M3C2

Feel free to ask any question here
Ax_Ahmed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:11 am

M3C2

Post by Ax_Ahmed »

Hi Daniel,

I have 2 scans where I have used the M3C2, but the height difference looks a bit odd. Does it look right to you? I have attached the pictures.
I still have a problem with the scalar field as the samples come in a blue colour only.



Thanks
Attachments
site 2.PNG
site 2.PNG (187.38 KiB) Viewed 3761 times
site 2 height M3C2.PNG
site 2 height M3C2.PNG (38.22 KiB) Viewed 3761 times
daniel
Site Admin
Posts: 7330
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:34 am
Location: Grenoble, France
Contact:

Re: M3C2

Post by daniel »

Maybe the easiest way for me to 'debug' your case would be to send me the clouds...
Daniel, CloudCompare admin
Ax_Ahmed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:11 am

Re: M3C2

Post by Ax_Ahmed »

Hi,

Alright, thanks. I have just sent them to cloudcompare@danielgm.net. Please let me know if I'm doing any mistakes especially with the M3C2 setting as I keep trying a different setting. I'm keen on the local standard deviation STD1 and STD2 also to get as much as accurate results to present the roughness. I wanted to look at the height difference between the 2 clouds with numerical evidence. I have sent you 3 files please don't share them as these belong to my thesis and paper :)


Thanks
Ax_Ahmed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:11 am

Re: M3C2

Post by Ax_Ahmed »

Hello,

I just would like to check if you have received my email?

Regards
daniel
Site Admin
Posts: 7330
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:34 am
Location: Grenoble, France
Contact:

Re: M3C2

Post by daniel »

Yes, but I didn't find the time to process it yet...
Daniel, CloudCompare admin
daniel
Site Admin
Posts: 7330
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:34 am
Location: Grenoble, France
Contact:

Re: M3C2

Post by daniel »

I did a quick ICP registration starting from the two meshes I found in the "Scan 1&2_Final rig" file.

Here is the result I get with the Cloud-to-mesh distance:
cc_c2m_dist.JPG
cc_c2m_dist.JPG (101.19 KiB) Viewed 3704 times
And here is the result I get with M3C2 (i.e. almost the same):
cc_m3c2_dist.JPG
cc_m3c2_dist.JPG (105.25 KiB) Viewed 3704 times
I used 80% overlap for ICP. And a scale of 0.11 for M3C2 (with vertical normals).
Daniel, CloudCompare admin
Ax_Ahmed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:11 am

Re: M3C2

Post by Ax_Ahmed »

Hi,

Thanks for getting back to me.
1- The 0.11 scale is for normals and projection? and why you have chosen this value? is it ok to use this value for the other samples?how about the depth?
2- I never get a map like that with M3C2! how did you get it? all that I get is looking like the one uploaded below.
3- Overall with the files I have sent. Am I on the right track? Could you look at them when you have time and send them back to my email if that's alright


Regards
Attachments
m3c2.PNG
m3c2.PNG (122.13 KiB) Viewed 3700 times
daniel
Site Admin
Posts: 7330
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:34 am
Location: Grenoble, France
Contact:

Re: M3C2

Post by daniel »

1. I used the 'guess params' buttons :D. I just specified the value I used so that you could try to reproduce it on your side. However I think the issue on your side might be the registration, and not M3C2.

Note that there's no 'normals' radius necessary here as I used purely 'Vertical' normals. And the depth depends on how far are the clouds, and if you are really interested in getting very big distances or not (in which case you can accelerate the computations by limiting the depth of the search cylinders).

2. For the map, at least you should use a much more dense core points cloud (reduce the sampling distance, or use all the points of the original cloud). And then I only played with the scalar field saturation parameter (I put the saturation on 0.5 in my examples, to get the default color ramp to span between -0.5 and +0.5).

3. I'll try...
Daniel, CloudCompare admin
Ax_Ahmed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:11 am

Re: M3C2

Post by Ax_Ahmed »

Hi,

I tried my best for the registration and I used both Point pairs picking and ICP which I think it works fine.
For the map how to reduce the sampling limit or use all the points?
Where is the saturation parameter?
Is the map above for M3C2 only? not cloud 1 or 2? I never get it the way you did it.
Please look at the other files :)

Merci!
Ax_Ahmed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:11 am

Re: M3C2

Post by Ax_Ahmed »

Hi Daniel,


I haven't heard back from you regarding the issue below and my files that I have sent a while ago.

Regarding tp tools>fir>plane:
Does this work for concrete cubes? and the way it works is by selecting both clouds (at the same time) then using the tool. It will create a matrix of each cloud. I should only pick one matrix for transformations (any particular clouds 1 or 2?)
The image's colour doesn't look right.

Thanks
Attachments
scalar field.PNG
scalar field.PNG (223.19 KiB) Viewed 3338 times
height ramp (2).PNG
height ramp (2).PNG (289.55 KiB) Viewed 3338 times
cloudcompare fit plane.PNG
cloudcompare fit plane.PNG (218.78 KiB) Viewed 3338 times
Post Reply