I think he means he moved the flag on 26 images on that control point.Huh?
yesI think he means he moved the flag on 26 images on that control point.
My question is really, by comparing your CPs to your photo errors how is this justifying the accuracy of your RTK flight and photos? I'm just trying to understand it...
This go around my CP error was greater than my photo error ( I did set my base up too quickly I think this time )
Also, I know I should have 3 or 4 CPs.
So to help me understand, how do we read the data? The CPs vs the Photo RTK errors
Thanks
Yes it does make sense, thank you, just trying to better understand how the checkpoints verify the mapI don't know the math on where the error #s on the photos come from exactly. But consider them just an estimate based upon what the drone wrote to the image exif and what the processor thinks after it triangulates tie points. The values are probably good to use relatively between the photo sets of different projects, but without outside auditing via checkpoints, they have very little weight.
If you turn that check point into a control point, and re-optimize, the accuracy of the surface will most likely improve, especially the vertical, but the error values on the images themselves may get worse. But that doesn't matter. With an RTK flight if you set 6 points, and use 1 as a control point and 5 as checkpoints, you will get the benefit of tightning up the accuracy, especially the vertical, and getting a better average of real error expected on the surface.
The #s you got are not bad. The vertical is off quite a bit, but that is to be expected. That would be helped out with a control point or 2. I believe @elphtrooper's workflow is to take the checkpoint error value and adjust the whole surface by that amount, rather than add in control points, which gets you to close to the same place in the end.
But to your question, the error values on the photo set is good to know, but in the end, it is not significant in "prooving" the accuracy of the surface. Hopefully that makes sense?
If the check points are good, the error reported by them IS the error. All the other metrics are secondary. If your image set error is reported as 0 and your checkpoints error is 5, the error for your surface is 5.Yes it does make sense, thank you, just trying to better understand how the checkpoints verify the map
10-4 Got it!If the check points are good, the error reported by them IS the error. All the other metrics are secondary. If your image set error is reported as 0 and your checkpoints error is 5, the error for your surface is 5.
Have you found that including obliques with a nadir image set improves the vertical reconstruction? Both the P4RTK and Evo2 RTK have the option to include a string of photos at the end of a mission to reduce vertical error. I have not tried it myself (yet). I am never asked for pretty models, or models at all actually, so I am always focused on 2D accuracy.If using all obliques or a large percentage of obliques,
Yes and yes.Have you found that including obliques with a nadir image set improves the vertical reconstruction? Both the P4RTK and Evo2 RTK have the option to include a string of photos at the end of a mission to reduce vertical error. I have not tried it myself (yet). I am never asked for pretty models, or models at all actually, so I am always focused on 2D accuracy.
One of the reasons I chose my Phantom 4 RTK was a calibrated camera file in the XMP that Agisoft imports in along with the images.
Very interesting. What angle did you use?The Phantom 4 RTK with all obliques and no GCPs was the most accurate of all tested aircraft and workflows.
this is what I doWhen using no GCPs use the Fit Additional Corrections option on Optimize.
Ok after some testing.I've run a few sets from a P4RTK through MS and after importing the images, when I open TOOLS > CAMERA CALIBRATION there are no values. I had assumed they would be populated with the xmp data but it doesn't look like it. I asked about it on the AS forum and got no input.
Very interesting. What angle did you use?
Your paper looks very nice.