We use Pix4Dmapper with great success to process our imagery acquired from a manned aircraft. We deliver projects at GSD’s from 2cm to 20cm/pixel. Mostly nadir but sometimes we add oblique images to an acquisition plan to improve the point cloud when required. We often process large projects with up to 8 000 x 30Mpx images.
We are always striving to reduce image acquisition costs without sacrificing quality. Hence, cameras with greater image width in pixels are attractive (fewer flight tracks). I don’t want to chase pixels at the cost of pixel pitch (or area) on the sensor by, for example, simply going from a 30Mpx full-frame sensor to a 50Mpx full frame sensor. So, if I go for more pixels I should also go for a bigger sensor. The latest mirrorless cameras get excellent reviews in terms of sensor quality, tempting me to invest in something like the Fujifilm medium format systems. Going by the philosophy outlined above, I should choose the Fujifilm GFX 50 because I’d be increasing my pixel count without reducing pixel pitch. But then there’s the Fujifilm GFX 100 with an image width of 11 068 pixels! Now that would greatly reduce the number of tracks we fly for a given GSD
Let me summarise:
Present camera: Canon 5D MkIV: 6 720 pixels wide, pitch= 5.36um,
Tempted to buy: Fuji GFX 50: 8 256 pixels wide, pitch = 5.31um
Or tempted by: Fuji GFX 100: 11 068 pixels wide, pitch = 3.96um
(That was all preamble)
Regardless of what pixel count vs. pixel pitch lead me to choose, my questions on this forum are:
What are the considerations purely in the Pix4Dmapper context?
Are 102Mpx images ok to process?
Does anyone have experience with Fuji GFX 100 images and Pix4Dmapper?
To me the GFX 50 and GFX 100 will both be significant investments so I would like to hear of any potential problems.
Wynand Uys, Hoedspruit, South Africa