This has been discussed more or less deeply in a number of threads but I did not find a dedicated one.
I just wonder why there is no way to improve the alignment manually?
There is a case I just had where I struggled way too long to get a perfect alignment of a carved stone (images with good coverage and overlap). There was only one problem spot where I went closer to cover some detail an did not “tie” it to the rest of the cameras at one end. So I ended up with ugly steps in the model. I did manage to improve on that by adding CPs, but the result was still not satisfactory.
ugly-step.jpg
Then I used a *competitor* where it is possible to gradually select feature points by reprojection error and reconstruction uncertainty. I did that twice with re-alignments and camera optimizations in between and - huzzah - was finished within several minutes. And the result is perfect!
result-perfect.jpg
wireframe.jpg
I then exported the images (distortion removed) and put them into RC and the result was also (almost) perfect!
That means that RC CAN be helped manually to improve alignment…
So Wishgranter, I know the images were not ideal but it was possible to use them for a very good result with manual intervention.
Why not provide such a tool in RC???
The mesh in RC is much crisper and provides more detail, so I would rather use yours…
Vladlen, I DID use control points!
Actually, I am becoming quite good at using them.
But it is VERY time consuming and if then the result is not even close to the competitor, where it took considerably less time in spite of the extremely longer calculation times, then I think it is reasonable to ask if such a tool would not make sense in RC.
I think it could speed up overall processing times (the manual part) a LOT.
And why limit the fantastic speed of RC only to the automatic processing?
I would even be willing to switch back and forth between different programs, but I tried and tried and did not manage to figure out how. I think the aligning process is just too integrated into the cores of the different programs so that it isn’t possible to align it in one and then take tie points / spares point cloud to another one to continue…
chris, what do you mean by align selected cameras?
Add those to the largest chunk?
Because you could just deactivate all the others, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what you mean…
No comments as Vladlen say it, if images are not properly aligning, then you need to use TIE points to help the alignment. Just properly placed on enough images and its work. Sometimes you need palce 10´s of them, depending on scene composition.
Yes Wishgranter, that’s exactly my point.
10s of tie points take time, sometimes considerably.
Gradual selection doesn’t.
What I mean is at least a comment of WHY it will not be implemented, if it is not possible with your algorythms or too complicated.
Because otherwise this question will just be asked over and over again (not neccessarily by me :-)).
If there is a good reason, it is easier to accept…
@Zlatan:
That is already possible - look in the blue IMAGE ribbon which pops up when you select a 2D view.
There are several options including what you are looking for…
That is already possible - look in the blue IMAGE ribbon which pops up when you select a 2D view.
There are several options including what you are looking for…
If you’re thinking of ray of sight, that’s not what I’m asking
No that’s not what I meant.
There is also “Tie Points” which, if I interpret your question properly, should be exactly what you are looking for.
If not, look at “Show Matches” and “Residuals”, both helpful tools.
Ok, I shall make another attempt.
Maybe somebody from RC will have mercy…
Manual alignment optimization will
[] be available at some point in the near future.
[] be considered, but is difficult to implement and there are more pressing issues.
[] never be implemented because we firmly believe that it is easier for us to teach and users to learn optimal image taking.
[] oh look, a Giraffe!
I realize the setting “max repro error” ican be used to influence the results but that is too much trial and error and it often results in component split.
From trying around a bit I got the feeling that the setting does not influence feature detection but is essentially a filter after that step.
Is that correct?
So should it not be possible to incorporate some filter for the tie points after initial alignment?
Well, one of our experts recommends you to keep adding control points (2D-2D at least 10, 2D-3D at least 7), and if it does not help, increase the point weight… So the manual alignment optimisation is actually implemented.
CPs were enough. If I add more I might become a case for an institution…
And same argument - CPs takes hours (worst case) and a slider takes seconds!
My cases are very often small scale historic buildings and trying to find suitable spots for CPs aon irregularly weathered stone or plaster can be quite frustrating. I am thrilled when there is fancy bird poop to target. :mrgreen:
Ah, point weight. I’ve managed to avoid that one so far - at the time it wasn’t covered yet in the help section.
But I’ll give it a try next time.
What’s the range that makes sense - 10-20 or even 100?
And sorry for the next one, but what do you mean by 2D-2D and 2D-3D?
You mean each CP in 10 images and 7 CPs overall?
CPs were enough. If I add more I might become a case for an institution…
And same argument - CPs takes hours (worst case) and a slider takes seconds!
My cases are very often small scale historic buildings and trying to find suitable spots for CPs aon irregularly weathered stone or plaster can be quite frustrating. I am thrilled when there is fancy bird poop to target. :mrgreen:
Ah, point weight. I’ve managed to avoid that one so far - at the time it wasn’t covered yet in the help section.
But I’ll give it a try next time.
What’s the range that makes sense - 10-20 or even 100?
The help section I know of course!
There is only a general explanation.
Cheers, didn’t know those two yet.
Helpful.
Why not put that into help?
I did try it already and found that it can be crancked up to 200 in difficult cases.
That screws the whole rest of the model up but at least it helps enormously to identify errors in CP placement.
Thanks, useful informations here !!!
I agree, a feature to filter tie points after alignment (like in PS) would be much less time consuming than this trial and error game with the max reprojection error.
And by the way, what is the good value now (it used to be 3, now I guess this is 1 ?) ?
What do you mean by “good value”?
The preset? That would be 10.
The thing is also that I find that I am using up a big portion of the time gained by placing those CPs.
If it weren’t for the huge added benefit of much better resource management…
