Accuracy and speed. I'm impressed.




  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Hi Robert,

    thanks for sharing!
    Very impressive.
    How many images and what resolution did you use?
    Would you mind posting some screenshots with cameras activated?
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Forget the first part of the question!
    Just need to look properly... ;)
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    hehe np:] I used DJI Phantom 4 Pro.


  • Avatar
    Lucia CR
    hello, just popping in to say 'great job!'
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Excellent, thank you very much!
    Very interesting.
    I suppose there is no laserscan involved?
    What is your intended level of detail, just general view or also close-ups?
    What resolution (mm/px) did you achieve?

    I'm only asking because I am still desperately trying to improve my models.
    And yours seems to have an awfully good coverage of all the intricate detail, especially inside.
    I would have expected for one thing more images and also more connections of your on-foot circles with the phantom cylinders.
    Maybe my aims are too high for my puny equipement... :?
    What kind of quality is the on-board camera of the phantom?

    But I guess that's going a bit too far off topic now... ;)
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Yes only Phantom no laser. I'm hobbyist so laser is too expensive for me. The lowest distance between drone and towers was ~15m. Below you can find statistics and some example photos from my Phantom 4 pro(Drop Box). P4P has 20mpx camera. ... 5G2ta?dl=0
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Again, thanks for sharing!
    This Phantom 4 Pro really seems to be the RealityCapture of the semi-pro drones.
    I was intent not to get one of those oversized eggbeaters but - wow - I think you just totally changed my mind! :mrgreen:
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    No problem:) Dji Phantom 4 PRO has new camera much much better than Phantom 4 or Phantom 3 Pro. Why Phantom 4 PRO? Is light, portable, simple:) and of course top quality pictures and video.
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Yeah, I noticed that! :-)
    I have been looking every now and so often over the past years, but was never convinced because it was either too bad image quality or frankly way too expensive. Never mind the bother to learn how to pilot such a thing. But with those options now, it might be worth it! Did you pilot it yourself?
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Yes I'm drone operator:) Phantom's are easy to fly and easy to use. Previously I used Dji Phantom 3 pro. Wasn't so bad. In good light conditions pictures were alright but only in good light conditions. P4P has much better camera than P3P or P4. Easily you can recover most of details from shadow or dark areas. Details are the most important thing for me.
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Well, I guess with a 1'' sensor you can't expect miracles at night.
    But if that camera can fly, that there is one big plus to make up for some noise... :-)

    Actually, in my experience RC does a great job with darker areas.
    MUCH better than photoscan for example, which was one of the reasons why I looked into it more closely.
    Where with PS I got weird bumps in shadowy areas, RC showed a smooth surface.
    So I wonder if brightning up the images before processing them in RC is actually neccessary...
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Those panoramas been taken in different light conditions. Night Panorama with ISO 800 + processing. P4P sensor is in my opinion is V good quality.
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Wow, I like the night panorama!
    You are one serious hobbyist! :-)
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Maybe I'm serious hobbyist but only hobbyist. Maybe I'm serious hobbyist but only hobbyist. It's not easy to find right job here where live. I'm thinking now about serious job not this what I'm doing everyday:/ Below you can find my holiday project. I went to Poland last April and I took a few pictures old town in my City. Maybe someday I'll finish it. If i earn enough to buy bigger RC license:]




  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Robert, this is really extremely good stuff!
    When I saw your first post, I was certain that you are some sort of professional 3D-artist or surveyor.

    I shall add one of my humble projects - quite different in scale.
    For me, orthophotos are the goal and the 3D-models are just the means to an end.
    The challenge was an ancient tree standing directly in front of the building, allowing only for 1-3 meters of distance...

    My equipement is rather humble, a mere LX100. :oops:
    But nevertheless, the result is entirely ok.
    Even though I used only jpegs and the glas facade on the left gave me a bit of trouble, the accuracy is still within a couple of mm...
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Great job!!!
    "The challenge was an ancient tree standing directly in front of the building, allowing only for 1-3 meters of distance..."
    I believe it was. That's why I want to buy ~6m high tripod:] My wife does not know yet:P Orthos looks V good!!! in my opinion Panasonic LX100 is very good camera. Pocket and quality is very good as well. Silver LX100 is one of my cameras:] I'm using only tiff files I mean RAW-s converted to tiff files. What i discovered. LX100 has big barrel distortion(focal lenght 24mm). Pictures above 24mm >> are almost without distortion. If you want to get RAW with distortion you need to use something different than Adobe CameraRAW. Unfortunately CameraRAW has bug so if you want to export LX100 RAW-s to Tiff you will get files without distortion. BTW once again Great job:] below another test project LX100 + Phantom 4 Pro. Pictures taken by my brother in Poland and processed by me in UK:]


  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Thank you.
    And wow!
    We can just keep praising each other!
    The small detail is again very well covered!

    Yeah, I just dabbled with RAW the other day and was shocked to see the distortion!
    I am never going to use camera jpeg again!
    A bonus would be the considerable gain on the margins, that are cropped by the camera.
    Also the contrast is killing small details.

