Dataset not processing as it used to

Hi All,

I recently revisited a dataset after updating ODM to the 1.9.11 and am having trouble getting the whole dataset to process, although before I update it processed just fine. Trying to find the right settings to get it right after the update.

Here is the processed ortho from before updating to 1.9.11

and this one after update.

Not sure what has changed or if settings need to be different to get similiar results.

dataset here:!Au1nZacKduuHjCCy6pkeir2929qA

settings that I used:

auto_boundary: True
[INFO] boundary: {}
[INFO] build_overviews: False
[INFO] camera_lens: auto
[INFO] cameras: {}
[INFO] cog: True
[INFO] copy_to: None
[INFO] crop: 3
[INFO] debug: False
[INFO] dem_decimation: 1
[INFO] dem_euclidean_map: False
[INFO] dem_gapfill_steps: 4
[INFO] dem_resolution: 2.0
[INFO] depthmap_resolution: 640
[INFO] dsm: True
[INFO] dtm: True
[INFO] end_with: odm_postprocess
[INFO] fast_orthophoto: False
[INFO] feature_quality: high
[INFO] feature_type: sift
[INFO] force_gps: False
[INFO] gcp: None
[INFO] geo: None
[INFO] gps_accuracy: 10
[INFO] ignore_gsd: False
[INFO] matcher_neighbors: 8
[INFO] matcher_type: flann
[INFO] max_concurrency: 12
[INFO] merge: all
[INFO] mesh_octree_depth: 11
[INFO] mesh_size: 200000
[INFO] min_num_features: 8000
[INFO] name: 31639f74-c684-4e7c-93ea-4dadd15b9e17
[INFO] optimize_disk_space: True
[INFO] orthophoto_compression: DEFLATE
[INFO] orthophoto_cutline: False
[INFO] orthophoto_kmz: False
[INFO] orthophoto_no_tiled: False
[INFO] orthophoto_png: False
[INFO] orthophoto_resolution: 2.0
[INFO] pc_classify: True
[INFO] pc_csv: False
[INFO] pc_ept: True
[INFO] pc_filter: 2.5
[INFO] pc_geometric: False
[INFO] pc_las: False
[INFO] pc_quality: medium
[INFO] pc_rectify: False
[INFO] pc_sample: 0
[INFO] pc_tile: False
[INFO] primary_band: auto
[INFO] project_path: /var/www/data
[INFO] radiometric_calibration: none
[INFO] rerun: None
[INFO] rerun_all: False
[INFO] rerun_from: None
[INFO] resize_to: 2048
[INFO] sfm_algorithm: incremental
[INFO] skip_3dmodel: True
[INFO] skip_band_alignment: False
[INFO] skip_orthophoto: False
[INFO] skip_report: False
[INFO] sm_cluster: None
[INFO] smrf_scalar: 1.25
[INFO] smrf_slope: 0.15
[INFO] smrf_threshold: 1.0
[INFO] smrf_window: 20.0
[INFO] split: 999999
[INFO] split_image_groups: None
[INFO] split_overlap: 150
[INFO] texturing_data_term: gmi
[INFO] texturing_keep_unseen_faces: False
[INFO] texturing_outlier_removal_type: gauss_clamping
[INFO] texturing_skip_global_seam_leveling: False
[INFO] texturing_skip_local_seam_leveling: False
[INFO] texturing_tone_mapping: none
[INFO] tiles: False
[INFO] time: False
[INFO] use_3dmesh: False
[INFO] use_exif: False
[INFO] use_fixed_camera_params: False
[INFO] use_hybrid_bundle_adjustment: False
[INFO] verbose: True

1 Like

Do you know if you changed your processing settings from the older run to what you posted above?

Yes, I am sure I used different settings, however I tried different settings and finally got it to process albeit at a lower quality, but it looks pretty good. I am going to run it again with the settings used this last time at a higher feature quality and see how it goes.
This dataset has side overlap that is a little lacking (60)% so that is part of the problem, but even then it used to process easily before.

the DTM this time came out better than I expected so happy for that.

Thanks for the reply.

1 Like

You can try raising the --feature-quality as well as --min-num-features and --matcher-neighbors to assist with the low overlap/sidelap.

1 Like

that is what I did.

[INFO] matcher_neighbors: 14
[INFO] mesh_size: 1000000
[INFO] min_num_features: 12000

I will try a highter feature quality to see how it goes.

1 Like

Mesh size helps the fidelity of the output mesh, it won’t help you with reconstruction itself.

If you push it up again and it doesn’t work, you might need to use --fast-orthophoto which changes the pipeline and is much more tolerant of low overlap/sidelap data.

Its running now, let you know how it turns out.


1 Like

this one came out good with an even better DEM.

for comparison I ran same dataset on maps made easy with similiar quality settings:
this is a zoomed in section from both.


Thanks for the help!


Lookin’ great!

Glad you’re up and running again :slight_smile:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.