Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 498

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

3‐D uncertainty‐based topographic change detection with structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry: precision maps for ground control and directly georeferenced surveys

Open access
James, Mike R., Robson, Stuart, Smith, Mark W.·2017·Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
DOI 10.1002/esp.4125
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Structure‐from‐motion (SfM) photogrammetry is revolutionising the collection of detailed topographic data, but insight into geomorphological processes is currently restricted by our limited understanding of SfM survey uncertainties. Here, we present an approach that, for the first time, specifically accounts for the spatially variable precision inherent to photo‐based surveys, and enables confidence‐bounded quantification of 3D topographic change. The method uses novel 3D precision maps that describe the 3D photogrammetric and georeferencing uncertainty, and determines change through an adapted state‐of‐the‐art fully 3D point‐cloud comparison (M3C2), which is particularly valuable for complex topography. We introduce this method by: (1) using simulated UAV surveys, processed in photogrammetric software, to illustrate the spatial variability of precision and the relative influences of photogrammetric (e.g. image network geometry, tie point quality) and georeferencing (e.g. control measurement) considerations; (2) we then present a new Monte Carlo procedure for deriving this information using standard SfM software and integrate it into confidence‐bounded change detection; before (3) demonstrating geomorphological application in which we use benchmark TLS data for validation and then estimate sediment budgets through differencing annual SfM surveys of an eroding badland. We show how 3D precision maps enable more probable erosion patterns to be identified than existing analyses, and how a similar overall survey precision could have been achieved with direct survey georeferencing for camera position data with precision half as good as the GCPs'. Where precision is limited by weak georeferencing (e.g. camera positions with multi‐metre precision, such as from a consumer UAV), then overall survey precision can scale as n‐½ of the control precision (n = number of images). Our method also provides variance–covariance information for all parameters. Thus, we now open the door for SfM practitioners to use the comprehensive analyses that have underpinned rigorous photogrammetric approaches over the last half‐century. Copyright © 2017 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/esp.4125

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 498

Metadata

Authors
James, M. R., Robson, S., & Smith, M. W.
Venue
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-16
Volume
42
Issue
12
Pages
1769-1788
ISSN
  • 0197-9337 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9837
DOI
10.1002/esp.4125
OpenAlex
W2598533724
Cited by
498
References
31
FWCI
57.87
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.