Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Applied Geodesy

Editor-in-Chief: Kahmen, Heribert / Rizos, Chris


CiteScore 2018: 1.61

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.532
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.064

Online
ISSN
1862-9024
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 9, Issue 4

Issues

Mapping with Small UAS: A Point Cloud Accuracy Assessment

Charles Toth
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Grzegorz Jozkow
  • Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska
  • Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-01-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2015-0017

Abstract

Interest in using inexpensive Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) technology for topographic mapping has recently significantly increased. Small UAS platforms equipped with consumer grade cameras can easily acquire high-resolution aerial imagery allowing for dense point cloud generation, followed by surface model creation and orthophoto production. In contrast to conventional airborne mapping systems, UAS has limited ground coverage due to low flying height and limited flying time, yet it offers an attractive alternative to high performance airborne systems, as the cost of the sensors and platform, and the flight logistics, is relatively low. In addition, UAS is better suited for small area data acquisitions and to acquire data in difficult to access areas, such as urban canyons or densely built-up environments. The main question with respect to the use of UAS is whether the inexpensive consumer sensors installed in UAS platforms can provide the geospatial data quality comparable to that provided by conventional systems.

This study aims at the performance evaluation of the current practice of UAS-based topographic mapping by reviewing the practical aspects of sensor configuration, georeferencing and point cloud generation, including comparisons between sensor types and processing tools. The main objective is to provide accuracy characterization and practical information for selecting and using UAS solutions in general mapping applications. The analysis is based on statistical evaluation as well as visual examination of experimental data acquired by a Bergen octocopter with three different image sensor configurations, including a GoPro HERO3+ Black Edition, a Nikon D800 DSLR and a Velodyne HDL-32. In addition, georeferencing data of varying quality were acquired and evaluated. The optical imagery was processed by using three commercial point cloud generation tools. Comparing point clouds created by active and passive sensors by using different quality sensors, and finally, by different commercial software tools, provides essential information for the performance validation of UAS technology.

Keywords: UAS; Georeferencing; Image Acquisition; Point Cloud Generation; Performance Evaluation

References

  • [1]

    Pajeres G. Overview and Current Status of Remote Sensing Applications Based on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 2015, 81(4), 281–329.Google Scholar

  • [2]

    Haubeck K, Prinz T. A UAV-Based Low-Cost Stereo Camera System for Archaeological Surveys – Experiences from Doliche (Turkey). The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2013, XL-1 / W2, 195–200.Google Scholar

  • [3]

    Niethammer U, Rothmund D, Schwaderer U, Zeman J, Joswig M. Open Source Image-Processing Tools For Low-Cost UAV-Based Landslide Investigations. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2011, XXXVIII-1 / C22, 161–6.Google Scholar

  • [4]

    Congalton RG, Green K. Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. CRC press, 2008.Google Scholar

  • [5]

    ASPRS. New Standards for New Era: Overview of the 2015 ASPRS Positional Accuracy Standards for Digital Geospatial Data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 2015, 81(3), 173–6. (Accessed October 19, 2015, at http://www.asprs.org/a/society/committees/standards/ASPRS_Positional_Accuracy_Standards_Edition1_Version100_November2014.pdf.)Web of Science

  • [6]

    Toth CK. The role of surface complexity in airborne LiDAR product error characterization. Proc ASPRS Annual Conference 2011, CD-ROM.Google Scholar

  • [7]

    ASPRS Guidelines: Vertical Accuracy Reporting for Lidar Data, 2004. (Accessed October 19, 2015, at http://www.asprs.org/a/society/committees/standards/Vertical_Accuracy_Reporting_for_Lidar_Data.pdf.)

  • [8]

    Colomina I. On Trajectory Determination for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: Sensors, Models and Exploitation. Proc Photogrammetric Week 2015, 131–42.Google Scholar

  • [9]

    Ladai AD, Miller J. Point Cloud Generation from sUAS-Mounted iPhone Imagery: Performance Analysis. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2014, XL-1, 201–5.Google Scholar

  • [10]

    Whitehead K, Hugenholtz CH. Applying ASPRS Accuracy Standards to Surveys from Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 2015, 81(10), 787–93.Google Scholar

  • [11]

    Gini R, Pagliari D, Passoni D, Pinto L, Sona G, Dosso P. UAV Photogrammetry: Block Triangulation Comparisons. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2013, XL-1/W2, 157–62.Google Scholar

  • [12]

    Pfeifer N, Glira P, Briese C. Direct georeferencing with on board navigation components of light weight UAV platforms. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2012, XXXIX-B7, 487–92.Google Scholar

  • [13]

    Kuhnert KD, Kuhnert L. 2013. Light-weight sensor package for precision 3D measurement with micro UAVs e. g. power-line monitoring. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2013, XL-1 / W2, 235–40.Google Scholar

  • [14]

    Takasu T. RTKLIB ver. 2.4. 2 Manual. Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2013.Google Scholar

  • [15]

    Jozkow G, Toth CK. Georeferencing experiments with UAS imagery. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2014, II-1, 25–9.Google Scholar

  • [16]

    Rehak M, Mabillard R, Skaloud J. A micro-UAV with the capability of direct georeferencing. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2013, XL-1 / W2, 317–23.Google Scholar

  • [17]

    Hirschmüller H. Stereo processing by semiglobal matching and mutual information. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2008, 30(2), 328–41.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Remondino F, Spera MG, Nocerino E, Menna F, Nex F, Gonizzi-Barsanti S. Dense image matching: comparisons and analyses. Proc Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage) 2013, 1, 47–54.Google Scholar

  • [19]

    Scharstein D, Szeliski R. A taxonomy and evaluation of dense two-frame stereo correspondence algorithms. International Journal of Computer Vision 2002, 47(1–3), 7–42.Google Scholar

  • [20]

    Seitz SM, Curless B, Diebel J, Scharstein D, Szeliski R. A Comparison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. Proc IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2006, 1, 519–26.Google Scholar

  • [21]

    Ostrowski S, Jozkow G, Toth CK, Vander Jagt B. Analysis of Point Cloud Generation from UAS Images. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2014, II-1, 45–51.Google Scholar

  • [22]

    Grejner-Brzezinska DA, Toth CK, Jozkow G. On Sensor Georeferencing and Point Cloud Generation with sUAS. Proc ION Pacific PNT Meeting 2015, 839–48.Google Scholar

  • [23]

    He F, Habib A. Target-based and Feature-based Calibration of Low-cost Digital Cameras with Large Field-of-view. Proc ASPRS Annual Conference 2015, online.Google Scholar

  • [24]

    Lari Z, Al-Rawabdeh A, He F, Habib A, El-Sheimy N. Region-based 3D surface reconstruction using images acquired by low-cost unmanned aerial systems. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2015, XL-1 / W4, 167–73.Google Scholar

  • [25]

    Jozkow G, Vander Jagt B, Toth CK. Experiments with UAS Imagery for Automatic Modeling of Power Line 3D Geometry. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2015, XL-1 / W4, 403–409.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-10-12

Accepted: 2015-10-23

Published Online: 2016-01-21

Published in Print: 2015-12-01


Citation Information: Journal of Applied Geodesy, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 213–226, ISSN (Online) 1862-9024, ISSN (Print) 1862-9016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2015-0017.

Export Citation

© 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Munich/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Omar E. Mora, Amal Suleiman, Jorge Chen, Doug Pluta, Matthew H. Okubo, and Rich Josenhans
Drones, 2019, Volume 3, Number 3, Page 64
[2]
Rob A. Holman, Katherine L. Brodie, and Nicholas J. Spore
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2017, Volume 55, Number 4, Page 2017

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in