-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 138
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
Make video_sample and other video commands 360° aware #336
Comments
Still a problem, it seems. I want to extract samples from a GoPro max video. I need to manually stitch the video with the proprietary non-linux (i.e. windows) software from GoPro, then I can use that video (which has spherical metadata) to sample from. So now that there is python 3 support on mapillary_tools, can this be implemented? I only looked at the intermediary files while ffmpeg is still running, though. |
@joshinils Have you tried the direct uploading? The server will stitch the frames for you.
|
No, I need to correctly correlate the images to the gpx track. But JOSM has the tooling to move the images along the gpx track and save the new location into the exif data, with a plugin. Only after can I upload the images at their correct location. Since I need to process the images with a script which I wrote for this purpose anyway, I manually inject the 360-metadata myself anyway; https://gist.github.com/joshinils/2ca6dd75ac6c1093b4d4fd2d60c68145 See my (German) OSM-diary entry; https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cyton/diary/401670 |
@joshinils Thanks for the context. Curious why you use external GPS tracker. The GoPro Max does support GPS and it embeds GPS track in the video. See https://help.mapillary.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012674619-GoPro-MAX |
When I do:
or --geotag_source "exif" --geotag_source_path GS015642.360
The images are not geotagged. (But still, the images do not contain 360° metadata) |
Plainly feeding the unstitched .360 video file (which does include some gps metadata) does not work, the images are not geolocated;
nor
inserts location data, or other metadata (like the accurate timestamp of when the frame was taken, with millisecond precision) allowing me to correlate after the fact with JOSM |
I'm facing a similar issue. I tried to extract snapshots from a (notice the artifacts — duplicated image features along the vertical seams) Now, this wouldn't be such an issue if Mapillary did process them as panoramas, even if they were lacking the top and bottom, because those are typically the least relevant bits of the image anyway. However, I tried uploading a small sequence just to make sure, and indeed it's shown on Mapillary as a regular, non-panoramic image, albeit a wide one: So for now I gave in and uploaded the full video, with parking maneuvers and all, and will likely ask for the noisy snapshots to be deleted after they're available on Mapillary.com. But this is extremely cumbersome and would be much easier if the |
@waldyrious those aren't even stitched correctly. I've come across a little c program, which I've forked and made some changes to: https://github.com/joshinils/max2sphere |
Thanks for the pointer, @joshinils. However, it's clear that the Mapillary uploader is able to correctly stitch the In my case, the cleanup changes I need to do are small enough that uploading the entire video file, and then requesting deletion of specific snapshots generated from it, is a tolerable workaround; but if |
This is more of a feature request than a bug and I'll probably be doing a lot of the work for this myself, but I still wanted to create some sort of "ticket" for tracking purposes and upstream feedback.
Issue: Images derived from 360° videos using
video_sample
are not injected with the metadata needed so they're recognized as 360° images, resulting in bad segments when uploadedThe current solution I'm looking at is integrating https://www.github.com/google/spatial-media to detect if 360° metadata exists in video media and add the metadata to any images created from it. It's also designed to be worked with using Python2.7, but so far I haven't had any issues uses it on 3.7, so this shouldn't be a pain point if and when this tool is updated for Python3.7 compatibility.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: