comparison of surface models derived by manual lidar and softcopy techniques
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Comparison of Surface Models Derived by Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Techniques

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Comparison of Surface Models Derived by Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Techniques - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 98 Views
  • Uploaded on

Comparison of Surface Models Derived by Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Techniques. UW-Madison NCRST-I Research Team Frank Scarpace, Alan Vonderohe, Teresa Adams (Investigators) Nick Koncz (Project Manager) Hongwei Zhu, Amar Padmanabhan, Jisang Park (Research Assistants).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Comparison of Surface Models Derived by Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Techniques' - unity


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
comparison of surface models derived by manual lidar and softcopy techniques
Comparison of Surface Models Derived by Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Techniques

UW-Madison NCRST-I Research Team

  • Frank Scarpace, Alan Vonderohe, Teresa Adams (Investigators)
  • Nick Koncz (Project Manager)
  • Hongwei Zhu, Amar Padmanabhan, Jisang Park (Research Assistants)
comparison of surface models derived by manual lidar and softcopy techniques1
Comparison of Surface Models Derived by Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Techniques

Objectives

  • Determine Differences among Results from the Various Techniques
  • Seek Methods for Improving Accuracies by Technology Integration
  • Seek Methods for Reducing Required Editing Time for Raw Softcopy Data
manual lidar and softcopy data sets
Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Data Sets
  • Manual Photogrammetry Data Set Provided by Iowa DOT and CTRE:
    • Breaklines and Mass Points (~20-Meter Spacing)
    • Compiled on Analytical Stereoplotters from 1:4800 (nominal scale) photos
    • Expected Accuracy: 0.07-0.10m RMS
manual lidar and softcopy data sets1
Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Data Sets
  • Softcopy Photogrammetry Data Set:
    • Same Photography as Manual Method
    • Same Camera Calibration
    • Same External Orientation Parameters
    • Film Diapositives Scanned at 15 Micrometers
    • 38 Photos in 3 Strips – 35 Stereo Models
manual lidar and softcopy data sets2
Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Data Sets
  • Softcopy Photogrammetry Data Set:
    • In-House Software
    • Resampled Epipolar Images
    • 1:32 Image Pyramids
    • Cross-Correlation
    • Least Squares Matching
    • Generates Irregular 1-Meter Spacing of Elevations
correlation coefficients from a single model
Correlation Coefficients from a Single Model

Red = 0.5-0.7

Yellow = 0.7-0.9

Green = > 0.9

manual lidar and softcopy data sets3
Manual, LIDAR, and Softcopy Data Sets
  • LIDAR Data Set:
    • Irregular 2-Meter Spacing of Elevations
    • Expected Accuracy: 0.15m RMS
    • Raw Data Were Edited, But Some Vegetation (e.g., Crops) Were Not Removed
parts of the three data sets
Parts of the Three Data Sets

Sample Comparisons and Results

sample comparisons and results
Sample Comparisons and Results

Preliminary Results Indicate that Softcopy Data are at Least as Good as LIDAR when Compared to Manually-Extracted Data.

slide18
Softcopy / LIDAR Integration Project Status

Softcopy Extraction w/LIDAR (Initial Comparison)

slide19
Softcopy / LIDAR Integration Project Status

Softcopy Extraction w/LIDAR (Initial Comparison)

softcopy editing tools
Softcopy Editing Tools
  • Automated
    • Slope Filter (Spikes and Holes)
  • Manual (Stereo Viewing)
    • Point-by-Point
    • Polygon Constant Elevation
    • Polygon Planar Fit
conclusions
Conclusions
  • When Differenced with Manually-Derived Data, Softcopy Results (0.2-0.4m RMS) are Slightly Better than LIDAR (0.3-0.5m RMS).
  • When LIDAR is Used as First Approximation for Softcopy, Results are Mixed with Improvements of 20% (to 0.16m RMS) in Some Cases.
  • Slope Filter Improves Raw Softcopy Data by 10%.
  • Comparisons with Manually-Edited Softcopy Remain to be Done.
ad