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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Cites
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Lowe, D. G. (2004) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/b:visi.0000029664.99615.94 · Cited by 55,589
Woodget, A. S., Carbonneau, P. E., Visser, F., & Maddock, I. P. (2015) · Earth Surface Processes and Landforms · doi:10.1002/esp.3613 · Cited by 424
Cited by
UAV lidar and hyperspectral fusion for forest monitoring in the southwestern USA
Sankey, T., Donager, J., McVay, J., & Sankey, J. B. (2017) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2017.04.007 · Cited by 447
Guidelines on the use of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry in geomorphic research
James, M. R., Chandler, J. H., Eltner, A., Fraser, C., Miller, P. E., Mills, J. P., Noble, T., Robson, S., & Lane, S. N. (2019) · Earth Surface Processes and Landforms · doi:10.1002/esp.4637 · Cited by 294
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.