me think it was different was that I was using Split in chunks script with Build Mesh, Ultra, and Arbitrary settings. I assumed that it used the same meshing routine as Build Mesh with Depth maps Ultra high from the Workflow pulldown. Apparently that is not the case. Would it be possible to modify the script to use the same meshing routine as the Workflow/ Build Mesh command with Depth maps?

Hello Bill,

Yes, it is possible to modify the split-in-chunks script and use Metashape.DataSource.DepthMapsData for the source of the mesh generation. In this case the dense cloud generation and duplicating may be omitted.