GsE 188: Modern Photogrammetry

1st Semester, A.Y. 2016-2017

Laboratory Exercise 1:
Photoscale and Flying Height Determination

Submitted by:

Gabriel Lorenzo A. Bueta

2013-08466

Section 4D

Submitted to:

Dr. Ariel C. Blanco

Engr. Roseanne V. Ramos

Department of Geodetic Engineering

 I. Objectives

The objectives of this laboratory exercise are as follows:

- To calculate and determine the scale and the flying height used of a given aerial photo
using proper formulas
- To determine possible discrepancies in scale computation, and to indicate its
importance in analysis of aerial images and maps

II. Materials and Instruments Used

- Aerial photograph of the UP Diliman campus

- Topographic Map of the UP Diliman campus (Scale: 1:10000)
- Ruler
- Pencil or pen
- Calculator

III. Procedure

First, four points with distinct locations were selected in the aerial photo of the UPD campus.
These points were chosen based on…., and were marked on the image using a pencil. Then, the points
that are diagonally opposite with each other were connected such that two intersecting crossed lines
will be formed. Using the 1:10000 topographic map, the points were matched and marked here on to
the approximate locations that correspond to the ones on the aerial photo. These new points were also
connected diagonally to form a cross. Next, using the ruler or any other length-measuring device, the
lengths of the lines were measured on both the aerial photo and the topographic map. The following
variables such as the map scale, photoscale, and the flying height was calculated from the lengths
using the given equations. The final computed scale of the photograph will be the average of the two
different photoscale values.

IV. Observations/Data

The following are the measurements of each connected line from the four selected points:

Aerial photograph Topographic map

Line Length (cm) Line Length (cm)
Upper left-lower right 22.45 Upper left-lower right 19.75

Upper right-lower left 23.3 Upper right-lower left 20.6

 V. Computations

a) Upper left to lower right line:

Solving for the ground distance using the map scale:

dm map distance 1 19.75 cm

Sm = = = =
d g ground distance 10000 x

x=( 10000 ) ( 19.75 cm )=197500 cm=1975 m=1.975 km=d g

Solving for the photoscale:

d p distance on p h oto 0.2245m
S p 1= = = =1.136708861 x 10−4
dg ground distance 1975 m

photoscale=1:8797.327392

b) Upper right to lower left line:

Solving for the ground distance using the map scale:

dm map distance 1 20.6 cm
= = =
d g ground distance 10000 x

x=( 10000 ) ( 20.6 cm )=206000 cm=2060 m=2.06 km=d g

Solving for the photoscale:

d p distance on p h oto 0.233m −4
S p 2= = = =1.131067961 x 10
dg ground distance 2060m
photoscale=1:8841.201718

c) Approximate scale of the photograph:

Sp1+ Sp 2 −4
scale of p h otograp h= =1.133888411 x 10
2

1
=denominator =8819.209988
1.133888411 x 10−4

scale=1 :8819 .209988 ≈ 1 : 8000

d) Flying height:
dp 1 f
S p= = =
d g 8819.209988 H

Assuming a wide anglecamera , f =152 mm

 H= ( 8819.209988 )( 152 )=1340519.918 mm=1340 .519918 m≈ 1 . 34 km
VI. Analysis/Answers to Questions

It is important to match the four selected points closely and in the most accurate way possible
for a more correct scale. As much as possible, the points were selected near the four corners of the
photo. The advantages of selecting points near the corners is that it takes into account the entirety
of the image and the points can also serve as good starting reference marks from which you can
add more points when matching or georeferencing images to maps. However, it cannot always be
a good solution, since adding more reference points from here can lead to larger deviations in the
image-to-map accuracy, and also not all the time that these corner points indicate identifiable
locations or such where in its parameters are not that well-defined.

Since this exercise only makes us of basic measurement procedures, errors or discrepancies
are unavoidable. The most obvious discrepancies can be found in the scale measurements per
measured line. For a certain line on the aerial photo and its counterpart on the map, the calculated
inverses of each photoscale differ in value starting on the seventh decimal place. These resulted to
photoscale measurements of 1: 8797 for the first line and 1:8841 for the second line, which yield a
small difference in scale but is still considerable in terms of error finding. Discrepancies like these
are caused by the uncertainties and inaccuracies in measurement mainly brought by the use of a
ruler, which is not relatively accurate. This is why image processing programs are much more
advisable when it comes to measuring such parameters. Another cause of difference is the
marking of points. Since both the sources have relatively low image resolutions (when printed)
and are of a different scale, it is difficult to mark and match an almost exact location. Thus, these
points are only close approximations of the selected locations on both sources.

Despite these discrepancies, we know that in the field of photogrammetry, aerial photographs
are the main sources of information and are always useful for geographical and other map-related
measurements. To answer the question if this certain aerial photo could be used as a substitute for
a map, I believe it will depend on the purpose or type of activity where in data measurement and
acquisition is involved. If the purpose is only for first-time/basic-level academic study or for
personal practice or interest, this could pass as a substitute. Less detailed “amateur” yet effective
photos like this one can be used due to its simplicity and ease but for even more serious and
professional fields of research and data acquisition, it’s a must to use the more detailed, precise,
and accurate “expert” aerial photos with higher specifications in all photo aspects required. Also,
other important factors, such as camera specifications, resolution, tilt angle, terrain height change,
and others must be taken into consideration when selecting aerial photos to be used.

In determining the photoscale, we have already used the relationship between the flying
height and the camera’s focal length. However, other than using a topographic map or any other
map, there are other alternate ways to calculate for it. First is determining image resolution, which
is related to the smallest distance wherein elements on the ground are still discernible or
observable. The photoscale can be obtained using the ratio of the resolution to the smallest detail
on the image. Next, we can also determine the sale using the contour intervals of any terrain or
land mass. The c-factor, or the ratio of the flying height to the contour interval, can be derived to
get the photoscale. Another method is using the mean square error of the horizontal point
positions, or the expected accuracy, which formula can be derived to get the flying height and
then, the photoscale. Lastly, using stereomodels, the photo enlargement can be used, which ratio
is equivalent to the stereoplotter’s projection distance over the focal length of the camera; and
from there the photoscale can also be calculated.

VII. Conclusion

From this laboratory exercise, we have been able to determine an approximation of the
photoscale and flying height only by using measured distances from known points that happen to
be on same locations on both the photo and the map. Though these procedures can create errors
more than the current advanced techniques, simple distance measurements like these can provide
a general idea on the concepts of scale measurement and the relationships between aerial
photographs and maps. These relationships, which are yet to be discussed and explored, can
branch out to lots of real-life applications, which is one of the great advantages in studying
photogrammetry.

References:

http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geob373/lectures/Handouts/Calculating%20the%20scale%20of
%20aerial%20photo.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/T0390E/T0390E08.htm