dorn

We will actually be cutting two one meter samples in each plot, sorting the biomass,drying it and then weighing it. Which is why if we could find a remote way to calculate these values, we could save many many hours of labor. I think that we might be able to get some rough information on biomass based on growth height which could probably be extracted based on the known scale of the plots and the heights of the plots above the pathways which is a known ground level. It would be interesting to see what kind of resolution we do have. We will be doing the ground based measurements within the next two weeks, so we could correlate the on the ground data anytime after that is entered.

I had the same issue. Mashlab seems to indicate that is is loading texture, but doesn't ever complete. I was wondering if I needed a little more computing horsepower to get it to display...

I will download this into meshlab - that seems to provide a little higher resolution too. It would be interesting to compare to 123D Catch output.

Here is an screenshot from the meshlab rendering. It is getting a lot more topography which looks more or less right. I am curious to see what Chris's photos do to the resolution when he gets another model built.

Here is a link to the results from the 3D engine. [http://www.hypr3d.com/models/4fbe49f52d212a000100009d](http://www.hypr3d.com/models/4fbe49f52d212a000100009d) I it looks like with some editing I might be able to look at the density of the polygons in the plot area to document some change in cover, but it looks like we might need a little higher resolution to really document actual variation - the plot stakes didn't show up, but the plot boundaries which are a known size do show up well.