-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 887
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
Holes in Point cloud and mesh using PolyCam export #1105
Comments
Yesterday I attempted to rerun the DensifyPointCloud and included
Other things I've tried:
|
I've looked at the dataset and I think the problem here is the camera poses. The raw version are too noisy, while the corrected ones are wrong. So in order to improve this dense reconstruction you need first to estimate correct poses. Try COLMAP or OpenMVG, however the images and the acquisition pattern are very difficult, so I do not have high hopes. Try capturing better photos appropriate for photogrammetry (tons of tutorials online) |
I'm following the Polycam example and am using an export of a stairwell room. After running the interface and Densify point clound, i still seem to be missing a lot of points. this is causing the meshes and textures to be incomplete compared to that of Polycam. Thisis the case for a few other scans i've run.
Could you help me understand what steps i can take to fill in more points and get us closer to the polycam result?
I've tried:
--number-views
--max-resolution
--tower-mode
as well as different tower mode flagsDensifyPointCloud
multiple timesSample Dataset is here on GDrive - stairwell-poly.zip.
Inside it there is a folder called
working/job
which has the logs and all the work done for the particular scan shown below.Here is the GLB file exported from polycam to show the result (We will be doing obj, but gltb is free:) )
Command flow i typically use
Although this is the full flow, my assumption is the issue is closer to the DensifyPointCloud and i am missing a flag or additional workflow?
Comparison
This is a comparison of what openmvs produces to polycam when using the pipeline above...
Please let me know if i should try something different or if something stands out so that we can get closer to the Polycam result.
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: