Please select Into the mobile phone version | Continue to access the computer ver.
Ortho Distortions Following Latest Update
718 6 2023-5-25
Uploading and Loding Picture ...(0/1)
o(^-^)o
DJ Eye
lvl.1

United Kingdom
Offline

Hello,

Since updating the aircraft, camera and controller to the latest firmware (7.x - the one introduced following the M350 announcement) I've noticed we're now getting a lot of artifacts and distortion in the 2D Ortho images.

We're using the M300 with the Zenmuse P1 camera.

Images prior to update:  https://ibb.co/YTy1sj8

Images AFTER update: https://ibb.co/N7dgkF3

Has anyone experienced this? If so, going to raise it with DJI.

Kind Regards,
Darren
2023-5-25
Use props
Panph
lvl.4
Flight distance : 5372365 ft
  • >>>
Italy
Offline

processed with DJI Terra? update to the lastest 3.7.0?
2023-5-26
Use props
fans5b25584c
Second Officer
Flight distance : 24012 ft
United States
Offline

I've only flown one oblique volume measurement mission with the new firmware, but I didn't have any trouble

P1, Agisoft Metashape
2023-5-27
Use props
DJ Eye
lvl.1

United Kingdom
Offline

Panph Posted at 5-26 02:33
processed with DJI Terra? update to the lastest 3.7.0?

Yup. Processed in Terra. Updated to 3.7. Also confirmed the RTK was active over NTRIP.

https://ibb.co/W0SF4gw


2023-5-31
Use props
DJ Eye
lvl.1

United Kingdom
Offline

OK, so I've just run the raw images through WebODM and they've come out at the same level of quality with zero distortion or artifacting, so definitely seems like an issue with Terra. Worth noting that while Terra takes just 3 hours to process this dataset, WebODM takes 48 hours! I wonder if the issue is with some of the optimizations Terra is doing to bring the processing time down? Either way, I think we're going to go with WebODM in future - despite the increased processing time. We can just set up a cluster and add more nodes.
2023-6-8
Use props
AR_AirPrecision
Second Officer
Flight distance : 2660509 ft
Belgium
Offline

DJ Eye Posted at 6-8 05:46
OK, so I've just run the raw images through WebODM and they've come out at the same level of quality with zero distortion or artifacting, so definitely seems like an issue with Terra. Worth noting that while Terra takes just 3 hours to process this dataset, WebODM takes 48 hours! I wonder if the issue is with some of the optimizations Terra is doing to bring the processing time down? Either way, I think we're going to go with WebODM in future - despite the increased processing time. We can just set up a cluster and add more nodes.

We did some trials with WebODM, and indeed it's slow...especially with P1 output. I wonder if the config can be tuned or it really needs a lot of resources.

The setup isn't light with containers and DBs.
2023-6-8
Use props
DJ Eye
lvl.1

United Kingdom
Offline

AR_AirPrecision Posted at 6-8 20:51
We did some trials with WebODM, and indeed it's slow...especially with P1 output. I wonder if the config can be tuned or it really needs a lot of resources.

The setup isn't light with containers and DBs.

Yup, we've been playing around with the settings. It is possible to skip certain things, but we've captured all our data with a GSD of 0.53cm/px and if we want to preserve that level of fidelity we just need to deal with the extra processing time that creates. It seems to be heavily memory bound.

I'd be very interested to know how Terra manages to crunch the same dataset in 6 hours at that level of detail, though. Pretty amazing, artifacts aside.

We're going to re-provision some old server hardware and set up some processing nodes. Although it  may still take a lot of time, in comparison to Terra, the resultant GeoTIFF is near perfect.
2023-6-9
Use props
Advanced
You need to log in before you can reply Login | Register now

Credit Rules