Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of the Calibration Method on the Accuracy of Point Clouds Derived Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Multi-View Stereopsis

Open access
Harwin, Steve, Lucieer, Arko, Osborn, Jon·2015·Remote Sensing

Abstract

In unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetric surveys, the cameracan be pre-calibrated or can be calibrated "on-the-job" using structure-from-motion anda self-calibrating bundle adjustment. This study investigates the impact on mapping accuracyof UAV photogrammetric survey blocks, the bundle adjustment and the 3D reconstructionprocess under a range of typical operating scenarios for centimetre-scale natural landformmapping (in this case, a coastal cliff). We demonstrate the sensitivity of the process tocalibration procedures and the need for careful accuracy assessment. For this investigation, vertical (nadir or near-nadir) and oblique photography were collected with 80%–90%overlap and with accurately-surveyed (σ ≤ 2 mm) and densely-distributed ground control.This allowed various scenarios to be tested and the impact on mapping accuracy to beassessed. This paper presents the results of that investigation and provides guidelines thatwill assist with operational decisions regarding camera calibration and ground control forUAV photogrammetry. The results indicate that the use of either a robust pre-calibration ora robust self-calibration results in accurate model creation from vertical-only photography,and additional oblique photography may improve the results. The results indicate thatif a dense array of high accuracy ground control points are deployed and the UAVphotography includes both vertical and oblique images, then either a pre-calibration or anon-the-job self-calibration will yield reliable models (pre-calibration RMSEXY = 7.1 mmand on-the-job self-calibration RMSEXY = 3.2 mm). When oblique photography was Remote Sens. 2015, 7 11934 excluded from the on-the-job self-calibration solution, the accuracy of the model deteriorated(by 3.3 mm horizontally and 4.7 mm vertically). When the accuracy of the ground controlwas then degraded to replicate typical operational practice (σ = 22 mm), the accuracyof the model further deteriorated (e.g., on-the-job self-calibration RMSEXY went from3.2–7.0 mm). Additionally, when the density of the ground control was reduced, the modelaccuracy also further deteriorated (e.g., on-the-job self-calibration RMSEXY went from7.0–7.3 mm). However, our results do indicate that loss of accuracy due to sparse groundcontrol can be mitigated by including oblique imagery.

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 · 10.3390/rs70911933

Cites

2 of 2 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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
Harwin, S., Lucieer, A., & Osborn, J.
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2015-09-17
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
11933-11953
ISSN
2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158336157
Cited by
187
References
2
FWCI
27.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Impact of the Calibration Method on the Accuracy of Point Clouds Derived Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Multi-View Stereopsis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rs70911933
The paper
Harwin, S., Lucieer, A., & Osborn, J. (2015). The Impact of the Calibration Method on the Accuracy of Point Clouds Derived Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Multi-View Stereopsis. Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70911933

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.