FrankC on APLanding drew my attention to PhotoSculpt - a low cost 3D modelling programme - http://www.photosculpt.net/ - approx $150. I compared this with PhotoModeler Scanner - http://www.photomodeler.com - $2,695.
The results are shown in this crap video I made (too quickly) and clearly for this application PhotoModeler is superior - by far. But horses for courses....
Comments
friend request and message sent.
Mike
The second use is for engineering development of infrastructure and that usually requires the orthophoto and a 3D model that can be used for detailed planning looking at levels. Typical applications might be reservoirs, roads, river analysis....they are many and varied. These are applications that I might use the data for within my own field of interest which is civil engineering. There are others such as archaeology (the inspiration for AirPhoto) and a couple of guys here and on APLanding have more interests in those fields than I do.
For actually flying a UAV these things are of no real interest whatsoever. My interest in UAVs is not in the aircraft itself but as a tool. Some people like weightlifting and spending a lot of time in the gyn for no real reason other than keeping in shape. I could only ever that effort when I had something to do that needed it - rock and ice climbing and other sports....if not for that I have no real interest in the gym! Same analogy...
I am presently in Angola so have a very slow internet connection and could not view it but one of our fellow members has done some excelent work with Microsofts free 3D modelling and made a 3D model of that same slab which I think was much better than the PhotoSculpt result - and it was free! Unless you really need it though I would not waste too much time worrying about it.
To be fair to PhotoSculpt it is not intended to do the same job as PhotoModeler and categorically spells that out. I just though it worth making the comparison to see what happens. I have made a few more pairs this afternoon and was similarly disappointed. Horses for courses...
PhotoSculpt shows massive holes and bumps in the surface of what is a flat concrete slab and shows the slab as falling away from the drainage ditch - all of this is completely wrong!
PhotoModeler - has made an excellent 3D model of the slab and even shows the gentle fall to the drainage channel. The fact that it is not a pretty image is because I didn't process it at a high density. PhotoModeler is so much more powerful in terms of output options and what it can produce. Also note that PhotoModeler requires a camera calibration and this is definitely going to improve the results. I tried some of the sample photos supplied with PhotoSculpt and again they did not give planar results when they were expected.
Morli the PhotoModeler results are excellent - you need to look beyond the glamour! PhotoSculpt's results are very poor for this particluar application.
Brakar, I certainly think PhotoModeler is an option, especially for smaller sites. The reason I did this test was to investigate its accuracy and reliability - it looks good. I took the pictures at angles that might represent those you might get at from an RC plane or heli. Others prefer Leica Photogrammetry Suite although I think that is more expensive, as is PCI Geomatics. I will be continuing with PhotoModeler as I was very happy with the results from the slab and am now looking for some other photos to test it with - as soon as I get my Gaui Quad!
I have had a look at AirPhoto and if it is only 2D mosaics that are required I would suggest that it is a good option. I haven't tested it yet but we are in the process of doing that. It does not calculate DEMs or create 3D models although it will 'invent' them from spot heights you put in - not really good enough for what I am looking for. The AirPhoto website is appalling but the manual is excellent but rather long if you want to print it (418 pages!). It is not obvious but you have to pay for it - about Eur297.50. A friend has started to test it and found it 'buggy' and hasn't got far with it yet.