Aerial Laser Scanning PDF

Commission VI Special Interest Group Technology Transfer Caravan
Aerial Laser Scanning
Claus Brenner with contributions from George Vosselman and George Sithole
Institute of Cartography and Geoinformatics University of Hannover, Appelstr. 9a, 30167 Hannover, Germany claus.brenner@ikg.uni-hannover.de www.ikg.uni-hannover.de
Claus Brenner International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Contents
Airborne laser scanning principles Errors and strip adjustment Filtering of ALS data Extraction and modelling
Airborne laser scanning principles
Basic components of an ALS system
DGPS Control & data recording INS
Laser Ranging unit Deflection unit
Ground
Laser
Laser
Semiconductor lasers or Nd:YAG lasers pumped by semiconductor lasers Mostly Nd:YAG = neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet, Nd:Y3Al5O12 Emits at = 1064 nm (near infrared) Bathymetric scanners often use = 532 nm (green) obtained by frequency doubling Others: e.g. 810 nm (ScaLARS), 900 nm (FLI-MAP), 1540 nm (TopoSys) Properties exploited: high collimation, high optical power
Pulsed (time of flight ranging) or continuous wave (CW, sidetone ranging)
Pulsed laser operation

Signal amplitude
Laser
tp
t trise
Typical characteristics:
Pulse width tp = 10 ns ( 3 m @ speed of light) Pulse rise time trise = 1 ns ( 30 cm @ speed of light) Peak power Ppeak = 2,000 W Energy per pulse E = Ppeak tp = 20 J Average power (@ pulse repetition rate F = 10 kHz) Pav = E F = 0.2 W
3m
Ground
Continuous laser operation

Modulation signal
Laser
Signal amplitude
Ground
Modulation signal
Characteristics (ScaLARS):
Signal amplitude
Two modulation frequencies fhigh = 10 MHz, flow = 1 MHz short = 30 m, long = 300 m Average power (continuous operation) Pav = 0.26 W
Ambiguities (pulse)
Laser
Travelling time: h=R
ttravel =
Ground
2R c
Example: h = R = 1000 m ttravel = 6.7 s tp = 10 ns can be neglected Maximum pulse frequency (assuming no transmit / receive overlap):
AT
next pulse t ttravel tp t
AR
f max = 1 / ttravel =
c 2R
Example: h = R = 1000 m fmax = 150 kHz
Ambiguities (CW)
Laser
Maximum unambiguous range determined by long : Ground
Rmax =
Example:
long
2
AT
long = 300 m Rmax = 150 m
t
AR
Range gating: Known height, possible range differences < 150 m Range tracking: If no steps > 150 m are present
Scanning mechanisms & ground patterns

Oscillating mirror Rotating polygon Nutating mirror (Palmer scan) Fiber switch
Deflection unit
Laser
(same for receiving optics)
Z-shaped, sinusodial
Parallel lines
Elliptical
Parallel lines
Polygon mirror example

25 cm @ 0.5 mrad beam divergence
Deflection unit
/2=20 h=500 m 0.08 70 cm 364 m

500 pulses / line
1 cos 2 i
Swath width
0.08 79 cm Repetition rate 50 kHz, average pulse rate 25 kHz
2h tan = 0.7 h = 364m 2
50 lines / s 83 cm v = 150 km/h
Fiber switch details (TopoSys Falcon)

Laser
Deflection unit
To ground and back
Receiver
Fiber scanner example

Fiber 128 ...
Deflection unit
/2=7 h=500 m 0.25h / 127 = 0.002 h 1m
Fiber 3 spot diameter 25 cm Fiber 2
Swath width
Fiber 1 630 lines/s 11 cm v = 252 km/h
2h tan = 0.25h = 123m 2
Palmer scan
7 deg. nutating mirror 30 deg. nutating mirror (hypothetical)
Deflection unit
Scan pattern with forward motion of aircraft (7 deg. nutating mirror)
Beam divergence
Laser beam widens with distance Beam divergence D, aperture diameter Theoretical limit by diffraction
2.44
Example: = 1064 nm, D = 10 cm 0.026 mrad
Typical values for ALS: = 0.3 2 mrad Ground spot diameter
DI
DI, diameter of illuminated area Ground

(not to scale)
= D + 2h tan( 2) 2h tan( 2) h
Example: = 1 mrad 1 m diameter @ h = 1 km flying height
Power balance
Ar
4 - Power received:
Ar Pr = M M PT 2 R 2
1 - Power transmitted:
M 2 Ar = PT 2 R 2
PT
3 - Power reflected, assuming Lambertian surface:
PT = 2000 W Atmospheric transmission M = 0.8 Ar = 80 cm2 (Dr = 10 cm) R = 1 km Reflectivity = 0.5 Pr = 4 10-10 PT = 800 nW
M PT 2
2 - Power received: Ground
M PT
Reflectivity
Reflectivity vs. material
MATERIAL Dimension lumber (pine, clean, dry) Snow White masonry Limestone, clay Deciduous trees Coniferous trees Carbonate sand (dry) Carbonate sand (wet) Beach sands, bare areas in desert Rough wood pallet (clean) Concrete, smooth Asphalt with pebbles Lava Black rubber tire wall REFLECTIVITY @ = 900 nm 94% 80-90% 85% up to 75% typ. 60% typ. 30% 57% 41% typ. 50% 25% 24% 17% 8% 2%
Source: www.riegl.co.at
Range vs. reflectivity
M 2 Ar Pr = PT 2 2 R
120
Range factor [%] *
100 80 60 40 20
20
40
60
80
100
Target reflectivity [%]
* Normalized to 100% @ 80% reflectivity
Interaction with target
AT
t
AR
first pulse
last pulse
5m t tp Pulse width 10 ns 3 m @ speed of light h = 1.5 m pulses separable


AT
t
AR,1
t1
Detection accuracy 10-15% t of rise time 2-5 cm

AR,2
t2
7 ns Measured range will be an intermediate value (mixed echo)

... t
AR
t Large area, small reflectivity Small area, large reflectivity (same for sloped terrain)
Minimum detectable object size depends on reflectivity Measured range depends on distribution of reflectivity inside laser ground spot area
Canopy penetration gets worse with increasing scan angles
Specular reflection Water, wet surfaces, slate no return signal
Pulse:
AT
Ranging
AT
CW:
Ranging unit
AR
t t t
AR
t t
Range
Range
R=
c t 2
c t 2 c 1 t rise 2 S/N
R=
1 short 2 2
Range resolution
Range resolution
R =
R =
short c 1 = 4 4 f high
short 1 4 S/N
Range accuracy
Range accuracy
Ranging: Pulse vs. CW

In CW ranging, resolution and accuracy can be improved by using higher modulation frequencies Resolution: CW, short = 30 m (10 MHz), /2 = 1/16384 (14 bit) R = 0.9 mm ! Cf. required time resolution for pulse ranging: t = 2 R / c = 6.1 ps (164 GHz) !
Ranging unit
For the accuracy, S/N is important depends on transmitted power, e.g. Pulse Ppeak = 2000 W vs. CW Pav = 1 W R,CW / R, pulse = 85, achieved by 2000 x power [Wehr, Lohr 99] Pulse lasers with high power are available CW semiconductor lasers with Pav > 2 W, fhigh > 10 MHz scarce R, pulse typically 2-5 cm Does not apply to centimetre level measurement in the close range domain!
Ranging: full waveform analysis

tree crown power line
Ranging unit
AR
bush
ground
First pulse t0
AR
Last pulse t1
t
Data recorder
1 GS/s t
Data recorder
Ranging unit
Source: Riegl, 2006
Ranging unit
Unlimited number of returns per shot Multiple target detection down 0.5 metres Surface roughness, slope Vegetation Discontinuities User-defined post-processing methods, no need for real time, neighbourhood analysis Riegl LMS-Q560, Litemapper 5600, Optech ALTM 3100, TopEye Mark II
Examples of ALS
Scanner examples
System Laser Altitude Range measurements Scan frequency Scan angle Pulse rate Beam divergence Beam pattern Optech ALTM 3100EA 1064 nm 80 3500 m up to 4 max. 70 Hz max. 25 max. 100 kHz 0.3 mrad oscillating, sawtooth Riegl LMS-Q560 near IR 30 1500 m full waveform max. 160 Hz max. 30 max. 100 kHz, 50 kHz @ 22.5 0.5 mrad rotating polygon, parallel TopoSys Falcon II 1540 nm 60 1600 m first and last max. 630 Hz 7 (fixed) 83 kHz 0.5 mrad fiber switch, parallel
Others: FLI-MAP (Fugro-Inpark), LiteMapper (IGI mbH), GeoMapper 3D (Laseroptronix), ALS series (Leica), TopEye MK II (TopEye AB)
Optech ALTM 3100
All images taken from www.optech.ca
Riegl LMS-Q560 / LMS-Q280i
(Scanner & data recorder only)
Images taken from www.riegl.co.at
IGI LiteMapper
(uses scanners from Riegl)

Images taken from www.litemapper.com Claus Brenner International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
TopoSys
Falcon II, III (fiber)
Harrier (uses scanners from Riegl)

Images taken from www.toposys.de Claus Brenner International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
FLI-MAP
FLI-MAP 400
All images taken from www.flimap.com
Errors and strip adjustment
Errors and strip adjustment

Error sources Geometrical error budget Strip adjustment
Coordinate systems
tIRFECF tARFIRF
DGPS INS
Laser Ranging unit Deflection unit
Inertial reference frame Moving with aircraft
Aircraft/ scanner reference frame Moving with aircraft
Earth centered reference frame ECEF, WGS84

Error sources
Laser measurement (range, angle: electronics aging & drift) DGPS (receiver, satellite constellation, ground reference constellation) INS (receiver: frequency, drift) Offset / alignment between GPS, INS, laser scanner Dynamic bend of IMU / scanner mounting plate Time synchronization and interpolation (GPS: 1-10/s, INS 200/s, turbulent flight) Transformation to local coordinate system
Basic geometric configuration
Error budget (geometry)

Z X0, Y0, Z0 h
Y X X
due to error in
Error budget (geometry)

0 0 0 20.9 7.5 16.1 0 20.9 0 0 14 1.3 2.5 0 5.6 12.1 0 0 0 4 8 5 5 4 cm 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 R X0 Y0 Z0 Total 22.4 23.6 27.6 26.4 26.4 26.5 9.4 11.7 17.0
Total @h=1000
53.0 56.2 66.6 63.5 63.5 63.6 9.4 19.1 37.3
15 30 0
15 30 0
15 30
Assumptions: h = 400 m (except last col. h = 1000 m), = = =0, = = 0.03, = 0.04, = 0.02, R = 5 cm, X0 = Y0 = Z0 = 8 cm
0-5 5-10 10-15 15+
Source: [Baltsavias, 1999a]
Error budget: conclusions

0 X 15 30 0 Y 15 30 0 Z 15 30 0 5.6 12.1 0 0 0 4 8 20.9 0 0 14 0 20.9 0 7.5 16.1 0 1.3 2.5 5 5 4 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 R X0 Y0 Z0 Total 22.4 23.6 27.6 26.4 26.4 26.5 9.4 11.7 17.0
Total @h=1000
53.0 56.2 66.6 63.5 63.5 63.6 9.4 19.1 37.3
Y slightly larger than X for small (due to error) changes for larger (due to error)

0 X 15 30 0 Y 15 30 0 Z 15 30 0 5.6 12.1 0 0 0 4 8 20.9 0 0 14 0 20.9 0 7.5 16.1 0 1.3 2.5 5 5 4 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 R X0 Y0 Z0 Total 22.4 23.6 27.6 26.4 26.4 26.5 9.4 11.7 17.0
Total @h=1000
53.0 56.2 66.6 63.5 63.5 63.6 9.4 19.1 37.3
R has only marginal influence on Z and almost no influence on X, Y.


0 X 15 30 0 Y 15 30 0 Z 15 30 0 5.6 12.1 0 0 0 4 8 20.9 0 0 14 0 20.9 0 7.5 16.1 0 1.3 2.5 5 5 4 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 R X0 Y0 Z0 Total 22.4 23.6 27.6 26.4 26.4 26.5 9.4 11.7 17.0
Total @h=1000
53.0 56.2 66.6 63.5 63.5 63.6 9.4 19.1 37.3
Z smaller than X, Y and less dependent on h Reason: R, Z0 dominate and are nearly independent of h Z mainly depends on Z0 (GPS!) (and R) for small

0 X 15 30 0 Y 15 30 0 Z 15 30 0 5.6 12.1 0 0 0 4 8 20.9 0 0 14 0 20.9 0 7.5 16.1 0 1.3 2.5 5 5 4 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 R X0 Y0 Z0 Total 22.4 23.6 27.6 26.4 26.4 X, Y 26.5 9.4 11.7 17.0
Total @h=1000
53.0 56.2 66.6 Z 63.5 63.5 63.6 9.4 19.1 37.3
Z given is too optimistic especially for sloped terrain, X, Y dominate

Counter measures
Constructional measures Highly stable mechanics, low drift in electronics, highly accurate time sync., internal reference measurement Calibration Factory calibration of laser scanner, GPS/INS alignment Flight specific measures Good satellite constellation, close reference station, little turbulence
Still systematic errors will remain, especially visible at strip overlaps strip adjustment
Strip adjustment
Create a seamless data set by correcting for the systematic errors.
(Slide provided by George Vosselman) Claus Brenner International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Strip adjustment Analogy to independent model adjustment with selfcalibration parameters Modelling of shifts, drifts and other systematic errors Measurement of tie points Measurement of control points Adjust strips such that corresponding tie points are transformed to same terrain point misclosures at control points are minimal
Strip adjustment
Independent strips with tie points Strips transformed to reference system
(ifp / J. Kilian)
Strip adjustment
1D strip adjustment 3D strip adjustment Measurement of corresponding points in height data ditches and ridges in height data edges in reflectance data
1D adjustment only correct the height mathematical model for control point in strip s
H = a s + bs X
as bs cs Xsc , Ysc
c Xs
)+ c (Y
s
c Ys
offset in height tilt in flight direction tilt across flight direction centre of strip s
1D adjustment mathematical model for tie point between strip s and strip t
H = a s + bs X
t t
( ) + c (Y ) a b (X X ) c (Y Y )
c Xs c t s c Ys c t t
Problems unmodelled errors lead to large distortions case: range offset or scale error in the scanning angle possible solutions: more reference points cross strips
before adjustment
after adjustment
tilt offset
3D adjustment
Modelling systematic errors in terrain coordinates: Approximation by 1st and 2nd order polynomials. Modelling the effect of sensor errors on terrain coordinates. 3D adjustment requires estimation of 3D offsets between overlapping strips strips and reference data.
3D adjustment
Two approaches: Take height differences in suitable areas as observations (cf. area based matching) First extract corresponding features, then use those as observations (cf. feature based matching)
Segmentation of overlaps
(Slide provided by George Vosselman)
Offset estimation
Planimetric offsets may be estimated from sloped surfaces reflection data
Claus Brenner (Slide provided by George Vosselman) International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Offset estimation
Height differences only are not sufficient
flat roof
gable roof
Measurement of tie points

Area based image matching Simple mathematical modelling Geometric transformation
X s = X t + X Ys = Yt + Y
Radiometric transformation
Z s ( X s , Ys ) = Z t ( X t , Yt ) + Z
Using ditches
Fitting of point clouds to ditch profile model No data interpolation Noisy free gradients Better accuracy estimates
Eelde dataset
Point density 1 pts / 3 m2 Strip width 225 m
Claus Brenner (Slide provided by George Vosselman) International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Ditch measurements
Pixel size 2m
Point clouds
Original data
After fitting
Original data
After fitting
Using gable roofs

Point density 6 pts/m2 Strip width 90 m Measurements 6 ridge lines
Using gable roofs
Pixel size 1 m
Using gable roofs
Next strip overlap Measurements 10 ridge lines
Using gable roofs
Point clouds
Original data After fitting
Offset estimation in reflectance data

Reflection data is noisy peak reflection strength, no integration low reflectance strength in case of multiple heights within footprint footprint much smaller than point distance needs to be modelled
Long edges are preferred
Conclusions offset estimation Offsets estimated in height and reflectance data will be biased when using standard image matching tools. Offset estimations in height data should use continuous surfaces only. Fitting models to height data avoids interpolation errors. Modelling edge response in reflectance data allows unbiased offset estimation, but requires long edges.
3D strip adjustment results Model: 3 shifts, 3 rotations, and 3 rotation drifts Sensor Point density Flying height Number of strips Number of tie points before adjustment after adjustment Relative improvement FLI-MAP 5-6 pts/m2 110 m 2 75 15.2 cm 9.7 cm 36% Optech 0.3 pts/m2 500 m 4 46 35.6 cm 20.3 cm 43%
3D strip adjustment results FLI-MAP before adjustment after adjustment relative improvement Optech ALTM before adjustment after adjustment relative improvement x 16.4 11.2 32% x 48.6 26.0 47% y 20.0 11.6 42% y 40.5 24.5 40% z 5.0 4.7 6% z 11.6 8.5 27%
Conclusions strip adjustment

Many errors may occur. Strip adjustment in combination with error models can eliminate most systematic errors. Strip adjustment can be used for data correction or as a quality control tool. Remaining systematic errors may reveal errors that are difficult to model. New errors are still discovered.
Filtering of ALS data
Filtering Introduction
Digital elevation model (DEM), digital terrain model (DTM): Ground Digital surface model (DSM): top surface In open terrain, the separation surface between air and bare earth DEM is different from measured laser points due to very different reasons: Measurement errors of ALS system (position, orientation, range) Interaction with target (mixed points in vegetation) Interpretation (buildings are not part of the DEM by definition) Filtering: classification of points into terrain and off-terrain Basis for DTM generation, detection of topographic objects
dy dx
Raster
TIN
Filtering
Filtering
Filtering
Filtering
(Source: George Vosselman)

Filtering approaches
Basic approaches Mathematic morphology Progressive refinement Linear prediction Segmentation
Points / local neighbourhood vs. segments
Filtering of ALS data

Introduction Morphologic operators and slope based filtering (Vosselman, 2000) Linear prediction and hierarchic robust interpolation (Kraus & Pfeifer 1998, Pfeifer et al. 2001) Progressive TIN densification (Axelsson, 2000) Segmentation based filtering (Sithole, Vosselman 2005) ISPRS filter test
Morphologic operators and Slope based filtering
Erosion, dilation, opening, closing

Erosion and dilation for binary images I Image, s two-dimensional structure element Erosion:
1 if (i, j ) s : I (r + i, c + j ) = 1 ( I s )(r , c) := 0 else

Dilation:
1 if (i, j ) s : I (r + i, c + j ) = 1 ( I + s )(r , c) := 0 else

Opening:
I o s := ( I s ) + s
Closing:
I s := ( I + s ) s
Example: Opening (I)
I-s
I-s
I o s := ( I s ) + s
Example: Opening (II)
I-s
I-s
I o s := ( I s ) + s
Example: Opening (III)
I-s
I-s
I o s := ( I s ) + s
Equivalent definitions using min and max

Erosion:
( I s )(r , c) := min I (r + i, c + j )
( i , j )s
1 if (i, j ) s : I (r + i, c + j ) = 1 ( I s )(r , c) := 0 else
Dilation:
( I + s )(r , c) := max I (r + i, c + j )
( i , j )s
Define kernel function k
0 (i, j ) s k (i, j ) := 1 else

Then, erosion and dilation are given by:
k(i) i
( I k )(r , c) := min[I (r + i, c + j ) k (i, j )]

(i , j )
( I + k )(r , c) := max[I (r + i, c + j ) + k (i, j )]

(i , j )
Erosion using k(i,j)

I k
( I k )(r , c) := min[I (r + i, c + j ) k (i, j )]
(i , j )
k(i) i
I-k
Morphological operators for grey scale images (here, DSM)
DSM
Erosion
k(i) i Dilation
DTM
Opening
Original DSM
(opening)
11x11 m2
15x15 m2
21x21 m2
2 31x31 m Claus Brenner
International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Original DSM
(opening)
11x11 m2
15x15 m2
21x21 m2
2 31x31 m Claus Brenner
Original DSM
DTM obtained by opening
Modification: dual rank filters

Minimum / maximum may be problematic if outliers are present Use of rank filters is more robust Rank function: returns the mth element of sorted values
Rm ({I1 , I 2 ,..., I n }) := ( Sort ({I1 , I 2 ,..., I n }))[m]

Then, erosion and dilation become
( I m k )(r , c) := Rm ({I (r + i, c + j ) k (i, j ) (i, j )}) ( I + m k )(r , c) := Rn +1 m ({I (r + i, c + j ) + k (i, j ) (i, j )})
Note: n = # zeros in k ,
1 , +1 +
Modification: points, irregular data

Erosion (previously):
e(r , c) = ( I k )(r , c) = min (I (r + i, c + j ) k (i, j ) )

(i , j )
pi
pj
Now:
e( pi ) := min (h( p j ) k (xij , yij ) )

p j A
k (xij , yij )
Definition of the DEM:
DEM := p j h( p j ) e( p j )
Slope based filtering (Vosselman, 2000)

e( pi ) := min (h( p j ) k (xij , yij ) )
p j A
k (xij , yij )
h
hmax (d )
Interpretation of k
k (x, y ) := hmax
( x
+ y 2 = hmax (d )
h1
d1 Points at distance d1 can be lower by h1 d
Slope based kernel function

hmax (d )
DEM := p j h( p j ) e( p j )
Kernel function effectively suppresses slopes larger than its own slope
Derivation of suitable kernel functions hmax

Idea 1: assume a maximum slope, e.g. 30%
hmax (d ) := 0.3d
Since measurements are noisy, add confidence interval. Allow 5% of terrain points (with standard deviation ) may be rejected
hmax (d ) := 0.3d + 1.65 2
hmax (d )
d Arbitrary specification try to obtain from data

Idea 2: derive maximum height differences from data Training set with ground points only For each distance interval d, compute max(h) Also compute variance (of the maximum) for each d using cumulative probability distribution
Fmax (h) = F (h) N
Idea 3: minimize classification errors Effect of type I and type II errors is the same search for h where
P( pi DEM h, d , p j DEM) = 0.5

Requires training set with ground points and unfiltered data of the same area
2

5m h
d 0m 10 m
P( pi DEM h, d , p j DEM)
Black 0.0, white 1.0
-5 m

4
Allowed height difference (m)
3
Maximum Probabilistic
0 0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance between points (m)
Example results
(Source: George Vosselman) Laser point density 5.6 points/m2. 2 m grid (top), 0.5 m grid (bottom). Maximum filter. Height difference of ditches: 0.5 m.
Example results
(Source: George Vosselman) Perspective view. Laser point density 5.6 points/m2 (top), reduced to 1 point/16m2 (bottom)
Linear prediction and Hierarchic robust interpolation
Interpolation using a summation of kernel functions

z
2.5 2
1.5
(x1,z1)
?
(xn,zn)
1 2 3 4 5
0.5
-0.5
Given: Heights z at positions x:
z = ( z1
x = ( x1
z2 L zn )
x2 L xn )
Find an interpolating function:


Idea: describe overall function as a sum of basis functions
f ( x ) = ki ( x)
i =1
Simpler: as a sum of identical basis functions k depending only on the distance x-xi multiplied by a factor mi
f ( x) = mi k ( x xi )
i =1
Example k(d)
k(d)
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
d
1 2
-2
-1

Interpolation f has to pass through the given points
z j = f ( x j ) = mi k ( x j xi )
i =1
Written in matrix form
k ( x1 x2 ) k ( x1 xn ) z1 k (0) k (0) k ( x2 xn ) z2 k ( x2 x1 ) = M O M z k(x x ) k(x x ) L k (0) n n 1 2 n

Or, shorter
m1 m2 M m n
z = Km

Solution (note: linear; exact solution)
m = K 1z
Function f
Or, shorter
m1 n m f ( x) = mi k ( x xi ) = (k ( x x1 ) k ( x x2 ) L k ( x xn ) ) 2 M i =1 m n f ( x) = k T K 1z
Note: x variable k depending on x K z fixed

1
Example using triangular kernel function

2.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1 -0.5
1 -0.5
x = (1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4 ) z = (1, 2, 1.75, 2, 0 )
m = K 1z = (1, 2.25, 0.5, 2.25, 0 )
2.5
f ( x)
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 -2 -1 1
1.5
k(d)
0.5
d
2
-0.5
Example using Gaussian kernel function

2.5
1.5
1
0.5
-2
-4
1 -0.5 2 3 4 5
-6
x = (1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4 ) z = (1, 2, 1.75, 2, 0 )
m = K 1z = ( 0.29, 5.07, 6.49, 5.76, 1.53)
f ( x) k (d ) = e d
-2 -1
2.5
1.5
2
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 1
1
d
2
0.5
1 -0.5
Statistical interpretation of Gaussian kernel function

Interpretation as covariance of laser points Pi , Pk having distance d
C ( Pi Pk ) := C (d ) = C (0) e
d c
C(0)
C(d)
Statistical surface description: close points have high covariance Need to determine C(0), c
Determination of parameters of covariance function

After removal of trend (see later), zi coordinates contain measurement error ri systematic error si
zi = si + ri
Variance of zi :
Vzz
1 1 ( si si + 2 si ri + ri ri ) z z = i i n n 1 ( si si + ri ri ) = Vss + Vrr n
Determination of parameters of covariance function

Determination of empirical covariances Cj Sort point pairs into buckets, according to their distance
d j d
Cj = 1 nj
Pi Pk
< d j + d
1 nj
In each bucket, determine empirical covariances
zi z k
s s
i k
Determine C(0)
2 C (0) = Vss = Vzz Vrr = Vzz Z
(using estimate Z of height error)
Determine cj for each bucket from
C j = C ( 0) e
dj cj
solve for c j
Determine c as weighted mean of cj

Interpolation and filtering

After having determined Gaussian kernel function, interpolation is just as before:
f ( P ) = c T C 1z c T = C ( PP C ( PP2 ) L C ( PPn ) 1)
z T = ( z1
z2 L zn )
C (0) C(P C(P n) 1P 2) 1P C ( P2 P C (0) C ( P2 Pn ) 1) C = O M C ( P P ) C ( P P ) L C (0) n 1 n 2

What happens if we replace C by
Vzz Vss = C (0)

C(d) d
Vzz C(P C(P n) 1P 2) 1P C ( P2 P Vzz C ( P2 Pn ) 1) C = O M C(P P ) C(P P ) L Vzz n 1 n 2
Interpolation and filtering

Note from earlier:
2 Vzz = Vss + Vrr = C (0) + Z
C = C + z2 I n
2.5
using C
2.5
using C
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1 -0.5
5
-0.5
Interpolation and filtering: considers measurement errors Allows weighting of measurements using individual Vzz ,i
Hierarchic robust interpolation

Kraus & Pfeifer 1998, Pfeifer et al. 2001 Before application, remove trend surface, e.g. by estimation of a low-degree polynomial After trend removal, 3 stages of refinement: Interpolation + filtering as just explained Robust interpolation compute weights for individual points (see next slides) Hierarchic robust interpolation if gross errors occur in large clusters compute data pyramid, use surfaces obtained in coarse level to accept points within tolerance band in higher resolution level
Robust interpolation
2 Initial interpolation using unit weights i2 = 0
Outlier, probably vegetation Interpolation follows outlier
Result of interpolation + filtering
(Source: I.P.F. TU Vienna)
Trend surface
Calculate filter values = oriented distance from surface to measured point Compute histogram of filter values Usually, asymmetric: many points above surface, few points below surface

Use asymmetric weight function (a,b different for left & right branch)
pi =
1 + (a f i g )
, =
2 i
02
pi
a, b parameters, g shift determined from histogram Also remove points which are too far off the surface
cutoff
(Source: I.P.F. TU Vienna) Claus Brenner International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Initial interpolation
Refined interpolation
Filter results in forested area
Progressive TIN densification
TIN densification (Axelsson, 2000)

Start using sparse seed points lowest points in a large grid, based on largest structure, e.g. 50-100 m Densify iteratively from below calculate required thresholds from points currently included in the TIN add points to the TIN if they are within thresholds Threshold computation based on median values of surface normal angles and elevation differences. Uses histograms for computation of median.
TIN densification
Add one point at a time in each triangle facet Accept based on distance and angle threshold Special case for discontinuous surfaces (urban areas) threshold values easily exceeded use mirroring of point at closest point in TIN triangle to compute deviation
d mirror d
Segmentation based filtering
Note: the slides of this section were provided by George Sithole / George Vosselman based on their talk Filtering of airborne laser scanner data based on segmented point clouds given at the laser scanning workshop 2005 in Enschede
Filter design
Problem analysis Smooth surface assumption does not hold Lack of context information Filter as a local operator Point-wise filtering
New filter approach Use continuous surface instead of smooth surface Filter continuous segments of points instead of points
Claus Brenner Slide provided by George Sithole, George Vosselman International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Segment based filtering
Texture based image segmentation
Point cloud segmentation into continuous surfaces
Profile segmentation
Delaunay Delaunay Triangulation Triangulation
Minimum Minimum Spanning Spanning Tree Tree
Proximity Proximity Thresholding Thresholding
Remove Remove Dangling Dangling Edges Edges
Profile classification
Raised Raised
Lowered Lowered
Terraced Terraced
High High
Low Low
Combining profiles to segments
Combining profiles to segments
Segment classification
Based on majority of segment profile classifications
Bridge detection
Select all terrain profiles Analyse profile segment classifications
Results in urban area

Type I error Type II error
Alg. 1 Alg. 2 Three other algorithms of the ISPRS filter test
Alg. 3
Results in quarry
Type I error Type II error
Alg. 1
Alg. 2
Alg. 3
Quantitative results
Urban sites (error %) Alg 1 Average 5.6 Median 4.3
Alg 2 7.0 6.7
Alg 3 14.0 12.2
New alg 6.0 4.3
Rural sites (error %) Alg 1 Average 3.6 Median 2.9
Alg 2 9.5 7.9
Alg 3 15.6 17.2
New alg 5.4 6.2
Conclusions for segment based filtering Segment-based filtering preserves discontinuities allows filtering of large objects can be combined with other filtering methods could be extended with other attributes (shape, size, colour) Segmentation in areas with low vegetation remains difficult Bridges can be recognised in bare earth segment Segmentation results may support manual editing
ISPRS filter test
ISPRS filter test

Comparison of filter algorithms, 2002-2004 8 sites, 8 participants Qualitative and quantitative evaluation
All filters do well on smooth terrain with vegetation and buildings. All filters have problems with rough terrain and complex city landscapes. In general, filters that compare points to locally estimated surfaces performed best. The problems caused by the scene complexities were larger than those caused by the reduced point density. Research on segmentation, quality assessment and usage of additional knowledge sources is recommended. Full report on http://www.geo.tudelft.nl/frs/isprs/filtertest/
Extraction and modelling

Claus Brenner with contributions from George Vosselman and Juha Hyypp
Institute of Cartography and Geoinformatics University of Hannover, Appelstr. 9a, 30167 Hannover, Germany claus.brenner@ikg.uni-hannover.de www.ikg.uni-hannover.de
Example laser scan data

100
80
60
40
20
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Data obtained by aerial laser scanning Example: approx. one measurement per m2 Regularized raster, mesh width 1m x 1m
Example laser scan data
Main applications
Derivation of DEMs Forest inventory Extraction of man-made objects Flood modelling Mapping of linear structures: dikes, roads, power line clearance Classification
Extraction and modelling
Introduction Feature extraction Derivatives Local polynomial fit and curvature analysis Planar faces Region growing, scan line grouping, RANSAC, Hough transform More complex shapes see terrestrial scanning Building extraction Examples (data driven, model driven, integration of existing knowledge) Future developments: constraints & generalization
Derivatives
f ( x)
DSM seen as a grayvalue image derivatives can be used to detect jumps in the DSM second derivatives may be used to detect discontinuities in slope Derivative masks from digital image processing can be used Note: derivative has metric interpretation
x
f ( x) x
Derivatives: discrete operators

Derivative operator based on difference quotient
df f ( x + x ) f ( x ) ( x) dx x
mask: (1 1) even mask length, linear phase noise: = 2 f 1.4 f Derivative operator based on average difference quotient
df 1 f ( x ) f ( x x ) f ( x + x ) f ( x ) f ( x + x ) f ( x x ) ( x) + = dx 2 x x 2 x
mask: 1 2 (1 0 1) = 1 2 (1 1) (1 1) odd mask length, zero phase noise: = 1 f 0.7 f

Derivatives
Original DSM f ( x, y )
2 2 f ( x, y ) + f ( x, y ) x y
Derivatives
Original DSM f ( x, y )
2 2 f ( x, y ) + f ( x, y ) x y
Morphological operations: opening
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Original DSM
DSM DTM
Morphological operations: opening
DSM DTM Height > 5 m and footprint > 50 m2 Height > 5 m
Orthophoto
Local estimation of polynomial functions

Derivatives (especially second derivatives) are sensitive to noise Standard smoothing masks are not motivated geometrically Idea: for each discrete point, determine locally a best approximating polynomial (u ) function f then, derivatives f ( x) and f ( x) can be obtained from the derivatives (u ) and f (u ) of f
(u ) f
f (1)
u
M K
0 1K M
U = { M , M + 1,K 0,1,K , M }

Scalar product
f , g := f (u ) g (u )
uU
Polynomial base functions up to second order
0 (u ) := 1 1 (u ) := u 2 (u ) := u 2
M ( M + 1) 3
Properties of base functions (orthogonality)
i , j = 0 i j 0 , 0 = 2 M + 1 =: p0 1 , 1 = 1 3 M ( M + 1)(2M + 1) =: p1 2 , 2 = K =: p2

Definition of normalized base functions
bi :=
pi
i , b j = ij
(Kronecker)
Second order approximation for functions of one variable
(u ) = a (u ) f i i
i =0 uU
with
trick: no need to invert since functions are orthogonal
ai := f , bi = f (u ) bi (u )
Second order approximation for functions in two variables
(u , v) = f aij :=
i + j 2
ij
i (u ) j (v)
with
( u , v )U 2
f (u , v) bi (u ) b j (v)

Derivatives:
(u, v) = a f 00 + a10u + a01v M ( M + 1) 2 M ( M + 1) + a20 u 2 + + a uv a 02 v 11 3 3
u v
(u , v) f (u, v) f
= a10 + a20 2u + a11 v = a01 + a02 2v + a11 u
f (0, 0) u f (0, 0) v 2 f (u, v) 2 u 2 f (u , v) u v 2 f (u , v) v 2
= a10 = a01 = 2a20 = a11 = 2a02

Example:
M = 3 U = {3,K ,3} , p0 = 7, p1 = 28, p2 = 84
1 f u 1 ( ) 7 u =3 3 1 a1 = f , b1 = f (u ) u 28 u =3 a0 = f , b0 = a2 = f , b2 =
u =3
f (u )
1 2 (u 4) 84
From this, the following convolution masks are obtained:

1 (1 1 1 1 1 1 1) 7 1 d1 = ( 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 ) 28 1 d2 = ( 5 0 3 4 3 0 5 ) 84 d0 =

Two-dimensional convolution masks are obtained as follows:
T Du = d 0 d1 T Duu = 2d 0 d2 T Dvv = 2d 2 d0
Dv = d1T d 0
Duv = d1T d1
E.g. the second partial derivative with respect to u:
5 5 5 2 2 T * , 2 5 f D f D d d = = uu uu 0 2 2 7 84 u 5 5 5
0 3 4 3 0 5 0 3 4 3 0 5 0 3 4 3 0 5 0 3 4 3 0 5 0 3 4 3 0 5 0 3 4 3 0 5 0 3 4 3 0 5
Differential geometry
x v
U
p q
2 3
Regular parametrized surface:

x : 2 U 3 U open, x differentiable, dxq injective
Normal vector
N (q) = xu xv (q) xu xv
Differential geometry First fundamental form in local coordinates

I = E (u ) 2 + 2 F u v + G (v) 2 E = xu , xu , F = xu , xv , G = xv , xv
Second fundamental form in local coordinates
II = e (u ) 2 + 2 f u v + g (v) 2 e = N , xuu , f = N , xuv , g = N , xvv

Gaussian curvature and mean curvature
N (q) =
xu xv (q) xu xv
eg f 2 K = 1 2 = EG F 2 1 eG 2 fF + gE H = ( 1 + 2 ) = 2 EG F 2
1 , 2 main curvatures
Differential geometry
DSM is given as a graph z = f(u,v) From this, the following simplifications are obtained:
z = f (u , v) u 1 0 , x = 0 , x = 1 x(u , v) = v u v f (u , v) fu fv E = xu , xu = 1 + f u2 etc. fu 1 f N= 2 v ( fu + f v2 + 1)1 2 1 f e = N , xuu = 2 uu ( fu + f v2 + 1)1 2 K, H
etc.
Surface types
Surfaces can be classified depending on the sign of K and H Both signs can be coded into a single number (KH sign map)
khs := 3 (1 + sgn H ) + 1 + sgn K

In practice, H=0 or K=0 will not be obtained, thus the following modified sign function is used:
1 x < sgn ( x) := 0 x 1 x >
sgn ( x)
Surface types
khs K<0 K=0 K>0
H<0 0 H=0 3 H>0 6 7 8 4 1 Not possible 2
Application: curvature type classification
Type 03
Simple discrete derivative operators
Type 68
Application: curvature type classification
Type 03
Type 68
Region based segmentation

Region based segmentation: partitioning of a region into disjoint subregions subregions evaluate true with respect to a given predicate P () subregions are maximal More precisely:
1.
UR
i =1
=R
2. 1 i n : Ri is connected 3. i j : Ri R j = 4. P ( Ri ) = true 5. i j : P ( Ri R j ) = false, if Ri , R j are neighbors

Region based segmentation
1 5 9
2 6
3 7
4 8
1 5 9
2 6
3 7
4 8
R1 = {1, 2,3, 4, 7,8,12} R2 = {5, 6,10,11,15,16} R3 = {9,13,14}
10 11 12
10 11 12
13 14 15 16
13 14 15 16
How can the desired subregions be obtained? E.g.: cluster analysis split-and-merge region growing
Region growing
Start
1 2 6 3 7 4 8 1 5 9 2 6 3 7 4 8 1 5 9 2 6 3 7 4 8
Search for seed region Found? Y Grow region as long as possible N End
5 9
10 11 12
10 11 12
10 11 12
13 14 15 16
13 14 15 16
13 14 15 16
1 5 9
2 6
3 7
4 8
1 5 9
2 6
3 7
4 8
1 5 9
2 6
3 7
4 8
10 11 12
10 11 12
10 11 12
13 14 15 16
13 14 15 16
13 14 15 16
Region growing
Predicates for digital surface models distance of points from an estimated plane
P : z = ax + by + c distance: d (i ) = axi + byi + c zi
normal vector orientation

cos = N i , ( a, b,1)
T
Disadvantages: the order of selection of seed regions affects the result iterative estimation of plane equation is time consuming Application: detection of planar regions in DSM, e.g. roof faces
Region growing: examples
Scanline grouping (Jiang & Bunke, 1992) Subdivide each line into segments (e.g. using DouglasPeucker) Build seed region using consecutive segments Grow seed region by adding segments Postprocess
y0+2 y0+1 y0
y0+2 y0+1 y0
y0+3 y0+2 y0+1 y0

y0+3 y0+2 y0+1 y0

Scanline grouping segmentation: examples
DSM (Stuttgart, 1m)
Segmentation
Scanline grouping segmentation: examples
DSM (Stuttgart, 1m)
Segmentation
RANSAC (Random Sample Consensus, Fischler & Bolles 1981)

Algorithm: Select minimum number of observations randomly (e.g. 3 points for a plane, 2 points for a line) = random sample Compute parameters based on these observations Find out the number N of compatible observations = consensus Select solution which has largest N
There is a formula for minimum number of draws required Very powerful algorithm, easy to implement
RANSAC example: find linear segments

z
x z
x z
x
RANSAC example: find linear segments

z
x z
x z
x
RANSAC for planar segmentation
etc.
Examples: region growing, RANSAC
Region growing
RANSAC
Examples: region growing, RANSAC
RANSAC
Region growing
Hough transform (PVC Hough, 1962)

6
(x0,y0)
cos N = sin
c
4 2
one specific line
1 2 3 4 5 6
x cos + y sin + c = 0
c = ( x0 cos + y0 sin ) = c( )
x
-2 -4
Hough space
-6
high count
4 2
1 -2 -4
x
-6
accumulator
Hough transform
Can be used for any parameterized object: planes, cylinders, Higher dimensions may become impractical (space, time) Sometimes sequential Hough transforms of lower dimension are feasible Global 3D Hough transform may be problematic
(source: George Vosselman)

Building Reconstruction
(Source: Sony press release)

Non photorealistic rendering (NPR)
Source: Prof. Dllner, Computer Graphics Systems, Hasso-Plattner Institute, Potsdam

Augmented reality car navigation
Source: press release, Siemens AG, 30.09.2005
Engravings by Merian
Matthus Merian d. ., 1593-1650 Martin Zeiller Topographia, 1642ff., 30 Bd., 100 maps, 2150 views
Partial tasks for building reconstruction

Raw data Result
building reconstruction
Detection
Structuring
Geometric Reconstruction
Semantic Attributation
Gebude {{ Gebude ID == 541 ID 541 Nutzungsart == Gewerblich Nutzungsart Gewerblich Gebude { Gebude { Stockwerke ==55 Stockwerke ID == 541 ID 541 Stellpltze == 22 Stellpltze Nutzungsart = Gewerblich Nutzungsart = Gewerblich Fassadenmaterial == {{ Gebude { Fassadenmaterial Gebude { Stockwerke ==55 Stockwerke F1 == KH315 ID == 541 F1 KH315 ID 541 Stellpltze == 22 Stellpltze F2 == KH221 Nutzungsart == Gewerblich F2 KH221 Nutzungsart Gewerblich Fassadenmaterial == {{ Fassadenmaterial F3 = KH315 Stockwerke ==55F3 = KH315 Stockwerke F1 == KH315 F1 KH315 F4 == EF951 Stellpltze == 22 F4 EF951 Stellpltze F2 == KH221 F2 } } KH221 Fassadenmaterial == {{ Fassadenmaterial F3 == KH315 F3 KH315 = { ffentlich F1 = KH315 ffentlich ={ F1 = KH315 F4 == EF951 F4 EF951 { {Artztpraxis, Link @3398472 } F2 = KH221 F2 } = KH221 Artztpraxis, Link @3398472 } } { Restaurant, Link @0274832 }} F3 == KH315 Restaurant, Link @0274832 F3 KH315 {= ffentlich {{ ffentlich = }} F4 == EF951 F4 EF951 { {Artztpraxis, Link @3398472 }} Link @3398472 } Artztpraxis, }} } {{ Restaurant, Link @0274832 } Restaurant, Gebude { { Link @0274832 } ffentlich = {{ ffentlich = } } Gebude ID = 542 { {Artztpraxis, Link @3398472 }} ID = 542 Link @3398472 } Artztpraxis, } Nutzungsart == Wohn {{ Restaurant, Link @0274832 }} Nutzungsart Wohn Restaurant, Link @0274832 Gebude { Gebude { Stockwerke ==22 }} Stockwerke ID = 542 ID = 542 Stellpltze == 00 }} Stellpltze Nutzungsart = Wohn Nutzungsart = Wohn } Gebude { Gebude { } Stockwerke ==22 Stockwerke ID == 542 ID 542 Stellpltze == 00 Stellpltze Nutzungsart == Wohn Nutzungsart Wohn }} Stockwerke ==22 Stockwerke Stellpltze == 00 Stellpltze }}
Geometric building models

Building Model
Parametric
General
Primitive
Combined
Prismatic
Polyhedral
Ruled
Freeform
Boundary representation vs. CSG
Topology hard
easy
Boundary representation (BREP)
Constructive solid geometry (CSG) Claus Brenner
Data driven reconstruction

Object contains straight edges Object contains rectangles Object is red
Original image Edge extraction Grouping into rectangles Filtering using spectral signature
Object has minimum size
Filtering using size, grouping
Model driven reconstruction
Model database Original image

Explicit models
Example: data driven
Data driven approach Assumptions: Roof described by planar faces Height jump edges parallel or perpendicular to main building orientation
Steps: Plane detection Initial face outlining in TIN Reconstruction of building outline Reconstruction of roof face edges
Initial roof faces

Height data Connected components
Rough face outlines
Reconstruction of roof outline
Union of faces
Approximation by straight lines main building direction minimum edge size most points inside building
Reconstruction of face edges

Ridges and valleys Intersection of planes of adjacent roof faces Roof outline Intersection of planes with adjacent walls Height jumps inside roof surface Straight lines aligned to main building directions
Reconstruction of 3D building Merging edges to faces Joining parallel edges Intersection of other edges Extraction of terrain height
Example: model driven
Demo: ATOP
Claus Brenner Can be downloaded from: http://www.ikg.uni-hannover.de/3d-citymodels International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Integration of existing knowledge: Using existing 2D ground plans
Using existing 2D ground plans
Solves detection problem Helps with structuring

Helps to select model in model driven approach (How?)
Helps with geometric reconstruction

Boundaries, orientations
Problems:
Inaccurate maps Outdated maps Reconstruction of structures for which no hint appears in the ground plan
Idea 1: Canonical reconstruction of roof based on ground plan
Roof construction
split event
Medial axis
Straight skeleton (canonical roof)
edge event
Reconstruction based on canonical roof Build roof from straight skeleton, assuming equal slopes Project into plane (= hypothesise) Test for evidence using DSM (= test) Set planes for with no evidence upright Build skeleton again, using new slopes Fit to DSM strong dependency on ground plan, limited roof shapes 1997
Different roofs raised on the same ground plan & same planes
(canonical roof)
Idea 2: Subdivide ground plan into primitives
Subdivision into primitives
4 2
3 1
3 4 2 1
3 4 2 4 2 1
Flat
Desk
Ridge
Hipped
Ground plan subdivision, selection of 3D-primitive, parameter estimation more complex roofs, but still strong dependency on ground plan
Example results
Idea 3: Subdivide ground plan at concave vertices (Vosselman)
Decomposition of ground plans

Ground plan
Decompositions
Building primitives on partitions
Combining maps with laser data

Processing steps: Detection of planar faces Initial 3D model (Model refinement)
Ground plan refinement Roof face reconstruction
Detection of planar faces

3D Hough transform in each ground plan segment Growing and merging of initial planar faces
Refinement of ground plan segmentation

One plane per segment Detection of intersection lines Detection of height jump lines Constrained to segment orientation Not near segment edge
Reconstruction of roof face outlines

Best fitting plane per segment Merging of segments of same plane
Analysis
Starts from ground plan Ability to subdivide segments by planar segmentation (3D Hough transform) Ability to merge segments of the same plane less dependency on ground plan, stronger role of DSM
Idea 4: Relate planar patches to ground plan using a grammar
Determination of relevant regions
What criteria can be used? General criteria (Size, shape) Hints from ground plan
Labelling of regions
Ground plan
c compatible l left r right p previous n next a opp. previous b opp. next
Example for labels
{ r,n,a } {c}
{ l,p,b }
{c} { l,p,b } {c} { r,n,a } {c} {c} { l,p,b } { r,n,a } {c}
Acceptance rules
Contained pattern <p+a+c+ c+b+n+> <p+ * n+> l+r+
Accepted pattern <p+a+ b+n+> <p+ and n+> l+r+
All remaining c+ are accepted

Example
Aerial image
All regions of segmentation
Accepted regions
Roof built from accepted regions
EuroSDR test on building extraction
Test Sites Senaatti Hermanni Espoonlahti Amiens
Senaatti
Espoonlahti
Hermanni
Hermanni, position accuracy

point deviations in plane IQRs of point deviations
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
IG N la se r+ ae ri a l IC C la N eb se r el +P ar tn er Aa lb or g +B Te ch ni k D re sd en FO Io ut li n es i ty St ut tg ar t yb er C D el ft FO I
CyberCity
Stuttgart
IGN
2m 0m -2 m
ICC laser+aerial Nebel+Partner C+B Technik
IQR Height IQR North IQR East

ICC laser
1 out
Aalborg
FOI outlines
Delft
Dresden
FOI
1 out
Aerial images, low autom.... Laser data, high autom.

IC C
(Slide provided by Juha Hyypp)
Some Conclusions
Cybercity can be considered as a reference to others in terms of quality and detailness Fully automatic laser scanning gives 4 times higher errors than CC, but time spent is 5%, depends on pulse density, building size. Errors of laser-based results can be explained by non accurate determination of building outlines Laser good at height and roof inclination determination Aerial images good at building outline determination Integration of laser and aerial imagery optimal, techniques relative simple at this moment Some more complex laser models extremely good in quality Laser pulse density major factor to explain differences between test sites (within laser based models) Level of automation is a key factor to explain the difference of results.
Slide provided by Juha Hyypp Claus Brenner International Summer School Digital Recording and 3D Modeling, Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24-29 April 2006
Future developments
Reconstruction Aspects Topological correctness Faces are correctly joined, no holes Geometric constraints Parallelism, rectangularity, surfaces having same slope, surfaces meeting in one point, Generalization Acquisition generalization: which objects / object parts are to be modeled LoD generalization: derive another model from a given one
Geometric Constraints
CSG Primitives are constrained implicitly No implicit constraints across primitives Sometimes: "snap"

B-rep: Constraints have to be added explicitly
Example constraint equations (2D)
ax + by + c = 0 a2 + b2 1 = 0 ax + by + c = 0
a1a2 + b1b2 = 0
( x1 x 2 ) 2 + ( y1 y 2 ) 2 d 2 = 0
ax + by + c = d
( x x0 ) 2 + ( y y 0 ) 2 r 2 = 0
a1b2 a 2 b1 = 0
Logic
a1a2 + b1b2 cos = 0 a1b2 a2b1 sin = 0

Metric
Weak primitives
Fields External constraint equations
(xc,yc) h
Internal Constraint Equations
Points Lines
Two lines perpendicular
Internal representation
(x2,y2) (x3,y3) (x1,y1) (x0,y0)
Internal Constraint Equations
Points Lines
Point on line
Internal representation
Weak primitives demonstrator
Containers
Form hierarchy Objects are primitives they contain geometry or Objects are containers they contain other containers or primitives Implement layout functionality Linear, grid, irregular Container: Grid layout New: induced by formal grammar
Generalization
CSG
Implicit generalization
B-rep:
Region sizes? Rules?
Generalization during capture

Level of Detail (Definition according to Sig3D)
LoD 0
Regional No roofs
Texture, ortho photo, land use
LoD 1
City / Site Flat roofs
Block model
LoD 2
City / Site Roof type & orientation
Textured model, differentiated roofs, vegetation (trees)
LoD 3
City / Site Real roof shape
Architectural model, vegetation, street furniture
LoD 4
Interior Real roof shape
Walkable architectural models
>5m / >5m Pos./Height

See http://www.citygml.org/
5m / 5m
2m / 1m
0,5m / 0,5m
0,2m / 0,2m
In 2D: elementary generalization operations
s n +1 s n -1 s n -2 sn s n +2
gi
Monika Sester, ikg

Elementary generalization operations

ik i1 m P P n P i0 P ... P P g0 g1 g k 1
or
Generalization chain Maximum representation: P n P Minimum representation: P m Number of polygon edges: i0 = n

mn
ik = m
Elementary generalization operations: g j

Elementary generalization operations
P P P g 1
m ik
k 1
i k 1
n P P 1 ... 1 g g i0
k 2 0
or
Inverse generalization chain Pre-computed Can be used for progressive transmission 1 j Each g j is associated with a parameter Parameters j are decreasing (inverse chain)
Continuous generalization demo
Generalization in 3D?
Original
Cut
Fill
Final step
Frank Thiemann, ikg

Generalization by incremental modelling
Generalization by incremental modelling
+ +
Conclusions
Methods available for the extraction of discontinuity and continuity Availability of 3D information makes relatively simple extraction processes possible Laser scanning good at heights and roof inclination Still no fully automatic extraction systems available
Problem: reliability Integration of ground plan information Automation will come in the form of small enhancements
New challenges
Interoperability requires rich descriptions Expression of relations (constraints) between objects Automatic generalization
Literature
Wehr, A., Lohr, U. (1999): Airborne laser scanning an introduction and overview. ISPRSJ, Vol. 54, 68-82. Baltsavias, E. P. (1999a): Airborne laser scanning: basic relations and formulas. ISPRSJ, Vol. 54, 199-214. Baltsavias, E. P. (1999b): Airborne laser scanning: existing systems and firms and other resources. ISPRSJ, Vol. 54, 164-198. Hug, C., Ullrich, A., Grimm, A. (2004): Litemapper-5600 A waveform-Digitizing LIDAR Terrain and Vegetation Mapping System, Proc. ISPRS WG VIII/2, Freiburg, Germany, Oct. 3-6, 2004. IAPRS Vol. XXXVI, Part 8/W2. Vosselman, G. (2000): Slope based filtering of laser altimetry data, IAPRS Vol. 33 Part B3, 935-942. Kraus K., Pfeifer, N. (1998): Determination of terrain models in wooded areas with airborne laser scanner data. ISPRS JPRS Vol. 53, 193-203. Pfeiffer, N., Stadler, P., Briese, Chr. (2001): Derivation of digital terrain models in the SCOP++ environment, Proc. OEEPE Workshop on Airborne Laserscanning and Interferometric SAR for Digital Elevation Models, Stockholm, March 1-3. Axelsson, P. (2000): DEM generation from laser scanner data using adaptive TIN models, IAPRS Vol. 33 Part B4, 110-117. Sithole, G., Vosselman, G. (2005): Filtering of airborne laser scanner data based on segmented point clouds. Proc. ISPRS Workshop Laser scanning 2005, Enschede, IAPRS Vol. 36 Part 3/W19, 66-71.
Cited web material

Riegl LMS (2005): LMS-Q560 Airborne laser scanner for full waveform analysis. Preliminary data sheet, 23.09.2005. www.riegl.co.at. Optech (2006): ALTM 3100EA brochure. www.optech.ca/prodaltm.htm. Riegl LMS (2006): http://www.riegl.co.at/airborne_scannerss/airborne_scanners_literature_/downloads/advantages_of_echo_digitizati on_and_full_waveform_analysis.pdf. Last accessed 22.03.06.
For manufacturer (and other) link lists, see http://www.commission3.isprs.org/wg3/

Aerial Laser Scanning PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerial Laser Scanning PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commission VI Special Interest Group Technology Transfer Caravan