Not texturing small areas

I am pretty sure I don’t fully understand custom settings…or my workflow is just screwed up.
I am trying to do a model of a small lighthouse.
On my first try, I flew standard nadir and oblique patterns and the point cloud looks “ok” but none of the railings, that are visible in the point cloud, showed up in the textured model. I examined the pictures and notices that the railings are close to the same color as the water and maybe they just got lost in the stitching.
Options: min-num-features: 10000, opensfm-depthmap-min-consistent-views: 4, camera-lens: brown, rerun-from: dataset
PC1
TXTR1
I went back out and flew again, taking more close up pictures and added them.
This time the point cloud as a LOT more garbage points but the railings and a small solar panel are fuller. BUT the textured model looks almost identical to the first run.
Default settings.
PC2
TXTR2

So I’m thinking an improper setting that’s not texturing properly ???

1 Like

Have you tried running with a higher-quality depthmap? --pc-quality ultra, maybe?

1 Like

Increase --mesh-octree-depth (set to to 11 or even 12).

3 Likes

I’m actually re-running with that octree depth-12 setting now.

1 Like

Where is that settng? I can only find a depthmap resolution setting-default 640

With Octree depth at 12…3

1 Like

What version are you running? the pc-quality flag should have been added at some point in the past few weeks.

Can you try also pushing octree depth higher? I think it’ll accept 14 or so.

Hi @Bob_Staff,

The --pc-quality option has not been yet added to the docs, but was integrated in november. Make sure you have the latest opendronemap version.

Captura de pantalla de 2020-12-16 17-02-31

2 Likes

updating this morning and I’ll try again !

1 Like

So I upgraded…re-ran the same pictures with these settings…
min-num-features: 10000, camera-lens: brown, opensfm-depthmap-min-consistent-views: 3, mesh-octree-depth: 12, pc-quality: ultra

got an error:
Filtered depth-maps 232 (100%, 8m31s943ms)
terminate called after throwing an instance of ‘std::bad_alloc’
what(): std::bad_alloc
Aborted (core dumped)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File “/code/run.py”, line 69, in
app.execute()
File “/code/stages/odm_app.py”, line 83, in execute
self.first_stage.run()
File “/code/opendm/types.py”, line 361, in run
self.next_stage.run(outputs)
File “/code/opendm/types.py”, line 361, in run
self.next_stage.run(outputs)
File “/code/opendm/types.py”, line 361, in run
self.next_stage.run(outputs)
[Previous line repeated 1 more time]
File “/code/opendm/types.py”, line 342, in run
self.process(self.args, outputs)
File “/code/stages/openmvs.py”, line 57, in process
system.run(’%s “%s” %s’ % (context.omvs_densify_path,
File “/code/opendm/system.py”, line 79, in run
raise Exception(“Child returned {}”.format(retcode))
Exception: Child returned 134

hmmmmmm…

1 Like

I changed pc_quality to high…left everything else as it was…
Some more features coming through, but still pretty messy.

TXTR3

I’ve resorted to masking the close-up pictures… :frowning: for the next run.

3 Likes

Apparently I don’t fully understand how masking works. It’s actually getting worse.
Here is the PC after masking the water and sky all all of my close-up pictures of the top part of the lighthouse.

min-num-features: 10000, mesh-octree-depth: 12, pc-quality: high

PC3

And the textured result…
TXTR4

I’ll probably get crucified for this, but…
I’ve never had good luck with textured maps in webodm. DroneDeploy and Pix4D generate better results on that front. However, textured maps and models aren’t a deliverable for me. I process ultra-high density point clouds and deliver that. It’s more accurate for architects to measure.
I’ve been fiddling for a few years now, and haven’t come up with a workflow to get these details in a texture.

Actually it’s texturing where I have my biggest “letdowns” as well on structures. I quite like the results on “landscape” projects…erosion, etc. I’ve always attributed it to me not understanding the settings. I often get better texturing results with Meshlab on structures.
I often wonder if the having the ability to do manual tie-points would help. I’ve seen it other paid programs (Pix4D) but not here

1 Like

MTPs and Scale Constraints would likely be great additions.

I think the community is about due for another large crowd funding event, no?

Do you have commercial backing that may help us as well?

1 Like

Hello everyone! I have the same problem!!
I want to share you a folder with a lot of photos about a wind turbine. There are orbital flights. I try to generate a 3D model but I can´t. Can anyone help me?

1 Like