The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cost‐effective non‐metric photogrammetry from consumer‐grade sUAS: implications for direct georeferencing of structure from motion photogrammetry
Open accessAbstract
The declining costs of small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS), in combination with Structure‐from‐Motion (SfM) photogrammetry have triggered renewed interest in image‐based topography reconstruction. However, the potential uptake of sUAS‐based topography is limited by the need for ground control acquired with expensive survey equipment. Direct georeferencing (DG) is a workflow that obviates ground control and uses only the camera positions to georeference the SfM results. However, the absence of ground control poses significant challenges in terms of the data quality of the final geospatial outputs. Notably, it is generally accepted that ground control is required to georeference, refine the camera calibration parameters, and remove any artefacts of optical distortion from the topographic model. Here, we present an examination of DG carried out with low‐cost consumer‐grade sUAS. We begin with a study of surface deformations resulting from systematic perturbations of the radial lens distortion parameters. We then test a number of flight patterns and develop a novel error quantification method to assess the outcomes. Our perturbation analysis shows that there exists families of predictable equifinal solutions of K1‐K2 which minimize doming in the output model. The equifinal solutions can be expressed as K2 = f (K1) and they have been observed for both the DJI Inspire 1 and Phantom 3 sUAS platforms. This equifinality relationship can be used as an external reliability check of the self‐calibration and allow a DG workflow to produce topography exempt of non‐affine deformations and with random errors of 0.1% of the flying height, linear offsets below 10 m and off‐vertical tilts below 1°. Whilst not yet of survey‐grade quality, these results demonstrate that low‐cost sUAS are capable of producing reliable topography products without recourse to expensive survey equipment and we argue that direct georeferencing and low‐cost sUAS could transform survey practices in both academic and commercial disciplines. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Escobar Villanueva, J. R., Iglesias Martínez, L., & Pérez Montiel, J. I. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19143205 · Cited by 76
Remote Sensing with UAVs for Flood Modeling: A Validation with Actual Flood Records
Clasing, R., Muñoz, E., Arumí, J. L., & Parra, V. (2023) · Water · doi:10.3390/w15213813 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Carbonneau, P. E., & Dietrich, J. T.
- Venue
- Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-09-19
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 473-486
- ISSN
- 0197-9337 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-9837
- OpenAlex
- W2519669455
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 40.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.