Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature Request: Adapt las export resolution according to GSD #1789

Closed
smathermather opened this issue Aug 7, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

Feature Request: Adapt las export resolution according to GSD #1789

smathermather opened this issue Aug 7, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@smathermather
Copy link
Contributor

Related pull request: #1788

Propose we filter las export resolution according to some factor of estimated GSD.

I have a few questions:

  • Any favorite GSD measure I should use?
  • Thinking of using some factor of GSD -- possibly 1/10 average OpenSFM estimated GSD
  • Anything else I should be thinking about?

Related prior issue:
#1432

Dataset where current 0.001 value starts to be come an issue:
image
Screenshot from 2024-08-07 13-01-32

@smathermather smathermather self-assigned this Aug 7, 2024
@pierotofy
Copy link
Member

pierotofy commented Aug 7, 2024

In odm_filterpoints there's a JSON file that actually has a fairly reliable estimate of the average metric distance between points. It probably works better than GSD.

I would not set it to default at a low value like the current draft PR proposes, I think it will impact compression (and possibly issues with precision on larger scale datasets?). As this looks like an edge case of sort, an improvement could be:

scale = 0.001 # current
if <json file exists> and <value from json in odm_filterpoints> < threshold:
    scale = <multiple of 1/10 based on value>

@smathermather
Copy link
Contributor Author

In odm_filterpoints there's a JSON file that actually has a fairly reliable estimate of the average metric distance between points. It probably works better than GSD.

Oh nice! I'll take that approach.

I would not set it to default at a low value like the current draft PR proposes

Oh yeah. Just set that for testing purposes. I don't think we want to default beyond what we already have. Just wanted to be able to detect the change in a dataset. That will go away in the final pull.

@smathermather
Copy link
Contributor Author

smathermather commented Aug 8, 2024

Ahh, that's better!

ezgif-4-a6c40324b4

@smathermather
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is complete with #1788

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants