Quality Report Generated with Pix4Dmapper Pro version

Similar documents
Quality Report Generated with Pix4Dmapper Pro version

Quality Report Generated with Pro version

Quality Report Generated with Postflight Terra 3D version

Laptop Generated Quality Report Phase 1 Time 00h:26m:45s Phase 2 Time 02h:30m:06s Phase 3 Time 01h:20m:19s Total Time All phases 04h:17m:10s

Processed :36:54 Average Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) Time for Initial Processing (without report)

28 out of 28 images calibrated (100%), all images enabled. 0.02% relative difference between initial and optimized internal camera parameters

Paris-Le Bourget Airport. 557 out of 557 images calibrated (100%), all images enabled

Quality Report Generated with Pix4Ddiscovery version

Near-Infrared Dataset. 101 out of 101 images calibrated (100%), all images enabled

Quality Report Generated with Pro version

Quality Report Generated with version

Quality Report Generated with version

Getting Started with Pix4D for Agriculture 3.3

TRAINING MATERIAL HOW TO OPTIMIZE ACCURACY WITH CORRELATOR3D

Drone2Map: an Introduction. October 2017

Introduction. Acute3D S.A.S. WTC Valbonne Sophia Antipolis. 120 route des Macarons.

Simply powerful. Pix4Dmapper features the raycloud. Read more on Next generation aerial image processing software

Tutorial (Beginner level): Orthomosaic and DEM Generation with Agisoft PhotoScan Pro 1.3 (with Ground Control Points)

Drone2Map for ArcGIS: Bring Drone Imagery into ArcGIS. Will

Tutorial (Beginner level): Orthomosaic and DEM Generation with Agisoft PhotoScan Pro 1.3 (without Ground Control Points)

Photogrammetric Performance of an Ultra Light Weight Swinglet UAV

Geometry of Aerial photogrammetry. Panu Srestasathiern, PhD. Researcher Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency (Public Organization)

Producing Ortho Imagery In ArcGIS. Hong Xu, Mingzhen Chen, Ringu Nalankal

2. POINT CLOUD DATA PROCESSING

GEOSYSTEMS... 2 UAV Workflow ERDAS IMAGINE UAV Feature Overview Section ERDAS IMAGINE UAV Feature... 2

New Features In TerraPhoto. What s New in Terrasolid v011? Webinar 15 February Feb 2011 What's New in Terrasolid v011? 2

Mosaicking Software: A comparison of various software suites. Geosystems Research Institute Report 5071

SimActive and PhaseOne Workflow case study. By François Riendeau and Dr. Yuri Raizman Revision 1.0

Generating highly accurate 3D data using a sensefly exom drone

A step by step introduction to TopoFlight

VOLUME COMPUTATION OF A STOCKPILE A STUDY CASE COMPARING GPS AND UAV MEASUREMENTS IN AN OPEN PIT QUARRY

Multiray Photogrammetry and Dense Image. Photogrammetric Week Matching. Dense Image Matching - Application of SGM

Digital Photogrammetric System. Version 5.3 USER GUIDE. Processing of UAV data

DENSE 3D POINT CLOUD GENERATION FROM UAV IMAGES FROM IMAGE MATCHING AND GLOBAL OPTIMAZATION

2018 SimActive Inc. All rights reserved.

Accuracy Assessment of POS AVX 210 integrated with the Phase One ixu150

Aerial Triangulation Report 2016 City of Nanaimo Aerial Mapping Project

Agisoft PhotoScan Change Log

Minimizing Noise and Bias in 3D DIC. Correlated Solutions, Inc.

BE INSPIRED.

ifp Universität Stuttgart Performance of IGI AEROcontrol-IId GPS/Inertial System Final Report

Dense DSM Generation Using the GPU

Other approaches to obtaining 3D structure

Exterior Orientation Parameters

Photogrammetry: DTM Extraction & Editing

UAV data acquisition and processing

A New Protocol of CSI For The Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Subpixel accurate refinement of disparity maps using stereo correspondences

Accuracy Assessment of an ebee UAS Survey

3D Computer Vision. Depth Cameras. Prof. Didier Stricker. Oliver Wasenmüller

VEGETATION Geometrical Image Quality

COMPARISON OF LASER SCANNING, PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND SfM-MVS PIPELINE APPLIED IN STRUCTURES AND ARTIFICIAL SURFACES

Sasanka Madawalagama Geoinformatics Center Asian Institute of Technology Thailand

PERFORMANCE OF LARGE-FORMAT DIGITAL CAMERAS

PRISM geometric Cal/Val and DSM performance

Assessing 3D Point Cloud Fidelity of UAS SfM Software Solutions Over Varying Terrain

OUTDOOR AND INDOOR NAVIGATION WITH MICROSOFT KINECT

Unmanned Aerial Systems: A Look Into UAS at ODOT

Files Used in this Tutorial

StereoCAD Professional software for inspection measure Draw 3D vectors INTRODUCTION FOR BASIC USAGE

ADVANCING REALITY MODELING WITH CONTEXTCAPTURE

TLS Parameters, Workflows and Field Methods

Structure from Motion (SfM) Photogrammetry Data Exploration and Processing Manual

Designing Horn Antenna utilizing FEM Symmetry Boundary Conditions

Product information. Hi-Tech Electronics Pte Ltd

P h a s e O n e i X U - RS A c c u r a c y A n a l y s i s. T h e f o r e f r o n t o f a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y

Geometric Rectification of Remote Sensing Images

Geomatica OrthoEngine Orthorectifying VEXCEL UltraCam Data

TRIMBLE BUSINESS CENTER PHOTOGRAMMETRY MODULE

ADS40 Calibration & Verification Process. Udo Tempelmann*, Ludger Hinsken**, Utz Recke*

EVOLUTION OF POINT CLOUD

CORRELATOR3D TM Whitepaper

Visualizing 2D Data in a 3D World

Chapters 1 9: Overview

Files Used in this Tutorial

Lecture 19: Depth Cameras. Visual Computing Systems CMU , Fall 2013

TLS Parameters, Workflows and Field Methods

DERIVING PEDESTRIAN POSITIONS FROM UNCALIBRATED VIDEOS

Presented at the FIG Congress 2018, May 6-11, 2018 in Istanbul, Turkey

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF FAST AT FOR CORRIDOR AERIAL MAPPING

STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE. To produce high-quality results, consider the following best practices before starting processing:

Camera Drones Lecture 3 3D data generation

Real-time Image-based Reconstruction of Pipes Using Omnidirectional Cameras

Ingesting, Managing, and Using UAV (Drone) Imagery in the ArcGIS Platform

Drone2Map for ArcGIS: Bring Drone Imagery into ArcGIS

Extracting Elevation from Air Photos

1. ABOUT INSTALLATION COMPATIBILITY SURESIM WORKFLOWS a. Workflow b. Workflow SURESIM TUTORIAL...

Scale Rate by Object Size: Only available when the current Emitter Type is Surface, Curve, or Volume. If you turn on this attribute, the

Our Experiences with UAVs in Coastal Monitoring at Gator Lake. Capt. Joe Morrow MRD Associates, Inc. Destin, Florida

QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF COMBINED IMU/GNSS DATA FOR DIRECT GEOREFERENCING IN THE CONTEXT OF UAV-BASED MAPPING

COMBINED BUNDLE BLOCK ADJUSTMENT VERSUS DIRECT SENSOR ORIENTATION ABSTRACT

UAV s in Surveying: Integration/processes/deliverables A-Z. 3Dsurvey.si

Estimating the wavelength composition of scene illumination from image data is an

GNSS/INS for High Accuracy Mobile Mapping. Olaf Gross 11 th Terrasolid European User Event Kittilä, Finland

MASI: Modules for Aerial and Satellite Imagery. Version 3.0 Aerial Modules. Tutorial

Chapter 1: Overview. Photogrammetry: Introduction & Applications Photogrammetric tools:

arxiv: v1 [cs.cv] 28 Sep 2018

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SOLUTIONS OF NON-STANDARD PHOTOGRAMMETRIC BLOCKS INTRODUCTION

TLS Parameters, Workflows and Field Methods

Copyright 2013 by 3Dflow srl. All Rights Reserved.

Transcription:

Quality Report Generated with Pix4Dmapper Pro version 3.2.23 Important: Click on the different icons for: Help to analyze the results in the Quality Report Additional information about the sections Click here for additional tips to analyze the Quality Report Summary Project Island_Albris_ALL Processed 2017-05-24 11:42:34 Camera Model Name(s) albris_8.0_7152x5368 (RGB) Average Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) 0.96 cm / 0.37 in Quality Check Images Dataset Camera Optimization Matching Georeferencing median of 35000 keypoints per image 200 out of 200 images calibrated (100%), 11 images disabled 0.13% relative difference between initial and optimized internal camera parameters median of 8333.29 matches per calibrated image yes, 5 GCPs (5 3D), mean RMS error = 0.006 m Calibration Details Number of Calibrated Images 200 out of 211 Number of Geolocated Images 211 out of 211 Initial Image Positions Figure 2: Top view of the initial image position. The green line follows the position of the images in time starting from the large blue dot. Computed Image/GCPs/Manual Tie Points Positions

