- •Preface
- •Biological Vision Systems
- •Visual Representations from Paintings to Photographs
- •Computer Vision
- •The Limitations of Standard 2D Images
- •3D Imaging, Analysis and Applications
- •Book Objective and Content
- •Acknowledgements
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •2.1 Introduction
- •Chapter Outline
- •2.2 An Overview of Passive 3D Imaging Systems
- •2.2.1 Multiple View Approaches
- •2.2.2 Single View Approaches
- •2.3 Camera Modeling
- •2.3.1 Homogeneous Coordinates
- •2.3.2 Perspective Projection Camera Model
- •2.3.2.1 Camera Modeling: The Coordinate Transformation
- •2.3.2.2 Camera Modeling: Perspective Projection
- •2.3.2.3 Camera Modeling: Image Sampling
- •2.3.2.4 Camera Modeling: Concatenating the Projective Mappings
- •2.3.3 Radial Distortion
- •2.4 Camera Calibration
- •2.4.1 Estimation of a Scene-to-Image Planar Homography
- •2.4.2 Basic Calibration
- •2.4.3 Refined Calibration
- •2.4.4 Calibration of a Stereo Rig
- •2.5 Two-View Geometry
- •2.5.1 Epipolar Geometry
- •2.5.2 Essential and Fundamental Matrices
- •2.5.3 The Fundamental Matrix for Pure Translation
- •2.5.4 Computation of the Fundamental Matrix
- •2.5.5 Two Views Separated by a Pure Rotation
- •2.5.6 Two Views of a Planar Scene
- •2.6 Rectification
- •2.6.1 Rectification with Calibration Information
- •2.6.2 Rectification Without Calibration Information
- •2.7 Finding Correspondences
- •2.7.1 Correlation-Based Methods
- •2.7.2 Feature-Based Methods
- •2.8 3D Reconstruction
- •2.8.1 Stereo
- •2.8.1.1 Dense Stereo Matching
- •2.8.1.2 Triangulation
- •2.8.2 Structure from Motion
- •2.9 Passive Multiple-View 3D Imaging Systems
- •2.9.1 Stereo Cameras
- •2.9.2 3D Modeling
- •2.9.3 Mobile Robot Localization and Mapping
- •2.10 Passive Versus Active 3D Imaging Systems
- •2.11 Concluding Remarks
- •2.12 Further Reading
- •2.13 Questions
- •2.14 Exercises
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.1.1 Historical Context
- •3.1.2 Basic Measurement Principles
- •3.1.3 Active Triangulation-Based Methods
- •3.1.4 Chapter Outline
- •3.2 Spot Scanners
- •3.2.1 Spot Position Detection
- •3.3 Stripe Scanners
- •3.3.1 Camera Model
- •3.3.2 Sheet-of-Light Projector Model
- •3.3.3 Triangulation for Stripe Scanners
- •3.4 Area-Based Structured Light Systems
- •3.4.1 Gray Code Methods
- •3.4.1.1 Decoding of Binary Fringe-Based Codes
- •3.4.1.2 Advantage of the Gray Code
- •3.4.2 Phase Shift Methods
- •3.4.2.1 Removing the Phase Ambiguity
- •3.4.3 Triangulation for a Structured Light System
- •3.5 System Calibration
- •3.6 Measurement Uncertainty
- •3.6.1 Uncertainty Related to the Phase Shift Algorithm
- •3.6.2 Uncertainty Related to Intrinsic Parameters
- •3.6.3 Uncertainty Related to Extrinsic Parameters
- •3.6.4 Uncertainty as a Design Tool
- •3.7 Experimental Characterization of 3D Imaging Systems
- •3.7.1 Low-Level Characterization
- •3.7.2 System-Level Characterization
- •3.7.3 Characterization of Errors Caused by Surface Properties
- •3.7.4 Application-Based Characterization
- •3.8 Selected Advanced Topics
- •3.8.1 Thin Lens Equation
- •3.8.2 Depth of Field
- •3.8.3 Scheimpflug Condition
- •3.8.4 Speckle and Uncertainty
- •3.8.5 Laser Depth of Field
- •3.8.6 Lateral Resolution
- •3.9 Research Challenges
- •3.10 Concluding Remarks
- •3.11 Further Reading
- •3.12 Questions
- •3.13 Exercises
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •Chapter Outline
- •4.2 Representation of 3D Data
- •4.2.1 Raw Data
- •4.2.1.1 Point Cloud
- •4.2.1.2 Structured Point Cloud
- •4.2.1.3 Depth Maps and Range Images
- •4.2.1.4 Needle map
- •4.2.1.5 Polygon Soup
- •4.2.2 Surface Representations
- •4.2.2.1 Triangular Mesh
- •4.2.2.2 Quadrilateral Mesh
- •4.2.2.3 Subdivision Surfaces
- •4.2.2.4 Morphable Model
- •4.2.2.5 Implicit Surface
- •4.2.2.6 Parametric Surface
- •4.2.2.7 Comparison of Surface Representations
- •4.2.3 Solid-Based Representations
- •4.2.3.1 Voxels
- •4.2.3.3 Binary Space Partitioning
- •4.2.3.4 Constructive Solid Geometry
- •4.2.3.5 Boundary Representations
- •4.2.4 Summary of Solid-Based Representations
- •4.3 Polygon Meshes
- •4.3.1 Mesh Storage
- •4.3.2 Mesh Data Structures
- •4.3.2.1 Halfedge Structure
- •4.4 Subdivision Surfaces
- •4.4.1 Doo-Sabin Scheme
- •4.4.2 Catmull-Clark Scheme
- •4.4.3 Loop Scheme
- •4.5 Local Differential Properties
- •4.5.1 Surface Normals
- •4.5.2 Differential Coordinates and the Mesh Laplacian
- •4.6 Compression and Levels of Detail
- •4.6.1 Mesh Simplification
- •4.6.1.1 Edge Collapse
- •4.6.1.2 Quadric Error Metric
- •4.6.2 QEM Simplification Summary
- •4.6.3 Surface Simplification Results
- •4.7 Visualization
- •4.8 Research Challenges
- •4.9 Concluding Remarks
- •4.10 Further Reading
- •4.11 Questions
- •4.12 Exercises
- •References
- •1.1 Introduction
- •Chapter Outline
- •1.2 A Historical Perspective on 3D Imaging
- •1.2.1 Image Formation and Image Capture
- •1.2.2 Binocular Perception of Depth
- •1.2.3 Stereoscopic Displays
- •1.3 The Development of Computer Vision
- •1.3.1 Further Reading in Computer Vision
- •1.4 Acquisition Techniques for 3D Imaging
- •1.4.1 Passive 3D Imaging
- •1.4.2 Active 3D Imaging
- •1.4.3 Passive Stereo Versus Active Stereo Imaging
- •1.5 Twelve Milestones in 3D Imaging and Shape Analysis
- •1.5.1 Active 3D Imaging: An Early Optical Triangulation System
- •1.5.2 Passive 3D Imaging: An Early Stereo System
- •1.5.3 Passive 3D Imaging: The Essential Matrix
- •1.5.4 Model Fitting: The RANSAC Approach to Feature Correspondence Analysis
- •1.5.5 Active 3D Imaging: Advances in Scanning Geometries
- •1.5.6 3D Registration: Rigid Transformation Estimation from 3D Correspondences
- •1.5.7 3D Registration: Iterative Closest Points
- •1.5.9 3D Local Shape Descriptors: Spin Images
- •1.5.10 Passive 3D Imaging: Flexible Camera Calibration
- •1.5.11 3D Shape Matching: Heat Kernel Signatures
- •1.6 Applications of 3D Imaging
- •1.7 Book Outline
- •1.7.1 Part I: 3D Imaging and Shape Representation
- •1.7.2 Part II: 3D Shape Analysis and Processing
- •1.7.3 Part III: 3D Imaging Applications
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.1.1 Applications
- •5.1.2 Chapter Outline
- •5.2 Mathematical Background
- •5.2.1 Differential Geometry
- •5.2.2 Curvature of Two-Dimensional Surfaces
- •5.2.3 Discrete Differential Geometry
- •5.2.4 Diffusion Geometry
- •5.2.5 Discrete Diffusion Geometry
- •5.3 Feature Detectors
- •5.3.1 A Taxonomy
- •5.3.2 Harris 3D
- •5.3.3 Mesh DOG
- •5.3.4 Salient Features
- •5.3.5 Heat Kernel Features
- •5.3.6 Topological Features
- •5.3.7 Maximally Stable Components
- •5.3.8 Benchmarks
- •5.4 Feature Descriptors
- •5.4.1 A Taxonomy
- •5.4.2 Curvature-Based Descriptors (HK and SC)
- •5.4.3 Spin Images
- •5.4.4 Shape Context
- •5.4.5 Integral Volume Descriptor
- •5.4.6 Mesh Histogram of Gradients (HOG)
- •5.4.7 Heat Kernel Signature (HKS)
- •5.4.8 Scale-Invariant Heat Kernel Signature (SI-HKS)
- •5.4.9 Color Heat Kernel Signature (CHKS)
- •5.4.10 Volumetric Heat Kernel Signature (VHKS)
- •5.5 Research Challenges
- •5.6 Conclusions
- •5.7 Further Reading
- •5.8 Questions
- •5.9 Exercises
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •Chapter Outline
- •6.2 Registration of Two Views
- •6.2.1 Problem Statement
- •6.2.2 The Iterative Closest Points (ICP) Algorithm
- •6.2.3 ICP Extensions
- •6.2.3.1 Techniques for Pre-alignment
- •Global Approaches
- •Local Approaches
- •6.2.3.2 Techniques for Improving Speed
- •Subsampling
- •Closest Point Computation
- •Distance Formulation
- •6.2.3.3 Techniques for Improving Accuracy
- •Outlier Rejection
- •Additional Information
- •Probabilistic Methods
- •6.3 Advanced Techniques
- •6.3.1 Registration of More than Two Views
- •Reducing Error Accumulation
- •Automating Registration
- •6.3.2 Registration in Cluttered Scenes
- •Point Signatures
- •Matching Methods
- •6.3.3 Deformable Registration
- •Methods Based on General Optimization Techniques
- •Probabilistic Methods
- •6.3.4 Machine Learning Techniques
- •Improving the Matching
- •Object Detection
- •6.4 Quantitative Performance Evaluation
- •6.5 Case Study 1: Pairwise Alignment with Outlier Rejection
- •6.6 Case Study 2: ICP with Levenberg-Marquardt
- •6.6.1 The LM-ICP Method
- •6.6.2 Computing the Derivatives
- •6.6.3 The Case of Quaternions
- •6.6.4 Summary of the LM-ICP Algorithm
- •6.6.5 Results and Discussion
- •6.7 Case Study 3: Deformable ICP with Levenberg-Marquardt
- •6.7.1 Surface Representation
- •6.7.2 Cost Function
- •Data Term: Global Surface Attraction
- •Data Term: Boundary Attraction
- •Penalty Term: Spatial Smoothness
- •Penalty Term: Temporal Smoothness
- •6.7.3 Minimization Procedure
- •6.7.4 Summary of the Algorithm
- •6.7.5 Experiments
- •6.8 Research Challenges
- •6.9 Concluding Remarks
- •6.10 Further Reading
- •6.11 Questions
- •6.12 Exercises
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.1.1 Retrieval and Recognition Evaluation
- •7.1.2 Chapter Outline
- •7.2 Literature Review
- •7.3 3D Shape Retrieval Techniques
- •7.3.1 Depth-Buffer Descriptor
- •7.3.1.1 Computing the 2D Projections
- •7.3.1.2 Obtaining the Feature Vector
- •7.3.1.3 Evaluation
- •7.3.1.4 Complexity Analysis
- •7.3.2 Spin Images for Object Recognition
- •7.3.2.1 Matching
- •7.3.2.2 Evaluation
- •7.3.2.3 Complexity Analysis
- •7.3.3 Salient Spectral Geometric Features
- •7.3.3.1 Feature Points Detection
- •7.3.3.2 Local Descriptors
- •7.3.3.3 Shape Matching
- •7.3.3.4 Evaluation
- •7.3.3.5 Complexity Analysis
- •7.3.4 Heat Kernel Signatures
- •7.3.4.1 Evaluation
- •7.3.4.2 Complexity Analysis
- •7.4 Research Challenges
- •7.5 Concluding Remarks
- •7.6 Further Reading
- •7.7 Questions
- •7.8 Exercises
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •Chapter Outline
- •8.2 3D Face Scan Representation and Visualization
- •8.3 3D Face Datasets
- •8.3.1 FRGC v2 3D Face Dataset
- •8.3.2 The Bosphorus Dataset
- •8.4 3D Face Recognition Evaluation
- •8.4.1 Face Verification
- •8.4.2 Face Identification
- •8.5 Processing Stages in 3D Face Recognition
- •8.5.1 Face Detection and Segmentation
- •8.5.2 Removal of Spikes
- •8.5.3 Filling of Holes and Missing Data
- •8.5.4 Removal of Noise
- •8.5.5 Fiducial Point Localization and Pose Correction
- •8.5.6 Spatial Resampling
- •8.5.7 Feature Extraction on Facial Surfaces
- •8.5.8 Classifiers for 3D Face Matching
- •8.6 ICP-Based 3D Face Recognition
- •8.6.1 ICP Outline
- •8.6.2 A Critical Discussion of ICP
- •8.6.3 A Typical ICP-Based 3D Face Recognition Implementation
- •8.6.4 ICP Variants and Other Surface Registration Approaches
- •8.7 PCA-Based 3D Face Recognition
- •8.7.1 PCA System Training
- •8.7.2 PCA Training Using Singular Value Decomposition
- •8.7.3 PCA Testing
- •8.7.4 PCA Performance
- •8.8 LDA-Based 3D Face Recognition
- •8.8.1 Two-Class LDA
- •8.8.2 LDA with More than Two Classes
- •8.8.3 LDA in High Dimensional 3D Face Spaces
- •8.8.4 LDA Performance
- •8.9 Normals and Curvature in 3D Face Recognition
- •8.9.1 Computing Curvature on a 3D Face Scan
- •8.10 Recent Techniques in 3D Face Recognition
- •8.10.1 3D Face Recognition Using Annotated Face Models (AFM)
- •8.10.2 Local Feature-Based 3D Face Recognition
- •8.10.2.1 Keypoint Detection and Local Feature Matching
- •8.10.2.2 Other Local Feature-Based Methods
- •8.10.3 Expression Modeling for Invariant 3D Face Recognition
- •8.10.3.1 Other Expression Modeling Approaches
- •8.11 Research Challenges
- •8.12 Concluding Remarks
- •8.13 Further Reading
- •8.14 Questions
- •8.15 Exercises
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •Chapter Outline
- •9.2 DEM Generation from Stereoscopic Imagery
- •9.2.1 Stereoscopic DEM Generation: Literature Review
- •9.2.2 Accuracy Evaluation of DEMs
- •9.2.3 An Example of DEM Generation from SPOT-5 Imagery
- •9.3 DEM Generation from InSAR
- •9.3.1 Techniques for DEM Generation from InSAR
- •9.3.1.1 Basic Principle of InSAR in Elevation Measurement
- •9.3.1.2 Processing Stages of DEM Generation from InSAR
- •The Branch-Cut Method of Phase Unwrapping
- •The Least Squares (LS) Method of Phase Unwrapping
- •9.3.2 Accuracy Analysis of DEMs Generated from InSAR
- •9.3.3 Examples of DEM Generation from InSAR
- •9.4 DEM Generation from LIDAR
- •9.4.1 LIDAR Data Acquisition
- •9.4.2 Accuracy, Error Types and Countermeasures
- •9.4.3 LIDAR Interpolation
- •9.4.4 LIDAR Filtering
- •9.4.5 DTM from Statistical Properties of the Point Cloud
- •9.5 Research Challenges
- •9.6 Concluding Remarks
- •9.7 Further Reading
- •9.8 Questions
- •9.9 Exercises
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.1.1 Allometric Modeling of Biomass
- •10.1.2 Chapter Outline
- •10.2 Aerial Photo Mensuration
- •10.2.1 Principles of Aerial Photogrammetry
- •10.2.1.1 Geometric Basis of Photogrammetric Measurement
- •10.2.1.2 Ground Control and Direct Georeferencing
- •10.2.2 Tree Height Measurement Using Forest Photogrammetry
- •10.2.2.2 Automated Methods in Forest Photogrammetry
- •10.3 Airborne Laser Scanning
- •10.3.1 Principles of Airborne Laser Scanning
- •10.3.1.1 Lidar-Based Measurement of Terrain and Canopy Surfaces
- •10.3.2 Individual Tree-Level Measurement Using Lidar
- •10.3.2.1 Automated Individual Tree Measurement Using Lidar
- •10.3.3 Area-Based Approach to Estimating Biomass with Lidar
- •10.4 Future Developments
- •10.5 Concluding Remarks
- •10.6 Further Reading
- •10.7 Questions
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •Chapter Outline
- •11.2 Volumetric Data Acquisition
- •11.2.1 Computed Tomography
- •11.2.1.1 Characteristics of 3D CT Data
- •11.2.2 Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
- •11.2.2.1 Characteristics of 3D PET Data
- •Relaxation
- •11.2.3.1 Characteristics of the 3D MRI Data
- •Image Quality and Artifacts
- •11.2.4 Summary
- •11.3 Surface Extraction and Volumetric Visualization
- •11.3.1 Surface Extraction
- •Example: Curvatures and Geometric Tools
- •11.3.2 Volume Rendering
- •11.3.3 Summary
- •11.4 Volumetric Image Registration
- •11.4.1 A Hierarchy of Transformations
- •11.4.1.1 Rigid Body Transformation
- •11.4.1.2 Similarity Transformations and Anisotropic Scaling
- •11.4.1.3 Affine Transformations
- •11.4.1.4 Perspective Transformations
- •11.4.1.5 Non-rigid Transformations
- •11.4.2 Points and Features Used for the Registration
- •11.4.2.1 Landmark Features
- •11.4.2.2 Surface-Based Registration
- •11.4.2.3 Intensity-Based Registration
- •11.4.3 Registration Optimization
- •11.4.3.1 Estimation of Registration Errors
- •11.4.4 Summary
- •11.5 Segmentation
- •11.5.1 Semi-automatic Methods
- •11.5.1.1 Thresholding
- •11.5.1.2 Region Growing
- •11.5.1.3 Deformable Models
- •Snakes
- •Balloons
- •11.5.2 Fully Automatic Methods
- •11.5.2.1 Atlas-Based Segmentation
- •11.5.2.2 Statistical Shape Modeling and Analysis
- •11.5.3 Summary
- •11.6 Diffusion Imaging: An Illustration of a Full Pipeline
- •11.6.1 From Scalar Images to Tensors
- •11.6.2 From Tensor Image to Information
- •11.6.3 Summary
- •11.7 Applications
- •11.7.1 Diagnosis and Morphometry
- •11.7.2 Simulation and Training
- •11.7.3 Surgical Planning and Guidance
- •11.7.4 Summary
- •11.8 Concluding Remarks
- •11.9 Research Challenges
- •11.10 Further Reading
- •Data Acquisition
- •Surface Extraction
- •Volume Registration
- •Segmentation
- •Diffusion Imaging
- •Software
- •11.11 Questions
- •11.12 Exercises
- •References
- •Index
370 |
H. Wei and M. Bartels |
•Finally a set of questions and exercises is provided in Sects. 9.8 and 9.9 respectively.
9.2 DEM Generation from Stereoscopic Imagery
Compared to the traditional manual methods that use human operators, automated methods of DEM generation from remote sensing provide efficient, economic and reasonably accurate products covering extended areas of the Earth’s surface. Remote sensing of the Earth’s surface started with photographic film cameras and has been evolving to digital cameras with selective sensing bands, for example, multispectral, thermal, hyperspectral, and radar. In this section, we discuss the issues associated with DEM generation from stereo images that are sensed from natural light in spaceborne missions. As with all stereo 3D reconstruction, two or more images that sense a scene with overlapping areas are required. A stereo image pair can be formed by along-track or across-track arrangement of sensors as shown in Fig. 9.2.
Along-track is defined by the forward motion of the satellite along its orbital path, whereas across-track refers to a satellite traveling on different orbits, hence images covering the same area are taken from different orbits. In general, a stereo pair captured in an along-track mission has a shorter time interval between two images than that captured in an across-track mission [101]. Thus variable weather conditions have less effect on along-track stereo pairs than on across-track stereo pairs in these passive imaging scenarios. The distance between two sensors is called the baseline (B), and the nadir distance (vertical distance) from satellite to ground is referred to as the height (H), as illustrated in Fig. 9.2. The base to height (B/H) ratio is a key parameter in DEM generation from stereoscopic imagery. It is a criterion for choosing an adequate number of stereo pairs from the same or different orbits. This section presents a literature review of the techniques used for DEM generation
Fig. 9.2 DEM generation from satellite stereoscopic imagery. The arrows refer to the satellite’s direction of flight. The low arrowed lines are the orthographic projection of the orbit onto the ground. Orbits 1 and 2 are two designated orbits that meet the requirements of stereo pairs. Left: Along-track. Right: Across-track
9 3D Digital Elevation Model Generation |
371 |
from remotely sensed stereoscopic imagery, followed by a discussion on quality evaluation of reconstructed DEMs. A step-by-step process to generate a DEM from a stereo pair is also presented.
9.2.1 Stereoscopic DEM Generation: Literature Review
The first space mission to provide stereoscopic imagery of the Earth’s surface was the American CORONA2 spy satellite program [52]. Over the past decades, a number of Earth observation satellites have been launched with high resolution imaging systems, such as Landsat (1972), IKONOS (1999), QUICKBIRD (2001), SPOT-5 (2002), ENVISAT (2002), ALOS (2006) and GeoEye-1 (2008). Stereo images acquired by these satellites can be along-track image pairs or across-track image pairs. DEM generation from a stereoscopic image pair involves the following processes [51, 68].
•Pre-processing of image pairs for noise removal: this is a process to mitigate the effects of noise introduced by the image sensors.
•Image matching: this is the process of finding corresponding points in two or more images and is implemented by either area-based or feature-based matching, or a combination of both.
•Triangulation process: image coordinates of matched points from the image pairs
are transformed into ground coordinates using the cameras’ interior and exterior parameters.3 This process involves geometric modeling of the satellite camera system and the ground coordinate system.
•Evaluation of the reconstructed DEM: this process can be achieved by means of ground control points (GCPs), if available.
As indicated in Marr and Poggio’s pioneering research on the computational theory of human stereo vision [109], there are two issues to address with respect to 3D reconstruction from stereo image pairs: correspondence and reconstruction (please refer to Chap. 2 of this book for the details). A key issue in automatic DEM generation is the process of image matching (solving the correspondence problem). Great efforts have been made by researchers from both remote sensing and computer vision communities in the 1980s [2, 11, 45, 57, 117, 130] to explore approaches in this field. In contrast to area-based cross-correlation, which dominated the field of image matching since the early 1950s, techniques developed in the period of the 1980s involved feature-based approaches. The combination of area-based and edgebased matching was attempted and applied by Förstner [45], Ackermann [2], and
2The CORONA program started in 1956 as a series of American strategic reconnaissance satellites. CORONA mission 9031 launched on 27th Feb. 1962 and was the first satellite providing stereoscopic images of the Earth.
3The terms ‘interior’ and ‘exterior’ are used in the DEM generation research community. In other research communities, such as computer vision, they are called ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ parameters, as discussed in Chap. 2.
372 |
H. Wei and M. Bartels |
Pertl [119] in DEM generation. Gruen developed a powerful model in which information from both image grey-level and first-order derivatives were incorporated for image matching [57]. With this model, adaptive least square correlation was performed to select the best match based on the fusion of point positioning with grey level information. It was claimed that the adaptive least square correlation provided a high matching accuracy. In terms of feature-based matching, Förstner and Gulch identified a series of feature points such as road intersections or centers of circular features which could be incorporated in matching algorithms [46]. Otto and Chau developed a region-growing algorithm for matching of terrain images [117]. They declared that their algorithm was an extension of Gruen’s adaptive least squares correlation algorithm so that whole images can be automatically processed, instead of only selected patches. It was demonstrated that the developed algorithm was capable of producing high quality and dense range maps when the scene being viewed had significant texture and few discontinuities. Feature-based algorithms in satellite stereo image matching complement the situations in which the scene has a sparse texture and presents large discontinuities.
In the 1990s, the development of passive stereo imaging techniques in the field of Computer Vision made it possible to have more automated solutions for DEM generation from stereoscopic imagery. Techniques, such as the stereo matching algorithm with an adaptive window [87], the coarse-to-fine pyramidal area correlation stereo matching method [116], and the robust approach for matching using the epipolar constraint [183] were adapted by the remote sensing community. By using the main principles of passive stereo vision from the Faugeras’ book [41], Gabet et al. worked out a solution for automatic generation of high resolution urban zone digital elevation models [51]. The work made use of an image sequence acquired with different base to height (B/H) ratios, hence, several stereo pairs are jointly used for DEM generation in a fixed area. With combinations of multiple algorithms covering both area-based and feature-based approaches, a fixed window size was used for cross-correlation in image matching. The authors claimed that the developed approach was universal to both airborne and spaceborne stereoscopic imagery, although only airborne data was tested due to the scope of the research. Wang [165] proposed an interesting structural image matching algorithm, in which an image descriptor was used for matching, which included points, lines, and regions structured by pre-defined relationships. The author demonstrated that the algorithm could achieve higher automation in DEM generation. The demand of automation for DEM generation within commercial software can also be seen in Heipke’s review paper [69] and significant improvements had been made to aerial stereo images in the 1990s.
In the 21st century, researchers have continued their efforts on automated DEM generation from satellite images and developed methodologies aimed at improving DEM accuracy and the level of automation. More robust computer vision algorithms were developed for stereo image matching [106]. Commercial software, such as PCI Geomatics, Desktop Mapping System, ERDAS Imagine, ENVI software, amongst others appeared on the market including algorithms for automated DEM genera-
9 3D Digital Elevation Model Generation |
373 |
tion from stereoscopic imagery. Hirano et al. [73] examined ASTER4 stereo image data for DEM generation. ASTER provides along-track stereo image data in nearinfrared with a 15 m horizontal resolution at a B/H ratio of 0.6. Computed elevations from commercial software were compared with results from topographic map and USGS5 DEMs at a few testing sites and conclusions were made that DEMs generated from ASTER could expect ±7 m to ±15 m elevation accuracy and up to 99 % correlation success rate with images of good quality and adequate ground control. Lee, et al. [98] argued that DEM generation from satellite images was timeconsuming and error-prone. This was due to the fact that most DEM generation software used for processing satellite images was originally developed for aerial photos taken by perspective cameras, while satellite images may be formed by linear pushbroom cameras. Hence, image matching and geometric modeling implemented in the software for aerial photos had to be modified for satellite imaging applications. In their paper, linear pushbroom cameras were modeled with the geometric properties in designing the matching strategy optimized in three aspects: conjugate search method, correlation patch design, and match sequence determination. It was claimed that the developed approach was universal for linear pushbroom images with various correlation algorithms and sensor models. DEM generation from SPOT-5 stereoscopic imagery was investigated in [21, 92, 125, 150]. SPOT-5 is equipped with two High Resolution Stereoscopic (HRS) cameras that are tilted ±20◦ to acquire stereo pairs of 120 km swath, along the track of the satellite with a B/H ratio of 0.8, and the nadir looking-HRG (high resolution geometric) panchromatic camera providing additional images. HRS has a horizontal resolution of 10 m and HRG has a resolution of 5 m. A summary of the SPOT-5 payload and mission characteristics is given in [21]. In the above work, bundle adjustments were conducted to correct cameras’ interior and exterior parameters in the geometric model. The best result was claimed in [150] with the vertical accuracy of 2.2 m for a smooth bare surface. In general, the DEM generated from SPOT-5 stereo images could achieve 5–10 m elevation accuracy with accurate and sufficient GCPs. DEMs generated from the IKONOS triplet (forward, nadir and backward) of stereoscopic imagery were investigated by Zhang and Gruen [182]. In their work, a multi-image matching approach was developed by using a coarse-to-fine hierarchical solution with an effective fusion of several matching algorithms and automatic quality control. It was reported that the DSM achieved 2–3 m elevation accuracy in the test area. With this accuracy, it is possible to consider DTMs to be extracted from the DSMs.
In June 2009, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and NASA6 jointly announced the release of Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM) by stereo-correlating about 1.3 million scenes from ASTER data [85], as shown in Fig. 9.3. It has been indicated in its validation summary report [9] that ASTER
4ASTER: Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, an imaging instrument flying on Terra satellite launched in December 1999 as part of NASA’s Earth Observing System.
5USGS: United States Geological Survey.
6NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.