Last month over 400 of you carefully considered my second opinion poll & overwhelmingly requested a 4k touch monitor for a new Windows10 real time data collector. Although this was unexpected & adds significant cost to my camera build I think I have figured out a surprisingly good hardware spec now that should work quite nicely. Thank you to all who participated in last month's question.
This month I want to start to think about software workflow development. I will be doing this in parallel w/building & testing my working prototype #2 camera. To take this step forward I need to ask what point cloud format should I focus on trying to provide support for w/our first software workflow implementation. Specifically I am in need of some input regarding what you currently use most in your current workflow.
Quick reminder I am planning on providing several output formats as part of this hardware camera build; but I still have to make a choice of which one I should prioritize first.
If you have an interesting reason why you vote for one of above choices please share in comments so we can discuss briefly.
Also if you have another format to suggest I should consider I would love to hear about that as well.
Gauging interest in point cloud format for new dynamic mapping solution
- mwaychoff
- I have made <0 posts
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:04 pm
- 4
- Full Name: Matthew Waychoff
- Company Details: StartingPoints XYZ
- Company Position Title: Building Information Architect
- Country: United States
- Skype Name: mwaychoff
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
-
- V.I.P Member
- Posts: 1236
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:51 pm
- 14
- Full Name: Jed Frechette
- Company Details: Lidar Guys
- Company Position Title: CEO and Lidar Supervisor
- Country: USA
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 219 times
- Contact:
Re: Gauging interest in point cloud format for new dynamic mapping solution
Using PDAL as your IO library would automatically give you support for the first 3 formats in your poll, as well as several others.
Jed
- mwaychoff
- I have made <0 posts
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:04 pm
- 4
- Full Name: Matthew Waychoff
- Company Details: StartingPoints XYZ
- Company Position Title: Building Information Architect
- Country: United States
- Skype Name: mwaychoff
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
Re: Gauging interest in point cloud format for new dynamic mapping solution
Just a quick reply here to bring this to top of discussion thread again so can get few more votes this weekend.
It is interesting how different audience prefers different output formats. Here is same opinion poll on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mwaychof ... 04864-2pvS
Which has generated very different results.
Thank you much @jedfrechette for reminding me to look at PDAL.io.
It is interesting how different audience prefers different output formats. Here is same opinion poll on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mwaychof ... 04864-2pvS
Which has generated very different results.
Thank you much @jedfrechette for reminding me to look at PDAL.io.
-
- V.I.P Member
- Posts: 544
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:47 am
- 7
- Full Name: Martin Graner
- Company Details: PointCab GmbH
- Company Position Title: Research and Development
- Country: Germany
- Linkedin Profile: No
- Has thanked: 160 times
- Been thanked: 175 times
- Contact:
Re: Gauging interest in point cloud format for new dynamic mapping solution
Most software packages are able to read E57, second most is LAS.
If I were in your shoes, I'd go with LAZ, since you will get the smallest file size, while still supporting most software packages.
If you want to focus on certain "environments" like AutoDesk or Bentley, then you should go with RCP/RCS or POD (which has the disadvantage of a non free SDK).
If I were in your shoes, I'd go with LAZ, since you will get the smallest file size, while still supporting most software packages.
If you want to focus on certain "environments" like AutoDesk or Bentley, then you should go with RCP/RCS or POD (which has the disadvantage of a non free SDK).