Search found 36 matches
- Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:08 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: Issues w/M3C2
- Replies: 12
- Views: 3922
Re: Issues w/M3C2
Daniel, The clouds I sent you are a few of the same types of scans I am having issues with. When I hit guess parameters, it fills in projection and normals with numbers like .0000001. It will run when I use numbers like .05, but then the change I get is wrong. We used the box to try to understands a...
- Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:35 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: Issues w/M3C2
- Replies: 12
- Views: 3922
Re: Issues w/M3C2
Daniel, I have shared two scans with you. The lower number in the title is the first scan with the box present, and the higher number scan is the image without the box. So to clarify, when I use the volumetric tool I do have to adjust the scan order depending on direction? That is correct to do? Wha...
- Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:19 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: Issues w/M3C2
- Replies: 12
- Views: 3922
Re: Issues w/M3C2
Daniel, Yes, I would be happy to share an image with you. They are large files, what is the best method for doing this? I can share a link to a dropbox if you have an email you can share. Basically, everything I use the guess parameters option in M3C2 it crashes and stops working. Also, when I'm usi...
- Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:29 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: Issues w/M3C2
- Replies: 12
- Views: 3922
Issues w/M3C2
Hello, I am trying to run M3C2 to calculate distance change so I can then convert that distance to a volumetric calculation to see if Cloud can accurately show the removal of an object from one scan to another. It will not accurately do this, and when I run on the guess parameters setting cloud cras...
- Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:39 am
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
- Replies: 8
- Views: 3167
Re: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
Daniel, This information is great! A few final questions. a. If using the M3C2 tool, and ONLY changing the 'scale' parameter...what is a good value for high density scans? (billions of points, and large area covered). b. What is considered a small step value? 1.0, 5.0? Again, my scans are fairly lar...
- Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:36 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
- Replies: 8
- Views: 3167
Re: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
Daniel, I was reading the wiki pages in the volume calculation and M3C2. I am curious, which is preferred for natural erosion and which for the removal of something non-natural, like a box? I am running different types of calculations and I wonder if the M3C2 is more accurate for natural landscapes,...
- Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:59 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
- Replies: 8
- Views: 3167
Re: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
Daniel, I am playing with the volume tool you suggested. What are the units associated with the return values Cloud provides? Also, for projection direction and the drop down for empty cells, should I leave that empty? What parameters result in the best accuracy? I chose projection direction as Z, t...
- Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:37 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
- Replies: 8
- Views: 3167
Re: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
Yes! It will be used basically give me a positive or a negative change value that I can infer to be erosion or deposition! But I like the idea of the volume change tool. This should provide an accurate volumetric change detection between two scans? (I placed a box in one scan and took it away for th...
- Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:50 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: M3C2 default vs. manual settings
- Replies: 8
- Views: 3167
M3C2 default vs. manual settings
I am planning to use CloudCompare to quantify volumetric change between two scans. I was wondering what the differences are that impact how accurate the change detection is....what is the benefit of using the default setting vs. manually entering in values for Multi-scale parameters such as min, ste...
- Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:06 pm
- Forum: Questions
- Topic: Rasterization and general question
- Replies: 7
- Views: 2650
Re: Rasterization and general question
Daniel,
Yes, the scans with strange height values have relatively low errors.
Carly
Yes, the scans with strange height values have relatively low errors.
Carly