I feel like saying I am so appreciative of both the speed of RC and the quality results.
As a learner, the speed makes possible numerous comparative runs comparing different combinations of settings, to understand how they interrelate, and to optimise result from a given photo set.
I guess that’s what ‘experience’ means, as in ‘from long practice’ but I’m trying to shortcut that by systematic trials - and in the process gaining insight into what the often baffling names of settings actually mean - like Track Length, such a valuable metric but so misleadingly named!
My aim is to be able, for any given photo set, to get a fair idea, from its default-settings Alignment Report metrics and file-sizes in Cache, what its ideal settings might be - to be able to go straight to the ideal.
This so far is about Alignment and sparse point-cloud, which seems the fundamental prerequisite for the later stages, when accuracy (for use e.g. in CAD) rather than a pretty picture is the aim.
I can’t imagine how this experimentation would even be possible in other photogrammetry softwares. I am doing runs of typically 30-70secs; I haven’t tried others but understand they would be taking an hour of so on much fatter computers.
As far as quality, having gone further to basic Reconstruction (the white gloopy model stage), I see results that are considered ‘good’ in other softwares’ tutorials etc, but look hopelessly ambiguous to me.
I find myself, as learner, getting much better, less bubbly results already in RC. Whether Simplification/smoothing will improve still further on that - without loss of accuracy - I look forward to discovering.
So, I just wanted to give my appreciation to the RC team - and to its lively forum members too, who write so clearly as well as generously.