Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Geo-tagging videos and photographs

Somewhere in the thread you mentioned that flying higher was better in photogrammetry.

At some point does one find photo resolution from a higher altitude diminished to a point that higher is not better.

The reason I'm asking is this afternoon I'm surveying a 300 foot tower site for an engineering company. I typically fly at about 200 feet, but because of the guy wires it would be better for me to fly at say 350 feet but I'm concerned the pictures won't have the necessary detail to give accurate results.Any input?
 
Hi MW

I know its too late(you flew your job by now) but I'm no expert on this topic. How did it go? Were you flying for pictures or video? How large of an area did you fly? Was the tower the subject or the tower and some area around it? With 107 regs you can go up to 400 feet above the tower if you want, as long as air space is not an issue.
I've read somewhere(Drone Deploy, Pix4D, Maps Made Easy, Correlator 3D, 3DR Site Scan, Drone Mapper, Lentiska, AgiSoft, Data Mapper) that higher is better as long as you have the right resolution for the job, ie ground sample size for the job. This, I believe, comes into play with the creation of data for topo, and 3D maps(none of which I've created yet). My biggest concern is the geo-tagging from the Q500. Doc says hes got this and will share. My second concern is the resolution from a 12MP camera. Is it enough for topo and 3D mapping? I'm on the fence with both these. I love the Q. Its so easy to fly. The question is.......will something that costs 4 times as much as a Q, do 4 times better of a job at topo and 3D mapping? I just don't know right now.
Sorry about the rambling...........

Recent flight....some 45 images.......325 feet.....stitched automatically in Photoshop. Flown for a Park and Rec Board.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled_Panorama1.jpg
    Untitled_Panorama1.jpg
    8.3 MB · Views: 25
I have used this program a few times. Its actually very easy to use and gives you a 3D render of an area with not to many photos from my Q500.

 
@Eddie Spagetti , more later, but my focus was the steam eroding the foundation's for the south east guy wires.

Pics to follow

Foundation-Failure.jpg
 
Last edited:
They should go for an streambank rehab permit utilizing very large rip rap to place the stream back to pre guy wire conditions. The drainage area and stream quality will dictate the difficulty of the permit. It could possibly fall under an emergency permit as well. Was this for the Engineering firm for the tower or the party/municipality owning the property?
 
OK #VeryDissapointed,


This is the second time I've had this happen. I upload images to MapsMadeEasy.com and gotten no results with the only explanation being poor image quality, I checked and they are 12MP images taken from 100 Meters. I used the Sunny setting as it was a bright sunny day. see attached,

YUN00047.jpg
 
Nice shot
Is this one photo or several?
It looks like they should worry about that stream cutting into the base of the tower in the future. A picture speaks volumes.
Ed
 
Nice shot
Is this one photo or several?
It looks like they should worry about that stream cutting into the base of the tower in the future. A picture speaks volumes.
Ed
Thanks, one pic. Maps made easy responded to my question, evidently I have a setting screwed up causing my jpegs to be compressed. He said they look compressed because they are 12 MP they are only 2.5 mb in size.
 
Thank You
I will send them a job today and check it out.......its one I already did in Photoshop but any measurements are WAY off.
 
@Eddie Spagetti thanks for the tips!

Your solution definitely seems like a workable one but I just can't imagine hitting the capture button 85 times. So I got to thinking more about this problem...

Why not capture video of the area you want to map in 4K. Then using ffmpeg you could extract stills from the video adding in timestamps. Then reference them to the telemetry data on the ST10 as DocV recommended in his workflow.

I'm not sure if anyone has worked on this at all yet so if someone wants to chime in feel free!

I'm going to do some captures this weekend and see what I can come up with.
Hello, did you make any progress with this? It sounds like a great solution. The part i am stuck on is how to get various flight log data embedded in images as metadata, for example timestamps as you mention. and if we can get timestamps from log files, why not lat and lon from gps? i was looking through ffmpeg command flags and i am not finding the solution. this seems so complicated. i can't believe yuneec makes it so difficult for us to do mapping. and tips are greatly welcome. cheers kevin
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,954
Messages
241,583
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval