I flew with 80% forwardlap and 60% sidelap with terrain following in UGCS. It looks like the terrain following waypoints were not detailed enough and I didn’t get solid overlap in all places. It seems like this could be the cause of the color imbalance in the ortho, but I’m not sure and hope there is a way to correct.
Seeing the information you provided and the screenshots, we think the issue may be coming from camera calibration (Step 1).
Could you provide us with your Quality Report here, so that we can get a better sense of the overall processing?
We see that the area of your construction does not have a lot of unique features, which could be why the software is having a difficult time detecting keypoints.
To improve the results, we suggest trying the following options in Processing Options.
Slower but more robust. If selected, geometrically inconsistent matches are discarded. Useful when many similar features are present throughout the project: rows of plants in a farming field, window corners on a building’s facade, etc.
Thank you so much for having a look. I tried your processing suggestions above and it did not seem to make much of a difference, unfortunately. Hopefully the processing report will provide some clues.
Thank you very much for providing us with the Quality Report.
We have two suggestions for your case.
I see that your camera model, FC6310_8.8_5472x3078(RGB), is not included in Pix4D’s current internal camera model database. We recommend you to use the full resolution, which is included in the database, for next time.
For this project, we recommend you to set the camera parameters to the values highlighted in yellow here:
I began to try suggestion 1) and after loading the images I noticed that camera parameters matched what you have highlighted in yellow. I tried suggestion 2) but got a similar result as above, except the camera optimization was 0.05%, compared to 44% with default settings.
I hope there is something else that I can try to resolve the issue? Many thanks.
Also, please zip the following and upload here: OneDrive
▸ The latest version of quality report (.pdf format): …\project_name\1_initial\report\project_name_report.pdf
▸ The latest version of project file (.p4d): …\project_name.p4d
We have investigated your project, and we can confirm that your initial idea was correct; it is the lack of sufficient overlap that is causing the color imbalance in the Orthomosaic.
It seems that the mission planning app used the full resolution camera model to calculate the waypoints for the 80%/60% overlap, even though you were not using the full resolution model, which then caused the images to have less than 80%/60% overlap.
We kindly suggest to use the full resolution of the camera model next time.
Nevertheless, the accuracy of your project should not be affected by this color imbalance in the Orthomosaic.
Could you check if the lines are also visible in the final orthomosaic? In most cases, the lines are only visible in the Preview Orthomosaic and they do not appear in the final Orthomosaic. This is due to the fact that the color balancing algorithm is applied in the final Orthomosaic and corrects the lines in most cases. The color balancing is not enabled for the Preview Orthomosaic.
Please also upload the latest quality report here: OneDrive
Thank you for the support. I have uploaded the quality report AND ortho and DTM. The color imbalance is still very apparent in the ortho. Thank you again for having a look.
Hi Jonathan, after inspecting the files and the quality report, we could notice that none of the above suggestion was taken into consideration.
As mentioned in one of the previous replies, we suggest to use the full resolution of the camera model next time and increase the overlap. From the pattern seen on the orthomosaic it would be beneficial to increase the side overlap.
Best,
We - and our partners - use cookies to deliver our services. By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies as described in our
Cookie Policy
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems.
They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences,
logging in, or filling in forms. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.
They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site.
All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous.
If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partner (Google).
They may be used by Google to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites.
They do not directly store personal information but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device.
If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.