Talk:Comparison of photogrammetry software

ReconstructMe is missing I guess
http://reconstructme.net/reconstructme-ui/#features — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.15.136.200 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Deep Stereo
Deep Stereo is a recent research project that generates 3D models from 2D imagery. Should it be added to this list? Jarble (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * that appears to be a research paper so not here. (software list) but the main article may be interested photogrammetry you might ask there if you don't know how to fit the info in. (likely as a reference and maybe even cite it if it reveals new info) --Qazwiz (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition of UAS?
It's not explained here or on the main photogrammetry page. Even Google tells me "Did you mean UAV?". I'm guessing it's 'unmanned aerial system' but I'm not 100% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybak (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Test of photogrammetry-software
--Mr N (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * https://pfalkingham.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/trying-all-the-free-photogrammetry/

Table has problems
was trying to add nonfree function, prices and ref link: http://www.datumate.com/store/ to price field but noticed it appears to have extraneous info after supposed price field so figured i'd enter info here for a table guru to add when cleaning up table ... ref link http://www.datumate.com/store/ $299/mo $2999/yr with option to buy perennial option reserved for "contact us" via link on page --Qazwiz (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Clean up
I suggest we start a serious clean up of this article. As in most articles about software packages, it is required that the package has its own article to prove notability. That is a serious issue here. Combined with the advertising tag on it, I suggest to removed al software pages with a red link. If links need to be corrected, please do so ASAP. I will start removing the red links on 1 July 2018. The Banner talk 11:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed the advertisement tag - seems the issue has been resolved (or atleast improved) with your recent cleanup (thank you). GermanJoe (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Brutal clean-up
Few month ago, this page was the most complete list of photogrammetric softwares available on the web ! I got back here today, and less than 10 solutions left, what a clean-up ??? Really no effort has been made to "clean" this list, ok some solutions were totally outdated but this is really brutal cleaning, is there a way to bring back the older version and clean-it in a collaborative way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antochny (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Notable software applications should have a stand-alone article with independent sources. Wikipedia is not a product catalog or directory of GitHub projects, so non-"notable" entries (in Wikipedia's sense of the term) get commonly deleted from such lists. You'll find more information about inclusion criteria for lists at WP:CSC. Unfortunately such lists are regularly spammed by editors with a conflict of interest to add their own minor products and projects, so some clear encyclopedic inclusion criteria are needed to prevent these promotional edits. GermanJoe (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , I think there has been a miss-understanding, the notability criteria for having an article and mention in a list article are different. WP:CSC states Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, it does not say that notable software applications should have a stand-alone article with independent sources (as you say above) i.e every item in a list must reach notability criteria for an individual article. Please can you reinstate the long list that was available and I will add more references to it.
 * Thanks
 * John Cummings (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But the rules state also "Thou shall not advertise unknown or new subjects". The Banner talk 13:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The first point in WP:CSC clearly refers to notable or "likely notable" entries. And "likely notable" entries must atleast provide some independent evidence (a source with some coverage) for that claim - none of the deleted entries showed any credible evidence for notability. Link spam and unsourced drive-by advertising for minor products are not retainable "encyclopedic information". By the way, the original list was cleaned up by The Banner not me, but I fully agree with it. A lot of lists prone to spam are using the even stricter and more manageable inclusion standard of "article only" to avoid constant promotional misuse (WP:CSC is a non-exclusive list of common examples anyway, so editors can adapt these criteria if needed). Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate product catalog nor a link directory. GermanJoe (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * * Firstly, WP:CSC applies to list pages. List pages tend to be simple one-dimensional lists, perhaps numbered or bulleted. This is not a list page in that sense, its title is not "List of...", it is a two-dimensional table-based page of comparative features of different pieces of software.
 * * Secondly the first point of WP:CSC is explicitly an example of "why some people create list pages". It is not a rule, is not written as a rule, and quite clearly cannot be a rule, as the second example (creating listings of entities that are not considered individually notable enough to warrant their own pages), if also misinterpreted as a rule, would produce an exactly opposite ruling. It would mean that list items must not warrant their own articles. If a rule-set generates clear but contradictory rulings, then either the rule-set is pathological, or (as here), the set members are not rules.
 * * Thirdly, if it was a rule that all list pages should only list items that were individually notable enough to have their own articles, then list pages as such would have no need to exist – these listings would be maintained automatically by the use of categories and category pages. We could then delete every list page on Wikipedia. There would be no need for rules about inclusion on list pages, because there would be no list pages.
 * * Fourthly, it would make no sense to have a rule saying that an article can't have a sub-section unless the topic of that sub-section is sufficiently notable to deserve an article itself. If that kind of rule was applied consistently, it would create carnage across Wikipedia.
 * * Fifthly, when it comes to software specifications (e.g. supported operating systems), the "official" data is the data that comes directly from the official vendor or (for open source projects) official project page/site. Unless a third party has identified something wrong with those specs, or something that requires elaboration, there is no need to go to independent "reliable sources". Official specs are official specs.
 * * Sixthly … well I could go on, but you’ll have realised by now that you’ve been rumbled. You’ve been telling everyone else here what they can and can’t do, based on rules that are emphatically not what you present them to be. You either don't understand the policy documents you're excerpting (many editors do not have English as their first language), or ... you're acting in bad faith. Either way, I’d ask you to stop. ErkDemon (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Photogrammetry is a fast-moving subject. I came to this page hoping to find a decent comparative listing of what's currently available, only to find that the page had been hacked down. The product that I was hoping to find information on isn't even listed. You guys are taking an important species-level resource and screwing it up. ErkDemon (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's really awkward... Some open source projects are deleted from this list to let only the properties programs... And there is only one person who always erase this list and this is GermanJoe... Maybe you should listen the arguments of the others and first debate? 2A02:1811:340F:BF00:A044:9BC3:9BD2:F2DF (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The solution is simple: write the article. The Banner  talk 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet that hasn't happened and this wiki entry has just been an advertising page for paid software now for years, because they spend the money.
 * This has only increased the barrier for entry for non-paid contributors and enabled commercial companies (who already hire folks to do just this) to use Wiki as a commercial advertising platform. This page is proof of that.  Without any other information I would argue that those constantly reverting this page are paid to do so because literally the only thing left is paid for software and it does NOT represent the photogrammetry community.
 * The edits that the mods are doing are CAUSING the very thing they claim to be trying to prevent and they continue to gatekeep this page.
 * Only considering that something is noticeable because it has a wiki page is idiotic, that is NOT what makes something notable. 129.52.129.172 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a free web host or PR platform for non-notable software
I have removed non-notable unsourced entries again, as none of the arguments in the edit summary were based on any Wikipedia guidelines. But please feel free to discuss the disagreement here, with arguments based on actual project guidelines and policies (such as WP:CSC, WP:V, WP:EL and WP:PROMO among others). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web host. It doesn't host unsourced information about non-notable software, just because it's convenient for certain providers to have an additional free PR platform for their products. GermanJoe (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If this is not a PR platform all references to any commercial software should be removed across the whole of Wikipedia. The revised list of software is not all of the key players in the industry and choosing if they are notable based on the fact that they have individual Wikipedia pages is poorly considered. Removing Open Source projects makes no sense as these are typically referenced in academical papers and publications. I suggest renaming the page to "Comparison of a small selection of commercial photogrammetry software" as there is a number of commercial products that are used that have been omitted that make up a larger part of the Civil Photogrammetry products such as Bentley:ContextCapture, Trimble:Inpho, Photometrix:Australis, Autodesk:Recap, Drone Deploy. I agree small github projects should probably be omitted buy major open source initiatives such as VisulalSFM and OpenDroneMap should not be removed as they are fully functional and comparable to commercial products.


 * In terms of WP:PROMO inclusion of non Wiki'ed products being verifiable is laughable as having your own wikipedia page is more promotional than being included in a list. An external link should suffice to link the product to the list.


 * Reading WP:CSC: I see that only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Why shouldn't this list be exhaustive.. maybe a higher heading shouldn't be so exhaustive such as "list of 3D modeling software". in keeping wikipedia encyclopedic wouldn't it be better to have a broader picture than a very narrow view of a part of a commercial industry. some academics have been writing code, papers and algorithims that have been developed into a variety of these products for tens of years and deserve the credit the same or even more justified credit that the commercial sector has. Woodwa (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Both complete and incomplete lists need independent reliable sources, that's a non-negotiable basic requirement. Regarding "... deserve the credit the same or even more justified credit": it seems you are misunderstanding Wikipedia's purpose. Articles and lists do not exist to "credit" anyone, but to provide uninvolved factual information based on secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is no platform to promote anyone or anything, and Open Source applications won't get special treatment just because they are Open Source. Either they are notable based on independent reliable sources or they are not. GermanJoe (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Autodesk ReCap
Anybody please add a row about Autodesk ReCap (I'd like to do that but I'm not very experienced with this software).--Mizukane203 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks prohibitted?
WP:CSC says: "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." So could you please be a little patient and leave the well-sourced redlinks while their standalone articles are not created. fgnievinski (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In effect, yes. This is a list of notable programs, defined as programs with their own article. The Banner  talk 19:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the vast majority of redlinked entries for this article have never been "well-sourced" with independent reliable sources. Inclusion criteria can vary based on consensus of course, depending on the type of list. But for lists of notable persons, companies, organizations or products, a sourced Wiki-article is a commonly used prerequisite - mostly to prevent recurring promotional editing and bloating these lists with minor entries. GermanJoe (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

UAS should be expanded at least once on this page
Seriously, this happens everywhere all the time on Wikipedia. Has everyone forgotten their high school English? Always expand abbreviations unless they're part of the English language. Whatever UAS is, it is not in any standard dictionary.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and although its unrealistic for all laymen to be able to understand the concepts in all pages, we should at least be trying to help people understand as much as possible. What's the point of publishing information if you have no interest in people reading it (or understanding it). Tobyjohnson-wikipedia-account (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Be rough, fix it yourself. The Banner  talk 10:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also wonder, what might be the meaning of "UAS" - couldn't find it. Still don't know. Doesn't appear in photogrammetry. --Arilou (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Should Meshroom be added?
https://alicevision.org/#meshroom

It seems suitable Pluke (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it have an article on Wikipedia? If not, no. The Banner  talk 22:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Banner Is this the official policy on the addition of items? Could you link to it? Meshroom seems to have a huge following with ~720k hits on a Google search, much more than other products listed here. My work elsewhere on wikipedia over the last 19 years has been to add notable things (this is where the debate normally lies), which others are then welcome to build pages about Pluke (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a list of notable packages, as in having its own article. So best option is to write the article first. The Banner  talk 11:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Somewhat seems to look a bit like ownership behavior or attempts to silence competitors (especially of popular free alternatives). Funny catch 22 when new articles for other applications get deleted because they were not listed here. LOL — al-Shimoni  (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what it is.
 * They claim to be against wiki pages as advertising, yet this page has been ONLY an advertising page now for years. 129.52.129.172 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These absurd moderation excuses highlight the fact they know nothing of how corporate marketing works (i.e. paying for publicity articles, review coverage), or are simply being paid-off to be a wiki-squatter. Is there no oversight/ethics committee to report blatant censorship/favoritism like this to? If not, then moderators are nothing more than potential software lobbyists with there being no oversight into their income streams and affiliations.
 * Concerning OSS, the fact that `Meshroom` isn't listed is simply asinine considering its prolific commercial/public usage, its widespread coverage in video/print media and presence in well over a thousand academic publications.
 * Perhaps some kind Italian moderators (@Torque, @Pil56, @Pirrica, @Nemo_bis) would be willing to intervene against the fascist moderation techniques we've witnessed for a decade...unless, of course, our mods decide to eradicate the photogrammetry reference on the Italian page for AliceVision Meshroom as well...
 * Perhaps it's time "The Banner" becomes "The Bannee." LesterCovax (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Request: Add a Yes/No column for CUDA hardware requirements
I'd like to request a Yes/No column to indicate if each software package requires NVidia CUDA hardware. Based on the high price of video cards, it's a pretty big deal to know if your computer is compatible before investing in expensive software or computer upgrades. Rick brade (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Should ColMap be added?
https://colmap.github.io/

Debian package works out of the box https://packages.debian.org/de/stable/colmap and datasets are available for download at https://demuc.de/colmap/datasets/Data 92.74.209.140 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First question is: has the software its own article on the English Wikipedia? If that article exist: yes, it can be added. If that article does not exist: sorry, can not be added. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your draconian interpretation of the wiki requirements is disgusting. COLMAP provides the foundation for dozens of Gaussian Platting advanced AI algorithms and the very foundation for many many more pieces of photogrammetry software, and yet your basis for "is it noteworthy" is if it has a Wiki entry? For YEARS now you and German Joe have prevented the community from creating a list of Photogrammetry software, undermining the ability of the community to identify the existence of software, understand the various components, and compare features.
 * The oppressive moderation of this article is unbelievable. But I guess you can say you don't have any red links, even if you have prevented the sharing of information that benefits the users and the community. Way to miss the forest for the trees. 57.140.28.18 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)