    What kind of workflow do you use for developing RAW?
    I have tried RAW therapy and it seems to be doing a good job.
    Chromatic abberation is no problem.
    What I am not sure about is chromatic noise, which in RAW there is some visible.
    Did you experiment with careful reduction or do you just leave it as it is?

    Funny that we both use the LX100 and silver as well! :lol:
    I did get it because it has extremely good value for the money and also because I am using it on a telescope rod (weight)!
    However, this does not work as well for buildings as I would have hoped.
    Navigation with the rod (window cleaner) is quite a challenge and with larger objects soon becomes a strain on the arms.
    Mine is 9 m (in theory) but more than 6 is impossible since I have to assemble it horizontally.
    Only for panoramas (which you do) and if you also get a tripod and the segments are long enough so you can extend them while the rod is upright it would be feasible in my opinion.
    And if you also want some stability and flexibility (remote controlled gimbal for angle adjustment), you end up with a price that is very close if not higher than the Phantom 4 Pro!
    Also, the panasonic app can act up at such a distance (stalling up to a minute), though when reducing the preview to 320x240 it works better.
    I think that a 2-3m rod would be sufficient to bridge from person to drone, also helping with downward shot without the shoes... :-)

    Since you live in the UK, there should be a market for such things, right?
    In my experience the use in heritage is still quite in the early stages because budgets aren't too high there...
    And then there is also filming industry in london... ;-)

    But we are really off topic now.
    I think I'll ask for a Off Topic or Chat section in the Forum.
  • Avatar
    Tom Foster
    Götz Echtenacher wrote:
    But we are really off topic now.
    I think I'll ask for a Off Topic or Chat section in the Forum.

    I think that some of the best stuff comes from off-topic - people can give their thought instantly without having to compose a whole new framework elsewhere (where no-one goes to look anyway) - then it's easy enough to come back on-topic.

    Every thing that's come into this thread I've found interesting and valuable.

    I have played with a 6m fishing pole in order to take rooftop pics of the horizon for solar-study, the camera/iphone counterweighted to hang dead-horizontal. Relies on image stabilisation! I bought for remote pan and shutter but found it only does 2.5m range. Someone said a TV universal remote can replace the low-power Cullmann remote, for more range. but haven't gone there yet.

    But now drones becxome feasible!

    That LX100 looks wonderful - and in silver could easily pass for a traditional Leica!
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    RawTherapee I'm using only if I need to convert RAWs from LX100. For NEF processing I'm using Adobe CameraRaw. But RT is very good application and of course for free:] I'm always removing chromatic aberration and noise. And now:] When together with brother we were developing our big drone, we found a few useful solutions.
    LX100 has problem with signal strength. So you can easily extend range to ~100:]
    We using this gimbal
    and this gimbal controller
    Sometimes you need to use high ISO value. If you using tripod you can reduce noise and recover some details using this method

    I hope that we'll be helpful:]
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Hey Robert,

    I agree with you! The info you have provided is amazingly helpful!

    You are also right about proper titles or specialized fori - you always need to find someone with similar interests and willingness to share... With off topic I mean simply in terms of the thread title. Some admins are more strict than others in that respect. And even though I can understand it in principle, most hits probably come from search engines, so not really any harm done!
    I will shut up about that now... :-)

    So you have a bigger drone too?? For the "real" stuff? :D

    The gimbal you use seems like a very good deal! Is it reliable?
    Do you think it could be easily altered to be mounted on a rod?
    The base plate would need to come off in any case.
    I guess I could just remove the motor at the 4 screws and make a new, smaller one...
    What interface do you use to control the movement?

    The panorama mount seems like an interesting alternative, although I would also need up and down adjustment.
    While this could be achieved by a mechanical system with a string, that would be too much of DIY for my taste... ;)

    With RAW processing I meant mainly for photogrammetry.
    Because noise reduction is usualy a big no-no, as I understand.
    On the other hand, it did work to a reasonably accurate degree even with (as I now realized) completely mangled jpegs...
    The stacking method you mention is really interesting, although I doubt it would be practical for larger photogrammetry sets.

    About the rod:
    I'm sure you know that one: ... stand.html although I am sure it could be a bit cheaper.
    I was contemplating something with a mechanical gimbal bearing on top of a tripod, which I could then mount on a wheeled stand so I can cart it around buildings without much effort. Something like this only not as gigantic and more stable. The end of the rod would then be weighted so that it stays upright even on slightly uneven terrain. A bit like this: ... 1246005702 only with a longer rod and bigger base and wheels.
    For lightweight, reasonably priced rods, have you looked into supports for portable radio aerials? The guy is an enthusiast who developed this privately as a hobby. He has a partner in the states - I'm sure you will find the equivalent page. The only thing why I am sceptical is because there are no proper fasteners, so I would be afraid it could collapse (eben though they say it won't and that people also use it for our purpose). The spiderbeam ... asten.html is more professional, but also more expensive...
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    Hello Guys.
    Tom, in my opinion this type of head isn't good in photogrammetry. Problem is with "Parallax". Nodal point is almost in centre. There's no big difference or no difference in position between key objects on the pictures. Yes 360 Panoramas but not Photogrammetry. I like 360 panoramas and that's why I bought pano maxx tripod head to eliminate this problem and set nodal point in centre. As I said, it's just my opinion:]
    Götz yes I have:] unfortunately is grounded because Pixhawk 1 Died and now I'm saving money on Pixhawk 2.1 + RTK.
    - The gimbal you use seems like a very good deal! Is it reliable? - YES
    - Do you think it could be easily altered to be mounted on a rod? - YES II
    - What interface do you use to control the movement? - BT adapter:] so your mobile:]

