Talk:Photogrammetry

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 June 2020 and 3 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MikeJiang131.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another example?

Would Microsoft Live Labs Photosynth and Google Street View be considered examples of Photogrammetry applications? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.228.189 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Both packages employ 3D models, Photosynth via photogrammetry, Google on the other hand may not generate its models from images. --krioboy 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we mention Photosynth, we should also mention other software packages typically used in photogrammetric reconstructions (Autodesk Imagemodeler, EOS Photomodeler). Photosynth is nice, it has inovative user interface, but the algorithms (calibration, matching) are "just" implementation of already known algorithms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.201.48.25 (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

So, is it just me, or is there some major copyvio in this article with respect to "Introduction to Photogrammetry"? --Gwern (contribs) 16:16 20 June 2008 (GMT)

Obsolete ...hardly!

This is an individual's opinion, not fact nor consensus. Photogrammetry forms the very foundation of so-called "Geomatics" (which itself is the fusion of geophysics, geography, engineering, geology, geodesy, surveying and computer science) and is constantly being used as more and more planet observation satellites are launched for remote sensing. Satellite stereo photogrammetry plays a crucial role in updating terrain maps (DTM, DEM), hydrology maps and furthering our knowledge of the geoid in great detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxbuck (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the section was clearly original research and entirely lacking in references or citations, so contributes nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject. No reason not to add it back if the claims can be substantiated, but as it stands it says nothing verifiable, so I deleted it. 82.6.108.62 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Photofly

Should this article mention Photofly and how cloud computing is now allowing a wider audience to use photogrammetry?

195.70.93.15 (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Split

Should the table of software be moved to its own wiki page, e.g. "Comparison of Photogrammetry Software"? --LeBoef (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

if so, the table should be expanded to include, e.g., information on the availability and cost of educational licenses. HMallison (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what it has to do with the split. Feel free to add such a column either in this page or after a split. --LeBoef (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Enough time passed (if you ask me), so I did the split. --LeBoef (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No Areo?

I'm rather surprise to not see it here. It was actually the best online service I've come across when I was doing evaluations three years ago, and I doubt that they devolved since then. Here is their website for Areograph: http://areo.co.nz/areograph/ (Areoscan and Areohawk are (I'm assuming) extensions of AG.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadlyDad (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh?

Photogrammetry is an estimative scientific method that aims at recovering the exact positions and motion pathways of designated reference points located on any moving object, on its components and in the immediately adjacent environment.

Huh? And why is so much of this in italics and bold? 15:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed it. — Gwalla | Talk 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Lumberjack sport?

There's a template for "lumberjack sports" at the bottom of the article, which does list photogrammetry. But this article doesn't discuss any competitive aspect(???) or lumberjacking, and lumberjack sports doesn't mention photogrammetry at all. What gives? — Gwalla | Talk 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Stereo vs. mono photogrammetry?

Photogrammetry normally implies stereo, with very little work done on a single image, so there's no need for dedicated section for stereophotogrammetry -- otherwise, it'd need a pairing monophotogrammetry section -- so I plan to delete that section. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Photogrammetry is a broader term than stereophotogrammetry and doesn't necessarily imply stereo, hence the section about stereophotogrammetry. Photogrammetry can for example be used to estimate a 3D model from a single photo, either by looking at shapes in the image (see [1], [2], [3] or [4]), or by looking at the shadows in the image such as the shadows due to roughness in the surface of a celestial body. It can also be used to estimate the temperature of glowing objects by looking at the color of the emitted light. I would say add a pairing section about monophotogrammetry if you think that is suitable. —Kri (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I dispute that stereophotogrammetry is a "A more sophisticated technique" than photogrammetry; rather, it's a special case of photogrammetry. As such, I've moved the offending part under the Methods sections. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing sources could resolve a dispute if one exists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that stereophotogrammetry can't be called a more sophisticated technique than photogrammetry; whoever wrote that obviously didn't realize that any stereophotogrammetry technique is also a photogrammetry technique. —Kri (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, why do you keep reverting the category/see-also-link changes I make? This page talks about stereophotogrammetry, why it should be categorized with Category:Stereophotogrammetry. This in turn makes Category:Photogrammetry superfluous, since it is contained within Category:Stereophotogrammetry, if you wonder why I first removed that category. I also added a link to Computer stereo vision since it is a closely related subject. I can leave the link to Computer vision if it is relevant, but I still think Computer stereo vision should be listed in the "See also" section. Don't you? Stereophotogrammetry is a redirection page and should have no see-also links. —Kri (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kri: I think you're getting categorization wrong. The article Photogrammetry describes more than stereophotogrammetry. This is reflecting in Category:Photogrammetry, which contains Category:Stereophotogrammetry as a sub-category -- the latter is a type of the former. Then the article Photogrammetry and redirect Stereophotogrammetry are to appear at the start of their respective category listings; pls see WP:EPONYMOUS for details. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so this page should be listed in Category:Photogrammetry. But shouldn't it also be listed in Category:Stereophotogrammetry, as it is partly about that subject? —Kri (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kri: Yes and no: Category:Photogrammetry is already listed as a parent of Category:Stereophotogrammetry, at the bottom of the page; if Category:Photogrammetry didn't exist, then it'd be okay to make article Photogrammetry a member of Category:Stereophotogrammetry. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But if you want to find articles that touch the subject stereophotogrammetry, you go into Category:Stereophotogrammetry and look for articles there, so clearly, it should still be listed there for that reason, right? —Kri (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kri: By "it" I supposed you mean article photogrammetry; actually, it suffices to have the redirect stereophotogrammetry as a member of Category:Stereophotogrammetry. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. Yes, by "it" I meant this article; I see that was a bit vague. —Kri (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Geometry in computer vision vs. Category:Stereophotogrammetry

@Kri: you might want to check these two categories, as they seem to overlap substantially. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there are a lot of different but very similar articles that are all about 3D reconstruction from images or videos; maybe the same is true for the categories they are in. As of Category:Geometry in computer vision, it seems to me that it is a broader category than Category:Stereophotogrammetry, as it relates to topics that are not in the scope of Category:Stereophotogrammetry, such as the Pinhole camera model, and determining an objects pose. —Kri (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kri: Agreed there's undesirable overlap in articles; agreed also with the parent/child categorization hierarchy. And how about creating Category:Computer stereo vision -- would it just redirect to Category:Stereophotogrammetry? Fgnievinski (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I know too little about computer stereo vision. I think it sounds very similar to stereophotogrammetry but there could off course be some important difference between them. Maybe computer stereo vision also is a broader term than stereophotogrammetry and also deals with other things than just extraction of 3D coordinates (maybe such as poses), but these are really just guesses. —Kri (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

History of photogrammetry Comment

The history of photogrammetry receives only passing mention in the article; only that 'it is as old as photography itself'. The discovery of photogrammetric techniques and methods and pioneer applications deserves a section in itself. I will start one, but, please, will need help from those of you more in the know. My interest in the field is as a photographer who has stumbled across field striations when overlapping stereo views which appeared to have applications in range finding, only to discover the existence of this whole fascinating discipline of photogrammetry which brings together trigonometry and photography. sinarau (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Photogrammetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150520012943/http://www.asprs.org:80/About-Us.html to http://www.asprs.org/About-Us.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfinished citations

@Fgnievinski: It seems that this article now has several incomplete citations, since the references from the Photomapping article were not merged into this article. Can you finish merging the parts of the photomapping article that are omitted here? Jarble (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jarble: done; I've tagged the article with inconsistent citation style though. I know there are tools to fix that but I'm not an expert. fgnievinski (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)