-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 851
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Obtaining a more crisp point cloud #1034
Comments
module 'cv2' has no attribute 'xfeatures2d' is the error when trying SURF in place of HAHOG. There might be a fix but have not implemented it and tested that. Using SIFT results in .ply with no data in it! HAHOG takes a shorter time to parse compared to SIFT! Otherwise tried to increase the 'depthmap_min_consistent_views' to a number larger than 3 but it resulted in the 'feature' parts of the point cloud being gouged which is not desirable. Trying to change bundle_outlier_filtering_type from FIXED to AUTO does not make much difference. I have to look further into the source to understand the difference. I tried to change triangulation_type to ROBUST but it did not make much difference. In contrast, when I tried to use colmap, I got a better sparse point cloud without as many distortions. To get to a Dense PC, it requires a GPU, so I will try that when I get one sorted out shortly. Meanwhile, it would be good if someone has a suggestion to overcome the OpenSFM limitation with generating noisy PCs. I might still be overlooking changing the right setting to improve the outcome. |
Akaze works but same issue with noisy Point cloud. Does it come down to issue with incomplete EXIF camera parameters? Going to see if that makes a difference. |
I am having difficulty with the SFM. It is always generating a fuzzy looking point cloud across multiple datasets. I have attached one example.
![3D_point_cloud_buddha](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/11643561/293583363-ad3b6754-8ce3-4fed-8770-fb20e94f864b.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.HEPem5O08N5eWNWWoA3-9vNxMVLnIAsljBpKTVf75Nw)
It is based on an orbit shot for a sequence of images for which one image looks as follows:
![output_0002_bk_rmvd_with_prompt_1](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/11643561/293583397-7525e10e-9651-49c7-8755-a99d087208d7.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJnaXRodWIuY29tIiwiYXVkIjoicmF3LmdpdGh1YnVzZXJjb250ZW50LmNvbSIsImtleSI6ImtleTUiLCJleHAiOjE3MjM4OTAxNzEsIm5iZiI6MTcyMzg4OTg3MSwicGF0aCI6Ii8xMTY0MzU2MS8yOTM1ODMzOTctNzUyNWUxMGUtOTY1MS00OWM3LTg3NTUtYTk5ZDA4NzIwOGQ3LnBuZz9YLUFtei1BbGdvcml0aG09QVdTNC1ITUFDLVNIQTI1NiZYLUFtei1DcmVkZW50aWFsPUFLSUFWQ09EWUxTQTUzUFFLNFpBJTJGMjAyNDA4MTclMkZ1cy1lYXN0LTElMkZzMyUyRmF3czRfcmVxdWVzdCZYLUFtei1EYXRlPTIwMjQwODE3VDEwMTc1MVomWC1BbXotRXhwaXJlcz0zMDAmWC1BbXotU2lnbmF0dXJlPWIzZGMwZmJkYzBhYzc4YmVlZmI3MGEwZTQ3YjRhNzY5MmE2MjYzNjExMjY2NzI4ZmFhNDAyN2NmZGEyZjNkYTQmWC1BbXotU2lnbmVkSGVhZGVycz1ob3N0JmFjdG9yX2lkPTAma2V5X2lkPTAmcmVwb19pZD0wIn0.9D0QdhZ2BF_RYYMtSHpJI_mB7o0da9RBnkXixLwxpkc)
I am not able to easily find information to make this point cloud come out looking nicer. I have tried increasing the number of frames and the camera has relatively high resolution. I can clean up any motion blur a bit more with some of the shots. However, when trying on other datasets where there is a significant number of frames and no motion blur, this fuzzy point cloud issue persists. Can someone suggest a way to fix this?
There are too many parameters in this config file: https://opensfm.org/docs/_modules/opensfm/config.html. I am doing some checking but not totally sure which adjustment is going to make the difference yet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: