Skip to content
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

DICe beta 8 malfunctionning #334

Open
Vincent730 opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 10 comments
Open

DICe beta 8 malfunctionning #334

Vincent730 opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 10 comments

Comments

@Vincent730
Copy link

Hello DICe community,

I'm using DICe V3.0-beta.8 in stereo correlation.
The calibration I made was nice. I have a camera angle of ~30°. You can find the cal.xml here:
image

Then, I tried to analyse the results. I'm using .tif images of 8MPx each (here I provide you .png ones so that they can be displayed)
Case 1:
I successfully analysed some tensile test experiments. All went good with images like this:
case1_36_D2
case1_36_D1

Case 2:
I performed other tests later, but now, only a few part of the images are analysed. The images are:
case2_38_D2
case2_38_D1

Nothing has changed so far, I tried other parameter analysis, to play with the initialization methods, change the subset_size from 21 to 51, use some shape functions or not or all of them. Nothing changed.
I also tried to use the option "USE_RECTIFIED_CORRESPONDENCES" but it barely improved the results.

I really don't know what to do next, do you have some advises ? Some hints about what's going on ?

Thank you fir the reply,

@dicengine
Copy link
Owner

I would try lowering the SSSIG tolerance. It may be that your new pattern doesn't have enough variation in the contrast.

@Vincent730
Copy link
Author

Thank you for your answer. I already tried with a SSSIG of 0 but nothing went out...
If you have another idea, this would be great !
Have a nice day

@dicengine
Copy link
Owner

Can you post a screenshot of DICe that shows the areas of the image that get analyzed? That might help narrow down what is going on.

@Vincent730
Copy link
Author

Hi, here are two screen shots of what DICe is doing.
Case 1:
capture

Case 2:
capture_not_functionning

I hope it will help
Thank you

@dicengine
Copy link
Owner

Were there any errors reported in the console output at the bottom of the GUI window? Also, did you output the exodus file, DICe_solution.e? If so, you can look at the exodus file to see what the STATUS_FLAG field was for each of the nodes that failed. That would tell you if it's related to the initialization, the solver hitting the max iterations, etc.

@Vincent730
Copy link
Author

Here you can find the STATUS FLAG representation in Paraview
image

Only few points were found, all the other failed the initialization...
What can I do to solve it ?

@dicengine
Copy link
Owner

Was the camera system moved between case 1 and case 2? It seems that the calibration is slightly off for case 2. I ran your images through DICe with debugging on and Case 2 doesn't successfully cross correlate between the left and right camera. The epipolar error is too large so it fails all the points you see above in red. Just curious if the camera could have been moved.

@Vincent730
Copy link
Author

Thank you for your work.
The cameras may have moved indeed, but if it were the case, it would have only been a very small displacement because the focus was still very nice. Is there a mean to run the analysis even with this high epipolar error ?
Just for you to know, I ran all the tests with VIC-3D and no issue occured...

@dicengine
Copy link
Owner

I'll have to look more closely at why the initialization isn't working. One workaround would be to increase the epipolar error tolerance, but there isn't an option in the code for the user to set that. When I was looking at the epipolar errors, they were just marginally over the tolerance so it could be that moving the cameras barely exceeded that threshold. We should probably have a way for the user to just be warned about the errors and let the analysis proceed.

@Vincent730
Copy link
Author

It would be nice yes. Or to be able to choose the tolerance so that the analysis can proceed but only for your threshold. In the "params.xml" for instance.
Thanks for the time you spend on this case. I can't wait to see this option in the next months !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants