Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / g e o m o r p h

Despeckling SRTM and other topographic data with a denoising algorithm

John A. Stevenson a,⁎, Xianfang Sun b, Neil C. Mitchell a
a
School of Earth Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
b
Cardiff School of Computer Science, Cardiff University, Queen's Buildings, 5 The Parade, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Noise in topographic data obscures features and increases error in geomorphic products calculated from
Received 27 March 2009 DEMs. DEMs produced by radar remote sensing, such as SRTM, are frequently used for geomorphological
Received in revised form 10 July 2009 studies, they often contain speckle noise which may significantly lower the quality of geomorphometric
Accepted 16 July 2009
analyses. We introduce here an algorithm that denoises three-dimensional objects while preserving sharp
Available online 25 July 2009
features. It is free to download and simple to use. In this study the algorithm is applied to topographic data
Keywords:
(synthetic landscapes, SRTM, TOPSAR) and the results are compared against using a mean filter, using LiDAR
SRTM data as ground truth for the natural datasets. The level of denoising is controlled by two parameters: the
SAR threshold (T) that controls the sharpness of the features to be preserved, and the number of iterations (n)
Denoise that controls how much the data are changed. The optimum settings depend on the nature of the topography
Speckle and of the noise to be removed, but are typically in the range T = 0.87–0.99 and n = 1–10. If the threshold is
Hydrology too high, noise is preserved. A lower threshold setting is used where noise is spatially uncorrelated (e.g.
TOPSAR), whereas in some other datasets (e.g. SRTM), where filtering of the data during processing has
introduced spatial correlation to the noise, higher thresholds can be used. Compared to those filtered to an
equivalent level with a mean filter, data smoothed by the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. [Sun, X., Rosin, P.L.,
Martin, R.R., Langbein, F.C., 2007. Fast and effective feature-preserving mesh denoising. IEEE Transactions on
Visualisation and Computer Graphics 13, 925–938.] are closer to the original data and to the ground truth.
Changes to the data are smaller and less correlated to topographic features. Furthermore, the feature-
preserving nature of the algorithm allows significant smoothing to be applied to flat areas of topography while
limiting the alterations made in mountainous regions, with clear benefits for geomorphometric analysis in
areas of mixed topography. The results of denoising on the derived flow accumulation and slope maps,
particularly when compared to the results of mean filtering, demonstrate the usefulness of the algorithm in
fields such as hydrological modelling and landslide prediction.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Noise in topographic data introduces errors into derived products,
particularly those calculated from multiple grid cells of a DEM e.g.
slope, wetness index (Holmes et al., 2000), catchment area (Wechsler
and Kroll, 2006), drainage channels (Hancock and Evans, 2006),
estimation of zones of landslide hazard (Milledge et al., 2009) or
simply obscures features on shaded relief maps (Mitchell and Clarke,
1994). In particular, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), including Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data, suffer from random
“speckle” noise (Maire et al., 2003). Methods for removing speckle
range from simple mean low-pass filters (also known as boxcar or
moving-average filters; Smith and Sandwell, 2003) through more
complex gaussian-weighted filters (Milledge et al., 2009) to fre-
quency-based methods e.g. wavelet filters (Falorni et al., 2005) or
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1613 066585; fax: +44 1613 069361.
E-mail address: johnalexanderstevenson@yahoo.co.uk (J.A. Stevenson).
those based on geostatistical methods (Maire et al., 2003; Goff et al.,
2006). As the SRTM data are used for a range of applications, including
the creation of hydrogeomorphic products sensitive to noise (Sanders,
2007), removing the speckle is of geomorphological importance, and
so SRTM data are filtered before being made available to the public
(Smith and Sandwell, 2003).
When removing speckle, the aim is to remove the noise without
over-smoothing the data and softening sharp topographic features.
Sharp features are particularly important in understanding the
geomorphology of areas where landscape evolution is dominated by
landsliding, leading to the development of long, straight slopes
separated by sharp features such as ridge crests, valley bottoms, the
bases of slopes and fault scarps (e.g. Southern Santa Cruz Mountains,
California; Anderson, 1994). In such regions, characteristic mean
gradients are developed (e.g. 32° ± 2° in the northwestern Himalayas;
Burbank et al., 1996), controlled by parameters such as the bulk
strength and amount of fracturing in the rock. Landscapes consisting
of relatively consistent gradients between sharp ridges or valleys have
also been described from submarine settings (Mitchell, 2005) and

0169-555X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.07.006
 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252 239

Table 2
Estimates of the probability that the difference in angle of the slopes between two pairs
of elevations from a gaussian distribution will exceed the difference in gradients that
corresponds to the threshold parameter of the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007).

Threshold Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Probability of exceedence

(T) angle offset offset in various terrains
(degrees) (proportional) (SRTM, m) Flat Average Steep
0.40 67 2.30 69.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.71 45 1.00 30.0 0.00 0.00 0.01
0.87 30 0.58 17.3 0.00 0.01 0.16
0.94 20 0.36 10.9 0.00 0.07 0.37
0.97 15 0.27 8.0 0.00 0.19 0.51
0.99 7 0.12 3.7 0.13 0.55 0.76
Fig. 1. Illustration of how the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) works. During If the threshold is exceeded then the noise is treated as a sharp feature and is
denoising, the best orientation for the normal to each face is calculated from a weighted consequently not smoothed. The offset is given as both a proportion of the cell spacing
average of the normals of the surrounding faces (stage 1; n iterations). The nodes and as a distance in metres for SRTM data. The terrain types flat, average and steep have
(circles) are then adjusted to move the face normals into their best orientations (stage offsets with a standard deviation of 0.04, 0.10 and 0.20 cells respectively. Probability of
2; v iterations). If the orientation of a neighbouring face differs by too much (as is the exceedence = 2P(Z N (Vertical offset)/(4σ 2)0.5).
case for the white nodes), then it is given a weight of zero and excluded from the
averaging of normals, as is the case at 1, 2 and 3 here. In this way, sharp features are
preserved. If the data are noisy or the threshold parameter is high (corresponding to a
each of the normals of the adjacent faces during the normal filtering
low permitted angle of difference), so that a point differs sufficiently from its
neighbours for it to be excluded from the averaging, the noise will be preserved. stage. Normals most closely aligned with that of the face under
Conversely, noise fortuitously reducing the angle between the faces to below the consideration are weighted most strongly. Those that differ by more
threshold level causes a sharp corner to be smoothed. than a permitted amount (which is controlled by a user-defined
threshold value, T, which is the cosine of the maximum permitted
reproduced in mathematical models (Tucker and Bras, 1998). An angle between the normals of two supposedly co-planar adjacent
algorithm to remove noise from the slopes without destroying the faces) are assumed to belong to the wrong side of a sharp edge or
sharp gradient changes at the base of slopes or at ridge crests would corner and are given a weighting of zero. Higher values of T are used
be useful in studies of such landscapes. to preserve finer details in the data.
Sun et al. (2007) developed an algorithm to remove random, Sun et al. (2007) demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm on
spatially uncorrelated noise from three-dimensional surface meshes a range of synthetic and measured models of 3D objects including
such as those used in computer-aided design, hand-held laser statuettes, machine parts, and a scanned human head, by recovering
scanning and computer graphics. While smoothing of data involves the surfaces of the models from versions distorted by introduced
removing high-frequency information, denoising aims to preserve random noise. These models were relatively simple, with planar or
genuine information at all frequencies, particularly sharp edges or smoothly-curved surfaces and sharp corners. In contrast, natural
corners. The algorithm works by altering the positions of the vertices topographic surfaces are complex, exhibiting some self-affine beha-
of the triangles that form the mesh (the original data points) such that viour with relief at all length scales (Turcotte, 2007) and local
the orientation of the normal vector to any given triangular face is gradients controlled in rocky terrain by local factors (Anderson,
calculated from a weighted average of the orientations of the normal 1994). Thus the challenge for any algorithm working on topographic
vectors of those faces with which it shares a vertex (Fig. 1). data is to remove the high-frequency noise while preserving small
Denoising is carried in two steps that are applied iteratively. scale features.
Firstly, the new orientations of the face normals are calculated from a In this study, the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) is applied
weighted average of the normals of adjacent faces (the normal to a variety of raster (gridded) topographic datasets (Table 1). Raster
filtering stage; n iterations), then secondly, the corresponding vertex data were used because such data and the tools for processing them are
locations are obtained (the vertex updating stage; v iterations). more commonly available than mesh or triangular irregular network
Feature preservation is achieved by controlling the weight given to (TIN) data, but the results are applicable to both types of data. The

Table 1
Summary of datasets used.

Name sv fractal_map srtm lidar topsar

Purpose Test effect of threshold Test effect of number of Test on natural data Ground-truth of Test on raw speckle
parameter iterations SRTM data noise
Source Created in GRASS from Created in GRASS with NASA JPL site: ftp://e0srp01u. CLiCK website: http://lidar. NASA JPL site: http://airsar.
river outline with r.buffer r.surf.fractal ecs.nasa.gov.edu/srtm cr.usgs.gov asf.alaska.edu/data/ts/ts1309/
command, rescaled to Tiles: n33w117, n34w117 Tiles: bz11000074–bz11000081 Warped from flight-line
mean slope of 31.5° registered data.
Size (x × y; total) 210 × 175; 36,750 165 × 198; 32,670 1359 × 387; 525,933 1359 × 387; 67,339 1063 × 1615; 583,540
Grid resolution 1/5 (∼ 6 m) 1 (∼ 30 m) 1 (∼ 30 m) 1 (∼30 m) 1/3 (∼10 m)
(arc sec)
Elevation range 89 713 2238 2034 727
(metres)
Derived datasets svDN40, fractal_mapDN, srtmDN, topsarDN
svDN90, fractal_mapMN, srtmMN,
svDN97 fractal_map_bg, srtm_bg
fractal_map_noisy

The lidar dataset has the same region as the srtm dataset, but only some cells contain data. Other datasets were derived from the original datasets during the tests: srtmDN is the
result of filtering srtm with the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007); srtmMN is the result of filtering srtm with a mean or median filter; srtm_bg is produced by dividing the grid
into 20 cell by 20 cell supercells, extracting the points corresponding to the median elevation within each supercell, then fitting a thin plate spline surface to them. The dataset_bg
datasets are used in calculations of the short-wavelength topographic characteristics e.g. variogram sill/range.
240 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252

Fig. 2. Results of denoising the synthetic valley landscape (sv). (a) The original synthetic valley dataset, containing sharp ridge crests, a sharp boundary between the land and the
water, and a cliff to the north of the map. The contour interval is 10 m, and the lowest contour is at 10 m. The blue colour of the water extends up to 2 m to prevent noise appearing as
land. (b) svDN40. This dataset has been denoised with the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) using a low threshold setting (n = v = 100; T = 0.4). The slopes appear smooth but
the hillcrests are now rounded and the sharp boundary between the land and water, including the cliff to the north, have been lost. (c) svDN87. This dataset has been denoised with
n = v = 100, T = 0.87. With these settings, the slopes are smoothed and the cliff has been preserved. (d) svDN97. This dataset has been denoised with n = v = 100, T = 0.97. At high
threshold settings the cliff is preserved and both the boundary between the land and the water and the ridge crests appear sharper, but irregular rough patches appear on the slopes
and in the water. This occurs where the noise has perturbed the mesh by more than the threshold angle. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader
is referred to the web version of this article.)

denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) algorithm can be freely
downloaded (http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/meshfiltering/, choose Publica-
tions section) and runs on Windows, GNU/Linux and MacOS operating
systems. It can also be installed as an add-on (r.denoise) to GRASS GIS.
The GRASS GIS 6.3.0 (GRASS Development Team, 2008) and GMT 4.1.4
(Wessel and Smith, 1991) software packages, combined with common
GNU/Linux tools and shell scripts were used to manipulate the data, and
Matlab was used to prepare some of the figures. Processing was carried
out on a laptop computer with a 2.2 GHz dual-core processor and 4 Gb
RAM. The first two evaluations were carried out on synthetic landscapes,
in order to investigate the optimal settings for the T, n and v parameters,
respectively. The denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) was then
applied to topographic data from the SRTM, using airborne LiDAR (also
know as airborne laser swath mapping) data as a “ground truth”, and to
TOPSAR data, which has a different noise structure.
2. Selection of threshold
The synthetic valley dataset (sv; Table 1) is an artificial landscape
prepared to allow investigation of how changing the parameter T in
the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) affected the preservation
of features. The landscape contained hillslopes with natural gradients
(∼30.5°) and so threshold settings that do not preserve the ridges and
valleys in sv are likely to smooth such features in natural datasets. A
flat region of water and a sharp cliff were also included. The whole
map was degraded by random non-spatially correlated noise.
2.1. Preparation of dataset sv
The dataset contains a meandering river flowing to the coast. Both
the river and the coast were digitised by hand, and the r.buffer
function in GRASS was used to assign a value to each pixel in the map
region according to its distance from the closest of the lines. These
values were scaled to give a gradient of ∼ 30.5°. The difference in angle
of surface normals on two adjacent opposing sides of the ridge crests
is therefore up to ∼ 61°. A regional slope was added to the northern
part of the map region, starting at 0 m at the latitude of the river
mouth and increasing to 20 m at the northern edge of the map. All the
points east of the coastline have a value of 0 m, so the regional slope
results in a steadily rising cliff-line. Gaussian noise was added
(mean = 0; standard deviation = 0.61 m). This is equivalent to the
average noise on SRTM data in terms of the standard deviation as a
proportion of pixel size (Rodriguez et al., 2006).

Fig. 3. Results of filtering and denoising the fractal_map landscape. The figures show changes in various topographic characteristics versus normal updating iterations (n) of the
denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) (bottom axis; v = 50; T = 0.9), or the diameter of the mean or median filter (fd; top axis). (a) The sill of the variogram of (fractal_map–
fractal_map_bg). This is a measure of the variance in the short-wavelength topography. (b) The range of the variogram of (fractal_map–fractal_map_bg). This is a measure of
spatial correlation in the short-wavelength topography. (c) Range of elevation. This is the elevation difference between the highest peaks and lowest valleys. (d) The root mean square error
(RMSE) of the denoised degraded fractal dataset (fractal_map_noisyDN, fractal_map_noisyMN) when compared to the original data (fractal_map). This measures how similar the denoised
data are to the original data.
J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252 241
242 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252
2.2. Denoising sv
To denoise the data, the map was exported from GRASS into ESRI
ASCII grid format and reprojected to UTM coordinates. Processing in
UTM coordinates was necessary as the denoising algorithm of Sun
et al. (2007) requires a Cartesian coordinate system. The data were
denoised using a variety of thresholds (T = 0.4, 0.71, 0.87, 0.97 and
0.99). One hundred normal updating and vertex updating iterations
were used (n = v = 100). The aim of using so many iterations was to
allow the algorithm to converge on a stable solution, to illustrate
which features were preserved at different settings of the threshold
parameter. When operating on topographic grids, the denoising
algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) is restricted to moving vertices parallel
to the z-axis. The denoised data were then returned to the geographic
projection, and reloaded into GRASS. This method was used to denoise
each dataset in the study.
The threshold T sets a limit to the dot product of the normal
vectors of adjacent features that are to be preserved, and is therefore
the maximum permitted value of the cosine of the angle (in degrees)
between them (Table 2). At high threshold settings, the differences in
orientations between some of the adjacent mesh faces on a planar but
noisy surface may exceed the threshold angle by chance, with the
consequence that the noise is locally preserved. The probability of this
occurrence was calculated for a simpler, one-dimensional case to
illustrate the relationship between the threshold angle and noise
preservation (Table 2). It is based on the distribution of gradients
between pairs of points with random elevations. If two points are
selected from a normal distribution (mean = 0, variance = σ2) then
the difference between their elevations also has a normal distribution
(mean = 0, variance = 2σ2). Assuming that the points are adjacent
nodes on a grid with a cell spacing of 1 unit, and that the difference
between their elevations is small (such that tanθ = θ in radians), then
the gradient of the slope between the two points is equal to the
elevation difference between the two points. Therefore the difference
between the gradients between the two points also has a normal
distribution (mean = 0, variance = 4σ2). By converting the threshold
setting to a gradient difference, and working out the standard
deviation of the noise as a proportion of the cell spacing (d), then
the probability that the threshold angle will be exceeded can be
estimated. For the 1 arc sec SRTM data that cover the continental USA
(d = 30 m), 90% accuracy levels (1.64σ) are 2, 5, and 10 m for flat,
average and steep terrain (Rodriguez et al., 2006). These values
correspond to scaled offsets (σ/d) of 0.04, 0.10 and 0.20 cells.
2.3. Results
Fig. 2a shows the synthetic valley landscape. Table 2 shows which
threshold settings are appropriate for the preservation of given
angles. With T set at 0.40, only edges separated by more than 67°
should be preserved. This means that all features are smoothed in the
sv landscape. After 100 iterations the ridges have been rounded but
have not been completely flattened and the algorithm has converged
on a stable solution (Fig. 2b). Although the sharpness of the ridge
crests and river valleys has been lost, their positions are relatively
unchanged.
As T is increased up to 0.71 (equivalent to 45°), the ridges and
valleys are still smoothed. This is unexpected because mean slope of
the landscape is ∼30.5°, so the angle between faces at the top of the
ridges and bottom of the valleys (∼61°) is greater than the theoretical
cut-off angle (45°). The ridges have been smoothed, however, because
Fig. 4. Effect of registration errors and their correction on the srtm dataset. (a) Elevation difference between the original srtm dataset and the lidar dataset plotted against terrain
aspect. The correlation indicates misregistration between the two datasets. (b) Contour plot of the standard deviation of the difference between the lidar dataset and the srtm dataset
offset by varying amounts. The minimum value is 6.95 m and occurs at − 0.6 arc sec in X (longitude), + 0.2 arc sec in Y (latitude). (c) Elevation difference between the optimally
offset srtm map and the lidar map plotted against terrain aspect. There is no longer any systematic relationship. The offset SRTM map was also corrected for the 31.6 m elevation
offset between the EGM96 geoid used by SRTM and the WGS84 ellipsoid used by the LiDAR data.
when the square grid of the original map is converted into a triangular
mesh, triangular faces have orientations that are intermediate
between those of the two slopes. The angle between their normals
falls below the threshold and so smoothing takes place. The iterative
nature of the algorithm allows smoothing to ‘spread’ from a single
point as further iterations bring more surrounding points within the
threshold angle and so the final map converges on a solution similar to
that of the lower threshold. Calculating the threshold setting from
only the angle to be preserved may therefore give a setting that is too
low.
Further increasing T to 0.87 (equivalent to 30°) preserves the cliff
at the northern shore of the landscape (Fig. 2c). This feature
corresponds to an angle change of 30° and is well-defined by the
drop of up to 20 m. Meanwhile, the 30° angle change to the south of
the river mouth has been smoothed slightly, for the same reasons
described above. The result is a clean landscape with sharp features
preserved, although some noise has slipped through the filter, as is
demonstrated by the patches in the water. If T is increased still further
to 0.97 (Fig. 2d), much of the noise remains. The effect is particularly
apparent in the water. The threshold is too high and random
fluctuations of the noise have resulted in some adjacent cells having
gradients that differ by more than the threshold value. The algorithm
has treated such cells as belonging to different faces or to opposite
sides of sharp features and so they were not denoised. Following
denoising at such a high threshold, however, the noise has been
altered, as averaging the remaining normals leads to the noise
becoming spatially correlated.
Table 2 shows how different threshold settings relate to the
probability of adjacent faces differing by above-threshold angles. For
noise equivalent to SRTM data (σ/d = 0.1; Rodriguez et al., 2006) such
faces have a 1% chance of occurring when the threshold is equivalent
to 30°, increasing to 19% at 15°. This effectively sets an upper limit on
what can be preserved. If noise levels are low (σ/d = 0.04), slope
changes of 15° can be preserved without significant preservation of
noise, whereas for noisy datasets (e.g. SRTM in regions of steep
topography, σ/d = 0.20) then T N 0.71 (equivalent to N45°) will result
in significant preservation of noise.
3. Effect of number of iterations
A synthetic map containing a self-affine landscape (fractal_map;
Table 1) was created to investigate how the number of iterations (n, v)
affected the smoothing properties of the denoising algorithm of Sun
et al. (2007) and to compare them with filtering by mean and median
filters by examining changes in various topographic measures. An ideal
self-affine landscape contains features at all wavelengths, and is
unaffected by size-dependent errors related to sensor resolution that
may affect natural data. Although the topography of natural landscapes
often approaches fractal behaviour (Turcotte, 2007), natural data
commonly have multiscaling properties e.g. different scaling in flat
and mountainous regions (Weissel et al., 1994). By creating a synthetic
dataset of uniform fractal scaling across the whole map, investigation of
the changes in spatial structure of surface texture from denoising,
without the added complications of multiscaling behaviour, was
possible.
3.1. Preparation and denoising of the fractal_map dataset
The data were created using the r.surf.fractal module within GRASS,
which uses the spectral synthesis method (Saupe, 1988). The variogram
J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252 243
244 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252

Fig. 5. Shaded relief map of the SRTM dataset covering the Palm Springs area of SE California. The region contains both mountainous and low-gradient terrain and is sparsely
vegetated. The grey band running through the map is the area covered by LiDAR, which has a noticeably smoother appearance in the flatter regions on the eastern edge of the map.
The black line denotes the southeastern limit of the area covered by TOPSAR data.

Fig. 6. A comparison of variably smoothed SRTM data. (a) The denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007): n = 5, v = 50, T = 0.99. (b) The denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007):
n = 20, v = 50, T = 0.99. (c) Mean filter: fd = 5. (d) Mean filter: fd = 9. In the area of flat topography marked with a box in a, the maps a and c have geostatistically-equivalent short-
wavelength topography (b 20 pixels, see text for details) as do maps b and d. The figure shows that with comparable denoising in flat areas, the denoising algorithm of Sun et al.
(2007) preserves features in the mountainous region much better than the mean filter.
 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252 245

Fig. 7. Root mean square error (RMSE) of the denoised srtm dataset compared to the lidar dataset. The plot shows how well the denoised data approximate the true landscape with
increased denoising. With the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007), the deviation is small, increases only slowly with further denoising, and is always less than the uncertainty in
the data (± 10 m). The inset shows that in the flat region (as defined in Fig. 8a) denoising decreases the RMSE, with the minimum occurring after 12 iterations. For mean filtering,
even the smallest 3-pixel diameter filter increases the RMSE to above those produced by the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007), and the RMSE increases rapidly as the filter size
is increased.

of the resulting surface could be modelled using a power law model
with an exponent of 1.23. This corresponds to a fractal dimension of
2.38 (Webster and Oliver, 2001). An additional map was created,
fractal_map_noisy, containing the fractal_map dataset degraded by
Gaussian noise (σ = 3 m, equivalent to noise on SRTM data; Rodriguez
et al., 2006). Throughout this section, 50 iterations of vertex updating
were used (v = 50), as only the normal updating stage of the denoising
algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) controls the feature preservation. Fifty
iterations are sufficient for the vertex updating stage to converge on the
solution obtained by the normal updating stage. Based on the results of
the previous section, a setting of T = 0.9 was used. On the fractal_map
dataset (3.3 × 105 points), denoising with five normal filtering iterations
takes approximately 22 seconds; denoising with 50 normal filtering
iterations takes 56 seconds.
Terrain roughness is quantified in this study by a method similar to
that of Glenn et al. (2006). They defined the roughness within a small
area as the standard deviation of the difference between the actual
surface and a ‘baseline elevation surface’ created by interpolating with
a thin plate spline between the lowest points identified on a 5 × 5 m
grid. By detrending the data in this way, only short-wavelength fea-
tures are measured. In this study, a similar methodology is used. The
fractal_map_bg surface was created by interpolating with a thin plate
spline between the median elevation points on a 20 × 20 cell-diameter
grid. The median value of each 'supercell' was chosen as it is less likely
than the minimum to be an outlier value. This background map was
subtracted from the original data and a global, two-dimensional
variogram was calculated from the difference (fractal_map–fractal_-
map_bg) using the gstat software (Pebesma and Wesseling, 1998;
Pebesma, 2004) following reprojection to the metric UTM coordinate
system. The resulting variogram was modelled by least-squares fitting a
simple two parameter linear model that produced metric estimates of its
sill and range, which quantify the roughness and spatial correlation,
respectively, of the short-wavelength (b20 pixels) topography (Webster
and Oliver, 2001). The sill of the variogram is a measure of overall
roughness, as, being the overall variance of the short-wavelength
topography, it is equivalent to the square of the parameter of Glenn et
al. (2006). The range of the variogram is a measure of spatial correlation;
random noise with no spatial correlation has a range equal to the grid
spacing. Increases in the range of the variogram following denoising
therefore reflect increasing spatial correlation. The elevation range of the
data was also calculated as it reflects the sharpness of the peaks and
valleys in the dataset. The root mean square error (RMSE) of the denoised,
degraded dataset (fractal_map_noisy) compared with the original frac-
tal_map dataset without noise was calculated to measure whether the
denoised versions approached the original fractal_map surface more than
the noisy data, and to determine an optimum number of iterations for
reducing the noise.
3.2. Results
Fig. 3 shows changes in variogram sill, variogram range, elevation
range and RMSE of the degraded dataset with increasing iterations of
the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) (n = 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30,
40, 50; v = 50; T = 0.9) or diameter of mean/median filter (fd = 1–19
pixels). They demonstrate how the terrain roughness changes with n or
fd and therefore indicate which settings give approximately equivalent
results.
Firstly, Fig. 3a demonstrates the effect of the filters and denoising
on short-wavelength (b20 pixels) features, represented by the sill of
the variogram of the difference between denoised fractal_map and
fractal_map_bg datasets. As expected, denoising or filtering decreases
the roughness of the surface. Results from mean and median filters with
fd=3 or 5 are similar to the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) with
2–5 or 8–10 iterations, respectively. Similarly, the range of the variogram
246 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252

Fig. 8. The magnitude of changes to the data as a result of denoising. (a) A map of the magnitude of the difference between the denoised (n = 12, v = 50, t = 0.99) and original srtm
data. The mountainous and flat regions are easily identified as areas of large and small changes, respectively. Despite the flat region appearing in Fig. 5 to have changed more than the
mountainous region, the points in the mountainous region have moved further from their original locations. The outline of the lidar data is also marked. It is divided into two
topographically distinct regions: flat (white outline, mainly in the east) and mountainous (black outline, mainly in the west). (b) A plot of the magnitude of the difference between
the denoised (n = 12, v = 50, t = 0.99) and mean-filtered (fd = 7) versus the profile curvature of the srtm data. The denoised data vary greatly in profile curvature, but have changed
relatively little compared to the original DEM. By contrast, elevation changes in the data filtered with the mean filter are greater and are strongly related to profile curvature (e.g. larger
positive elevation changes corresponding to areas of strong negative curvature). This is due to the flattening of ridges and the filling of valleys.

(Fig. 3b), which indicates the degree of spatial correlation, increases with
both filtering and denoising. Although the normals of the mesh faces are
only averaged with their immediate neighbours, further iterations
increase spatial correlation with each pass of the algorithm. Three- and
5-pixel mean and median filters give similar range to 1–2 and 3–5
iterations of the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007), respectively.
These graphs demonstrate how the two methods can have similar effects
on short-wavelength features. While the aim of these algorithms is to
reduce noise, the decreasing variance and increasing spatial correlation is
in this case due to the smoothing of small scale topographic features.
Fig. 3c shows how the elevation range changes with filtering.
Mountain peaks are commonly sharp features that are strongly
affected by filtering. Both filtering and denoising reduce the elevation
range. With the smallest mean and median filters, similar results can
be obtained with the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) using up
to 10 iterations. With further smoothing, however, a large difference
between the two methods becomes clear and the convergent nature
of the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) gives significantly
better preservation of the elevation range. Finally Fig. 3d shows how
the RMSE of the denoised degraded dataset (fractal_map_noisy)
 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252 247

Fig. 9. The results of denoising topsar data. (a) topsar data for the Desert Hot Springs region. The data have only undergone preliminary processing and contain voids, artefacts and
speckle noise. (b) Map of the topsar data, denoised with the same settings used for srtm data. Some noise is still preserved. (c) The noise removed from the previous map. The grey
scale is the same as for Fig. 8a. There is relatively little visible correlation with the terrain features in a. (d) Map of the topsar data, denoised with T = 0.9. More noise is removed, even
in the mountainous regions. (e) The map of the noise removed when T = 0.9. It shows some spatial correlation with terrain features, suggesting that they are also being altered.

changes with filtering. The RMSE of the original degraded dataset was
2.99 m. For mean and median filters with fd = 3 the smoothed data
are improved, with RMSE of 2.18 and 2.44 m respectively. At larger
filter diameters the divergence of the smoothed data from the original
data is approximately proportional to fd. Denoising with up to five
normal updating iterations of the denoising algorithm of Sun et al.
(2007) improves the data, with the best improvement occurring after
two iterations and resulting in RMSE of 2.12 m. While further
iterations increase the RMSE, the rate of divergence between the
smoothed and original data decreases with each iteration.
Sun et al. (2007) showed that the vertex updating algorithm
converges, usually after less than 50 iterations. Thus, although
features become less sharp, their existence is preserved. This
behaviour is apparent from changes with the number of iterations.
Although the gradients of the different lines on the graphs and the
positions where they cross depend on the arbitrary choice of graph
scales, the changes in roughness occurring at small numbers of
denoising iterations (n b 10) or small filter diameters (fd b 5) are
comparable. After many iterations, however, the additional effect of
extra iterations of the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) rapidly
diminishes as it converges towards a stable solution. This is in strong
contrast to the effects of the mean and median filters, which remain
approximately proportional to the filter diameter. In situations where
significant filtering is necessary but it is also required that the filtered
data do not diverge too greatly from the original data, the denoising
algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) offers a significant improvement over
mean and median filtering.
4. Denoising topographic data
Real topographic data can contain a variety of slope angles and
surface roughnesses. The SRTM generated freely-available, globally-
consistent, topographic data covering the whole Earth between 60°S
and 60°N (Smith and Sandwell, 2003; Rodriguez et al., 2006). The
pixel size of the data is 1 arc sec (∼30 m) on the continental USA and
3 arc sec (∼ 90 m) elsewhere. The intended vertical accuracy (at 90%)
was ±16 m. Subsequent validation has shown that the vertical
accuracy is in many places better than ±10 m (Rodriguez et al., 2006).
Some of the uncertainty is due to short-wavelength random ‘speckle’
error that is common on SAR products (Falorni et al., 2005) and
248 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252

Fig. 10. Variograms of differences between the denoised/mean-filtered topsar datasets and original topsar data, allowing comparison of the spatial structure of the changes made.
The sill of the variogram indicates the magnitude of the changes, and the range (at which the graph levels off onto the sill) indicates the spatial correlation. For dataset
topsarDN12_0.99, the data show no spatial correlation, indicating removal of a small, random signal. By decreasing the threshold to 0.90, greater changes are made and some
are spatially correlated (see also Fig. 9e). This indicates some systematic change to the topography. As expected with all mean filters, the changes made to topsarMN07 were spatially
correlated. Also shown are the changes made to srtmDN12. These are strongly spatially correlated. While this may indicate some systematic changes to the topography, it is noted
that the noise itself on the srtm dataset is already spatially correlated.

persists even following selective use of boxcar filtering during
processing of the data by NASA (Smith and Sandwell, 2003).
Topographic data covering the area surrounding the town of
Desert Hot Springs, SE California (116.63°W, 33.59°N) were used in
the study (Table 1). This region was chosen for its range of relief
(mountainous in the northwest, flat in the southeast), thin vegetation,
and the availability of topographic data from a variety of sources. Thin
vegetation is important because radar waves such as used in the SRTM
are backscattered from vegetation canopies and buildings (Falorni et
al., 2005). LiDAR and TOPSAR data were also available over some of
the area (Table 1). LiDAR data are collected by low-flying aircraft
fitted with kinematic GPS and inertial motion sensors that use
scanning laser pulses to locate millions of points on the ground
surface. The resulting data have both high resolution (∼1 m) and high
vertical accuracy (± ∼0.15 m), so they are useful to ‘ground truth’ the
denoised SRTM data. The TOPSAR data were collected from an aircraft
flying at 8500 m and have a pixel size of 10 m.
4.1. Preparation of datasets srtm, lidar and topsar
SRTM Version 2 data (tiles n33w117 and n34w117; 1 arc sec
resolution) were downloaded from the NASA Jet Propulsion Labora-
tory server (ftp://e0srp01u.ecs.nasa.gov/srtm/) where they were
provided in geographic coordinates relative to the EGM96 geoid.
LiDAR data were obtained from the USGS Click website (http://lidar.
cr.usgs.gov/). Eight tiles were downloaded (bz11000074–81) com-
prising 214 million points in LAS format. The data were converted
from UTM coordinates (Zone 11; NAD27 datum) to geographic
coordinates with the WGS84 datum, and binned into a 1 arc sec grid
equivalent to the SRTM data. Processing was carried out in geographic
coordinates to avoid potential aliasing problems associated with
reprojecting the SRTM data. TOPSAR data were downloaded from the
NASA AIRSAR server (http://airsar.asf.alaska.edu/data/ts/ts1309/).
Only a preliminary, flight-line registered, C-band DEM was available.
This was warped into a geographic projection and scaled to give
elevations in metres.
Elevation differences between the lidar and srtm DEMs were found
to correlate with terrain aspect. This was due to a subpixel
misregistration between the datasets (e.g. Van Niel et al., 2008;
Fig. 4a). This was addressed by exporting the srtm data as points,
iteratively offsetting them by 0.1 arc sec increments, interpolating the
new locations onto a grid, reloading it into GRASS and then calculating
the standard deviation of the difference between the offset data and
the lidar. The offset which minimised the standard deviation was −
0.00016667° E, 0.00005556° N (−24 m E, 12 m N; Fig. 4b). An
elevation 31.6 m was subtracted from the SRTM data to convert
heights from the original EGM96 geoid reference to the WGS84
spheroid reference of the LiDAR data. Following these corrections, no
systematic differences between the two datasets remained, and they
could be compared directly (Fig. 4c). The preliminary nature of the
topsar data meant that it could not be suitably co-registered with the
srtm and lidar datasets and so it was not directly compared with them.
Fig. 5 is a shaded relief map of the lidar and srtm datasets. The
topsar dataset covers the region to the northwest of the black line.
Surface runoff from the mountainous regions to the north and west
drains into the flat region in the southeast. The lidar data (outlined in
white) follow the sharp southern boundary of the mountains, which is
defined by the San Andreas fault. Visual comparison of lidar data with

Fig. 11. Flow accumulation maps calculated from the srtm data, representing the upstream contributing area for each cell. Dark colours indicate the predicted locations of streams
and rivers. The solid yellow lines are the location of present-day river channels, as digitised from a Landsat image of the region. (a) srtm. (b) srtmDN12. The channels across the flat
part of the region have been recovered. (c) srtmMN07. The channels have been recovered in the flat region, but detail has been lost, including some small channels, in the mountains,
e.g. in the northwestern corner. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252 249
250 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252

Fig. 12. The distribution of slopes in the original and denoised srtm dataset. Two slope populations are visible; slopes with low angle (b 8°) from the lowlands in the southeast, and
steeper slopes (8–60°) in the mountainous region in the northwest. Denoising with the algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) (n = 12) and filtering with a mean filter (fd = 7) produced maps
with geostatistically-equivalent smoothing in the lowlands. The distribution of slopes in the denoised data (srtmDN12) is very close to the original distribution, whereas the mean
filter (srtmMN07) has flattened many of the steeper slopes, resulting in an increase in the number of pixels with intermediate slope (8°–20°).

the adjacent srtm data shows that it is smoother; the ‘bumpy’
appearance of the southern plains visible in the srtm data is an artefact
resulting from ‘speckle’ noise in the data (e.g. Falorni et al., 2005).
Such speckle is present in the mountainous regions too, but is
obscured by the higher local gradients so that it is not generally visible
on the shaded relief maps.
4.2. Results
Denoising was carried out on the srtm dataset as before.
Preliminary tests carried out using a range of threshold parameter
values (n = 50; v = 50; T = 0.85 to 0.99), found that there was no
preservation of patches of noise at high threshold values, even with
T = 0.99. This was in contrast to the results from the sv dataset,
which contained equivalent random noise, much of which was
preserved by the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007). This is
because the SRTM data are filtered during their preparation (Smith
and Sandwell, 2003), which introduces spatial correlation and
decreases raw gradient differences between adjacent pixels. There-
fore all denoising of the srtm dataset was carried out with T = 0.99
(and v = 50) to maximise the preservation of sharp edges.
A visual comparison of the results of the denoising algorithm of
Sun et al. (2007) compared to those of a mean filter are shown in
Fig. 6. Fig. 6a and c shows denoising by the algorithm of Sun et al.
(2007) (n = 5) and a mean filter (fd = 5) respectively. In the
rectangular region marked on the flat area, the short-wavelength
topography (b20 pixels) of the srtmDN05 and srtmMN05 datasets has
been smoothed to give comparable variograms, with ranges of 412
and 406 m and sills of 0.91 and 0.92 m, respectively. In both filtered
datasets there is a visible reduction of noise on the flat regions
compared to the original data, giving the surface a more natural
appearance. In the mountainous regions, there is some loss of
information, with more small features being lost in the case of the
mean filter. Fig. 6b and d represents more extreme denoising and
filtering (n = 50; fd = 9). The srtmDN50 and srtmMN09 variograms
have ranges of 523 and 487 m and sills of 0.60 and 0.66 m respectively
for the area of the rectangle. Here, the feature-preserving nature of the
denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) is clearly displayed. While the
flat region has been highly smoothed, removing visible noise, the
mountains remain clear with even small ridge-lines preserved. There
is a ‘front’ of smoothing that extends from the flat land into the
mountains. In comparison, with mean filtering much of the informa-
tion has been lost from the mountains and only the largest and most
prominent ridges remain. This is a clear demonstration of the
advantages of the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007).
Besides improving the appearance of the data and sharpening the
appearance of features, denoising can potentially increase the accuracy
of the SRTM data. This can be tested by a comparison with the LiDAR
data. Fig. 7 shows the changes in the RMSE of the denoised srtm dataset
compared to the lidar dataset with increasing n iterations of the
denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) or diameter of mean and
median filters. As n increases from 0 to 20, the RMSE increases from 4.56
to 5.34 m. The plot shows that this is significantly less divergence from
the lidar than produced by mean and median filtering. Even the smallest
mean and median filters produce worse results than denoising with 20
iterations, resulting in an RMSE of 5.96 m, and the error rapidly
increases with increasing diameter. The inset figure shows that in the
flat area (as defined in Fig. 8a), the denoised data are actually closer to
the LiDAR data, with the best improvement occurring after 12 iterations.
Subtracting the original srtm dataset from the denoised dataset
shows the changes made by the algorithm. Fig. 8a is a map of the
magnitude of the displacements for denoising with 12 iterations. The
map shows that despite the biggest visual change occurring in the flat
regions, the largest displacements are actually found in the mountai-
nous regions of the map, which are characterised by high curvature
along ridge crests and valley floors. The mottled texture of the changes is
consistent with the removal of features that are spatially correlated over
the range of a few hundred metres. Fig. 8b shows the changes made by
both the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) (n = 12) and the mean
filter (fd = 7) plotted against terrain curvature. The large scatter on the
plot suggests that there is a significant random component to the
changes made by the denoising algorithm Sun et al. (2007). The
elevation changes are normally distributed, with a mean of 0 m, a
standard deviation of 1.55 m and a maximum displacement of −9.42 m.
 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252
In contrast, changes made by the mean filter are more strongly
correlated with the profile curvature (Fig. 8b), representing the
flattening of ridge crests and lifting up of valley floors by the filtering.
Denoising the topsar dataset (Fig. 9a–c) demonstrates the removal
of spatially un-correlated noise. Denoising with the same parameters
as used for the srtm dataset removes a spatially uncorrelated signal
(Figs. 9b, c and 10). Visual inspection of the map reveals that some
noise has not been removed, however. Changing the threshold
parameter from 0.99 to 0.90 results in a smoother product, but
produces slightly spatially correlated changes, suggesting that some
genuine information has been lost (Figs. 9d, e and10). Fig. 10 also
shows that the differences between the original and denoised srtm
data (e.g. the changes on denoising) are spatially correlated, too, even
for T = 0.99. This is due to the prior filtering of the srtm data, which
has introduced spatial correlation to the speckle noise (Smith and
Sandwell, 2003; Wechsler and Kroll, 2006).
Filtering of SRTM data has an important effect on hydrogeomorphic
products derived from the DEM. Fig. 11 shows flow accumulation maps,
highlighting the cells with the greatest upstream contributing area.
Water drains towards cells with high values, and the areas with the
highest flow accumulation values are most likely to be wet e.g. river
channels. Flow accumulation maps were calculated on the original, the
denoised (n = 12; the optimum value for the flat region) and the mean
(fd = 7) filtered datasets using the GRASS GIS r.watershed module in
multiple-flow direction mode (Holmgren, 1994). The actual river
channels, digitised from Landsat imagery, act as ground truth. The
flow accumulation map calculated from the original srtm data, shows a
network of channels draining small catchments in the mountains and
flowing towards the lowlands in the southeast. In the lowlands, the
predicted channels appear narrow and well-defined, and weave
between drier ‘islands.’ The main predicted channels approximately
follow the actual river channels. In flow accumulation maps calculated
from both the denoised and filtered datasets, the predicted channels in
the lowlands are poorly-defined, forming broad zones of higher flow
accumulation, and the ‘islands’ are no longer present. This is a more
realistic assessment, as the surface of the lowland area comprises a
network of shallow, braided channels created by ephemeral streams
whose positions are not fixed. The actual river channels lie in the zones
with the highest predicted flow accumulation. In the mountainous
region the channels on the mean-filtered dataset have become blurred
and in some areas lost altogether.
The effect of denoising and filtering on the distribution of slopes
within the srtm dataset was investigated. The slope distribution is
important to estimates of slope stability and prediction of landslide
hazards (Milledge et al., 2009). Slope maps were calculated for the
original, the denoised (n = 12), and the mean-filtered (fd = 7; the same
settings as for flow accumulation maps), and the probability density
function (PDF) for each was plotted in Fig. 12. All maps show two main
slope populations: slopes with low angle (b8°) from the lowlands in the
southeast, and steeper slopes (8–60°) in the mountainous region in the
northwest. Removing noise from the flat area (by either denoising or
mean filtering) has resulted in a sharpening of the low-angle peak. At
higher slope angles, the denoised data have a very similar slope
distribution to the original data. The mean-filtered data, however, show
a decrease in the proportion of steep slopes (N20°) and an increase in
the proportion of intermediate slopes (8–20°), as a result of eroding of
ridge crests and filling of deep valleys by the filter. These changes are
also reflected in the large decrease in the mean and maximum slope
angle relative to the original srtm data.
5. Discussion
By denoising the synthetic datasets, the effects of changing the
threshold parameter and number of iterations were investigated. The
threshold setting is very important. Setting the level too low results in
the rounding of sharp edges, but the weighting system employed by
251
the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) still preserves the large-
scale features of the landscape, even at high numbers of iterations. It
was found that the best feature preservation was obtained for the
highest threshold settings, and that a minimum of 0.87 was required
to preserve ‘natural’ ridge crests. This is higher than the values
employed by Sun et al. (2007) in denoising 3D objects, which were
typically 0.4–0.6. The relationship between the threshold setting and
the angle of the ridge crest preserved was not exactly as predicted by
the conversions in Table 2, and the discrepancy was probably due to
the effects of noise, as well as differences in orientations between the
square cells of the DEM and the triangular cells of the mesh into which
it was converted by the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007). To
ensure that the desired features are preserved, the threshold should
be set as high as possible. The maximum threshold setting is in
practice constrained by the characteristics of the noise on the data.
Increasing the magnitude of the random gaussian noise applied to all
cells leads to an increasing number of faces with sufficiently different
orientations to their neighbours for the algorithm to treat them as sharp
features and preserve their positions. This sets an upper limit on the
threshold as the value which preserves an unacceptable amount of noise
(Table 2). This may be ∼0.94 for noise with a standard deviation of 0.1
times the pixel diameter. In some submarine settings, where slope
angles may be as low as 15° (Mitchell, 2005), the base of slopes can only
be preserved in datasets with low noise levels. Datasets which suffer
from this type of noise include those obtained by SAR and sidescan
sonar. In the case of SRTM data, which is filtered during processing prior
to release to the public, the noise is spatially correlated. This reduces the
probability of the preservation of noise, but it is likely that sharp edges in
the data that could potentially have been preserved by the denoising
algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) have also been smoothed.
Increasing the number of normal updating iterations increases the
spatial correlation and reduces the variance and elevation range of the
fractal_map data. This is comparable to the effect of increasing the
diameter of a mean or median filter. Fifty iterations of vertex updating
were found to be a good compromise between processing time and
convergence on the solution determined by the normal updating step.
With this setting, smoothing that is geostatistically-equivalent to that
produced by a median filter with a diameter of 3 pixels can be produced
using the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) with 1–4 normal
updating iterations, and a diameter of 5 pixels with 4–9 iterations.
However the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) achieves this
smoothing with much smaller changes to the data. This is particularly
apparent at larger numbers of iterations, as the algorithm converges on
a solution with the large-scale features of the landscape preserved. In
contrast, the mean filter continues to smooth further as the radius is
increased, with changes in features such as elevation range and RMSE
approximately proportional to the radius.
The srtm dataset involved both flat and mountainous regions and
suffered from spatially correlated random noise resulting from the
prior application of a boxcar filter (Smith and Sandwell, 2003). A
visual comparison (Fig. 6) shows the impressive ability of the
denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) to preserve mountain ridges
and channels while smoothing the speckle from the plains. In the flat
region, the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) (n = 12) achieves
geostatistically-equivalent smoothing to a mean filter (fd = 7), but
with smaller elevation changes. This is important as the changes
caused by the mean filter are commonly larger than the confidence
intervals of the real data (±10 m for SRTM; Rodriguez et al., 2006),
thus resulting in smoothed datasets that are known to be incorrect. In
contrast, even the removal of all short-wavelength features from the
srtm dataset by 50 normal updating iterations of the denoising
algorithm Sun et al. (2007) results in a dataset that is closer to reality
(as measured by differences with the lidar dataset) than one treated
with a mean filter of just 3 pixels in diameter. Furthermore, the
changes caused by the denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007)
denoising algorithm are less systematically-related to the terrain
252 J.A. Stevenson et al. / Geomorphology 114 (2010) 238–252
curvature of the srtm dataset than those of mean filtering, which
implies that many of the displacements are due to the removal of
random noise.
The optimum threshold and iteration settings for real topographic
data can be found by experimentation and comparison with ground
truth data where available. For srtm, they will be in the range n = 1–
10, T = 0.99 unless the landscape is particularly flat or noisy.
Comparison with the topsar dataset emphasises the importance of
the threshold setting; spatially uncorrelated noise will be preserved if
the threshold is too high. The variogram of the differences can be used
to determine if the signal being removed is spatially correlated; if so
then the threshold or the number of iterations may be too high. This
method is not possible on SRTM data as the speckle that is to be
removed is already spatially correlated in nature.
The feature-preservation aspects of the denoising algorithm of Sun
et al. (2007) were well demonstrated by the flow accumulation and slope
distribution calculations. It produced more realistic channel locations in
the flat regions compared to the original or mean-filtered data, without
significant flattening of topographic features (e.g. erosion of ridge crests)
or loss of steep slopes in the mountainous area. The denoising algorithm
of Sun et al. (2007) performs better than mean/median filters for two
reasons. Firstly, it is able to adapt the weights given to neighbouring
points depending on the relative orientations of their face normals. This
allows the algorithm to preserve edges and perform differently in rough
or smooth areas. Secondly, the algorithm has a convergent tendancy, such
that even at very large numbers of iterations, the large-scale topography
is preserved. In comparison to alternative, more complex methods, it has
the further advantages of being freely available, simple to use and
relatively computationally inexpensive. The algorithm therefore has
potential applications to any field, such as geomorphology, landslide
mapping, flood modelling, where the use of accurate topographic data is
important.
6. Conclusion
The denoising algorithm of Sun et al. (2007) is an alternative to
more common methods e.g. mean filters, for reducing noise in
topographic data. It can be run on gridded or TIN (mesh) data to
remove random noise while preserving edges and making limited
changes to the data. The amount of denoising is controlled by the
threshold setting (T) and the number of normal updating iterations
(n). T is used to define the gradient change across edges that should
be preserved. For topographic data degraded by spatially uncorrelated
noise, T should typically be greater than 0.87. If T is too high, noise can
be preserved, although in the case of SRTM data, which have already
been filtered during processing such that the noise is now spatially
correlated, values of up to 0.99 may be appropriate. One to ten normal
updating iterations usually give the best results, producing surfaces
that are geostatistically-equivalent to filtering with a 3- or 5-pixel
diameter mean and median filters. However the denoising algorithm
of Sun et al. (2007) achieves such smoothing with much smaller
elevation changes. Comparison with ground truth data show that the
changes to the data, even for large smoothing, are less than the
uncertainty on the original data. Furthermore the changes that are
made show significantly less spatial correlation than those produced
by mean and median filters, suggesting that it is more likely that they
relate to the removal of random noise than to systematic alteration of
the topography (e.g. erosion of ridge crests and filling of valleys). As a
consequence, flat areas can be improved without significant detriment
to areas of steeper topography.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by EPSRC grant EP/C007972/1. Useful
discussions were had with Paul Rosin, Ralph Martin, Frank Langbein,
Dina Vachtman and Simon Brocklehurst. Tim Wright assisted in the
processing of the TOPSAR DEM. Jan Kavolda and an anonymous
reviewer are thanked for constructive comments.
References
Anderson, R.S., 1994. Evolution of the Santa Cruz Mountains, California, through
tectonic growth and geomorphic decay. Journal of Geophysical Research 99,
20,161–20,179.
Burbank, D.W., Leland, J., Fielding, E., Anderson, R.S., Brozovic, N., Reid, M.R., Duncan, C.,
1996. Bedrock. incision, rock uplift and threshold hillslopes in the northwestern
Himalayas. Nature 379 (6565), 505–510.
Falorni, G., Teles, V., Vivoni, E.R., Bras, R.L., Amaratunga, K.S., 2005. Analysis and
characterization of the vertical accuracy of digital elevation models from the
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, F02005.
doi:10.1029/2003JF000113.
Glenn, N.F., Streutker, D.R., Chadwick, D.J., Thackray, G.D., Dorsch, S.J., 2006. Analysis of
LiDAR-derived topographic information for characterizing and differentiating
landslide morphology and activity. Geomorphology 73, 131–148.
Goff, J.A., Jenkins, C., Calder, B., 2006. Maximum a posteriori resampling of noisy,
spatially correlated data. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 7 (8), Q08003.
doi:10.1029/2006GC001297.
GRASS Development Team, 2008. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS).
Software. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://grass.osgeo.org.
Hancock, G.R., Evans, K.G., 2006. Channel head location and characteristics using digital
elevation models. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31, 809–824.
Holmes, K.W., Chadwick, O.A., Kyriakidis, P.C., 2000. Error in a USGS 30-meter digital
elevation model and its impact on terrain modelling. Journal of Hydrology 233, 154–173.
Holmgren, P., 1994. Multiple flow direction algorithms for runoff modelling in grid
based elevation models: an empirical evaluation. Hydrological Processes 8,
327–334. doi:10.1002/hyp.3360080405.
Maire, C., Datcu, M., Audenino, P., 2003. SAR DEM filtering by mean of Bayesian and
multi-scale non-stationary methods. International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium (IGARSS) 6, 3916–3918.
Milledge, D.G., Lane, S.N., Warburton, J., 2009. The potential of digital filtering of generic
topographic data for geomorphological research. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 34, 63–74.
Mitchell, N.C., 2005. Interpreting long-profiles of canyons in the USA Atlantic
continental slope. Marine Geology 214, 75–99.
Mitchell, N.C., Clarke, J.E.H., 1994. Classification of seafloor geology using multibeam
sonar data from the Scotian Shelf. Marine Geology 121, 143–160.
Pebesma, E.J., 2004. Multivariate geostatistics in S: the gstat package. Computers and
Geosciences 30, 683–691.
Pebesma, E.J., Wesseling, C.G., 1998. Gstat, a program for geostatistical modelling,
prediction and simulation. Computers and Geosciences 24, 17–31.
Rodriguez, E., Morris, C.S., Belz, J.E., 2006. A global assessment of the SRTM performance.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 72, 249–260.
Sanders, B.F., 2007. Evaluation of on-line DEMs for flood inundation modelling.
Advances in Water Resources 30, 1831–1843.
Saupe, D., 1988. Algorithms for random fractals. In: Barnsley, M., Devaney, R.,
Mandelbrot, B., Peitgen, H.-O., Saupe, D., Voss, R. (Eds.), The Science of Fractal
Images. InSpringer-Verlag, London, pp. 71–136.
Smith, B., Sandwell, D., 2003. Accuracy and resolution of shuttle radar topography mission
data. Geophysical Research Letters 30 (9), 1467. doi:10.1029/2002GL016643.
Sun, X., Rosin, P.L., Martin, R.R., Langbein, F.C., 2007. Fast and effective feature-
preserving mesh denoising. IEEE Transactions on Visualisation and Computer
Graphics 13, 925–938.
Tucker, G.E., Bras, R.L., 1998. Hillslope processes, drainage density, and landscape
morphology. Water Resources Research 34, 2751–2764.
Turcotte, D.L., 2007. Self-organized complexity in geomorphology: observations and
models. Geomorphology 91 (3–4), 302–310.
Van Niel, T.G., McVicar, T.R., Li, L., Gallant, J.C., Yang, Q., 2008. The impact of
misregistration on SRTM and DEM image differences. Remote Sensing of
Environment 112, 2430–2442.
Webster, R., Oliver, M.A., 2001. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists. John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester. 271 pp.
Wechsler, S.P., Kroll, C.N., 2006. Quantifying DEM uncertainty and its effect on
topographic parameters. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 72,
1081–1090.
Weissel, J.K., Pratson, L.F., Malinverno, A., 1994. The length-scaling properties of
topography. Journal of Geophysical Research 99 (B7), 13,997–14,012.
Wessel, P., Smith, W.H.F., 1991. Free software helps map and display data. Eos
Transactions AGU 72, 441.