I've run the same dataset using EXIF data and ground control points and the resulting LAS file sizes are vastly different. In this case the LAS file using EXIF data was 788 mb and the file size using ground control points was 38 mb. I've created contours and calculated volumes using both files and there is no difference although the smaller file is obviously a lot easier to work with. Does anyone know why this would be?
On March 15 we began offering more point detail in the LAS file which is why the file size went up. The previous point counts were insufficient for many users to make full use of the LAS files.
Vui lòng đăng nhập để lại bình luận.
I ran these both in the past week. It seems to be related to how the image is georeferenced?
You are correct. The manually georeferenced workflows were still set to the old setting. This was an error and has been fixed. All LAS files will now have the same denser point clouds now.
Is there any way to make this an option? I actually prefer the smaller file size, I just ran a project that created a 1.5 gb LAS file which takes forever to load and I end up thinning it down to about 25% to make it useable.
It may be an option at some point but for now we are still trying to get an idea of what the general needs are and we have had 10:1 feedback that more points are better than less.
We have added it to our list of future potential options.
Fair enough, thanks