    "Stacking" if you using Photoshop to automate this process you can use "ACTIONS", very useful tool:]
    Rods - In the year I want to buy one like this 1st one:)

    I think Admins should create special topic where we and other users can share experience to improve and optimize all processes.
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Robert and Tom, apologies for confusing the two of you!!! :oops:
    I guess you can pick whichever was meant for either...

    Tom, you are the one who asked about the garden and solar studies, I remember now!

    Robert, so did you use de-noised input for RC?
    What I meant about RAW stacking is not just the processing but also the sheer amount - if you have a 2000 img model and you shoot 10 burst for each, then its 20.000! RAW! Where should all those files go?!? :shock:
    But maybe I just have to get my head around to RAW demands...
    I never treated myself to a big Photoshop license - I don't much care for Adobe products so I only use the cheap small brother which can run actions, but unfortunately not create them... :evil:
    Do you know any other software with a similar feature, does Affinity Photo have it?
    Because otherwise you would still be stuck with manually processing all those stacks...

    And thanks again for the links!
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    I had one problem with interior where I used ISO 1600(no tripod) It was only a few shots. Of course stacking is pointless with big amount of pictures. Mostly I'm using settings ISO 100-200 F/9 so noise is minimal. RAW Therapee and Affinity is good enough.
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    The method is really great and I am glad you mentioned it!
    I know that the standard procedure should be low ISO.
    But even with 200, the LX100 shows quite a bit of noise in low light conditions.
    Not bad for normal images at all, but just a bit much for my liking in view of photogrammetry.
    Using normal denoising did not result in much (if any) loss of detail, actually not worse than the stacking method, which leads to some loss of the sharpness as well, as it seemed to me in the video.
    I shall make some tests and report back...
  • Avatar
    Robert Kraczek
    I'm sorry but I should introduce my gear:)
    -Nikon D5200 (Main Camera)
    -Panasonic LX100
    -Phantom 4 PRO
    -Hexcopter (taort x6 frame)
    and PC based on Asus X99e WS motherboard + G SKill 128GB + Asus GF1080 Turbo. Now I'm collecting more hardware because I'm thinking seriously about photogrammetry after when I'll back to home.
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Man, that is serious equipement!
    So what's the LX100 for then?
    To take pictures of the pilot?
    There isn't too too much you can upgrade with your PC though.
    I think you can quite comfortably start out with that setup.

    The D5300 was my choice for a larger camera about a year ago.
    We have very similar tastes! :D
    But now I am leaning towards the X T20.
  • Avatar
    Even entry level gear can net you brilliant results if you know what you are doing.

    For example this tealight here:

    Came out as perfectly clean model. Absolutely no cleanup required.

    Shot with a Canon EOS 1100D @ ISO 100, F16 using a lazy susan for a turntable inside a lightbox.
    All together about 130 photos were taken.

    That sceenshot shows the result of my slightly modified preview quality reconstruction. About 500k tris.
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Hey ShadowTrail,

    Where did you do the rendering?
    Or are the highlights in the texture?

    The keys are "if" and "know" in this case! :lol:
    Clearly I am not quite there yet.
    Although my expectations in terms of precision are rather high I guess.

    Also, it is quite a difference imho if you are more of a studio- and turntable-guy (camera stationary on tripod) or somebody who is out in the field for hours. I am already getting tired after hours just with the lightweight LX100. That this camera is not even close to otimum is a given! But it does have its advantages, at least to me since I hate clunky equipement...
  • Avatar
    I am mostly using the Open 3D Model Viewer from

    And sometimes I use plain old Meshlab :)

    The highlights are actually part of the texture.

    I have done quite passable reconstructions of architectural features and statues using photos from a Galaxy S7 or even 4k video from the same phone in the past. So for me travelling light is actually an option.

    Granted, those are unsuitable for high detail reconstructions due to the rather high amount of sensor noise, but in a pinch they can make your day :)
  • Avatar
    Götz Echtenacher
    Yeah, I guess it just depends what kind of accuracy and detail you are after.
    For google earth or somesuch a smartphone camera should be enough any time!

    Do you happen to know a program that can raytrace high polygon textured models with a user definable camera standpoint?
    I never found one that didn't cost a fortune or would need a second university degree... ;)
    Good old sketchup is too limiting in that respect in my view, but maybe that is due to my old version.
    Their prizing philosophy got a bit out of hand I think...

Please sign in to leave a comment.