# The lack of the quality reports

**URL:** <https://community.pix4d.com/t/the-lack-of-the-quality-reports/34108>\
**Category:** PIX4Dmatic Feature Request\
**Created:** [September 18, 2025, 7:13am UTC](https://community.pix4d.com/t/the-lack-of-the-quality-reports/34108 "2025-09-18T07:13:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sensys00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sensys00](https://community.pix4d.com/u/sensys00)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2025, 7:13am UTC](https://community.pix4d.com/t/the-lack-of-the-quality-reports/34108/1 "2025-09-18T07:13:51Z")

</div>

Hi, I’m having an issue with the lack of the quality report.

I made a project using nadir drone image data set and ranthe **calibration and densification** steps to generate a **dense point cloud (PCD)** using Matic. When I checked the quality report, I found it lacks specific information on **tie points**. The only related metric was **‘2D Keypoint Matches’**.

But I checked that the quality report is supposed to have a dedicated section titled **‘Tie Points’** , which includes details on **GCPs (Ground Control Points), ATPs (Automatic Tie Points), and MTPs (Manual Tie Points)** through this [link](https://support.pix4d.com/hc/en-us/articles/360040686852#Tie_Points).

I didn’t add MTPs, GCPs in my project. but it did generate approximately **1,740,563 ATPs**. I want to check the reprojection error of ATPs and information regarding tie points.

Could you help me understand why this information is missing from my report and how I can access it?"

 ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/pix4d/original/2X/5/5eea1617f446b75046ed0c1fd00343184480f266.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![maal](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/pix4d/user_avatar/community.pix4d.com/maal/32/9054_2.png) [@maal](https://community.pix4d.com/u/maal)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2025, 7:56am UTC](https://community.pix4d.com/t/the-lack-of-the-quality-reports/34108/2 "2025-09-23T07:56:05Z")

</div>

It is absolutely clear what the user is requesting here.  
In addition, it would be highly valuable if ATPs could be filtered or outliers excluded before the DCP is calculated. Having options to take _reprojection error, reconstruction uncertainty,_ and _projection accuracy_ into account would make the reconstruction more robust and reliable.

At the same time, this would lead to **cleaner point clouds** , which in my opinion is still an issue in _Matic_.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alexey.gribovskiy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/pix4d/user_avatar/community.pix4d.com/alexey.gribovskiy/32/8772_2.png) [@alexey.gribovskiy](https://community.pix4d.com/u/alexey.gribovskiy)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2025, 1:18pm UTC](https://community.pix4d.com/t/the-lack-of-the-quality-reports/34108/3 "2025-09-23T13:18:39Z")

</div>

Hello,

Thank you for letting us know about this. The documentation is inaccurate: at the moment, the quality report’s “Tie points” section doesn’t include detailed information on the automatic tie points or automatic intersection tie points.

We apologize for the confusion. Adding this information is on our roadmap, but I am unable to give you an exact delivery date right now. We will work on updating the documentation in the meantime.

Kind regards,

Alexey