Uncertainty ellipses 100x magnified Figure 3: Offset between initial (blue dots) and computed (green dots) image positions as well as the offset between the GCPs initial positions (blue crosses) and their computed positions (green crosses) in the top-view (XY plane), front-view (XZ plane), and side-view (YZ plane). Red dots indicate disabled or uncalibrated images. Dark green ellipses indicate the absolute position uncertainty of the bundle block adjustment result. Absolute camera position and orientation uncertainties X [m] Y [m] Z [m] Omega [degree] Phi [degree] Kappa [degree] Mean 0.023 0.025 0.022 0.025 0.020 0.016 Sigma 0.014 0.015 0.012 0.011 0.013 0.012 Bundle Block Adjustment Details Number of 2D Keypoint Observations for Bundle Block Adjustment 1770558 Number of 3D Points for Bundle Block Adjustment 598660 Mean Reprojection Error [pixels] 0.173 Internal Camera Parameters albris_8.0_7152x5368 (RGB). Sensor Dimensions: 10.013 [mm] x 7.515 [mm] EXIF ID: albris_8.0_7152x5368

Focal Length Principal Point x Principal Point y R1 R2 R3 T1 T2 Initial Values 5672.979 [pixel] 7.942 [mm] 3576.000 [pixel] 5.006 [mm] 2684.000 [pixel] 3.758 [mm] 0.242-0.643 0.506 0.000 0.001 Optimized Values 5665.590 [pixel] 7.932 [mm] 3622.875 [pixel] 5.072 [mm] 2722.233 [pixel] 3.811 [mm] 0.243-0.657 0.521-0.000 0.000 Uncertainties (Sigma) 0.544 [pixel] 0.001 [mm] 0.501 [pixel] 0.001 [mm] 0.470 [pixel] 0.001 [mm] 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.000 Correlated Independent F C0x C0y R1 R2 R3 T1 T2 The correlation between camera internal parameters determined by the bundle adjustment. White indicates a full correlation between the parameters, ie. any change in one can be fully compensated by the other. Black indicates that the parameter is completely independent, and is not affected by other parameters. The number of Automatic Tie Points (ATPs) per pixel, averaged over all images of the camera model, is color coded between black and white. White indicates that, on average, more than 16 ATPs have been extracted at the pixel location. Black indicates that, on average, 0 ATPs have been extracted at the pixel location. Click on the image to the see the average direction and magnitude of the reprojection error for each pixel. Note that the vectors are scaled for better visualization. The scale bar indicates the magnitude of 1 pixel error. 2D Keypoints Table Number of 2D Keypoints per Image Number of Matched 2D Keypoints per Image Median 35000 8333 Min 33932 197 Max 35000 19059 Mean 34963 8853 3D Points from 2D Keypoint Matches Number of 3D Points Observed In 2 Images 376487 In 3 Images 103830 In 4 Images 44736 In 5 Images 24495 In 6 Images 15372 In 7 Images 10165 In 8 Images 7231 In 9 Images 5287 In 10 Images 3711 In 11 Images 2371 In 12 Images 1544 In 13 Images 972 In 14 Images 657 In 15 Images 455

In 16 Images 345 In 17 Images 237 In 18 Images 203 In 19 Images 128 In 20 Images 115 In 21 Images 85 In 22 Images 64 In 23 Images 53 In 24 Images 30 In 25 Images 21 In 26 Images 17 In 27 Images 12 In 28 Images 9 In 29 Images 9 In 30 Images 4 In 31 Images 3 In 32 Images 6 In 33 Images 4 In 35 Images 1 In 36 Images 1 2D Keypoint Matches Uncertainty ellipses 100x magnified Number of matches 25 222 444 666 888 1111 1333 1555 1777 2000 Figure 5: Computed image positions with links between matched images. The darkness of the links indicates the number of matched 2D keypoints between the images. Bright links indicate weak links and require manual tie points or more images. Dark green ellipses indicate the relative camera position uncertainty of the bundle block adjustment result.

Relative camera position and orientation uncertainties X [m] Y [m] Z [m] Omega [degree] Phi [degree] Kappa [degree] Mean 0.019 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.019 0.014 Sigma 0.014 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.013 0.012 Geolocation Details Ground Control Points GCP Name Accuracy XY/Z [m] Error X [m] Error Y [m] Error Z [m] Projection Error [pixel] Verified/Marked PP1 (3D) 0.020/ 0.020-0.011-0.004-0.005 0.356 4 / 4 PP3 (3D) 0.020/ 0.020 0.008-0.003 0.007 0.887 4 / 4 PP4 (3D) 0.020/ 0.020 0.009 0.009-0.013 0.448 4 / 4 PP5 (3D) 0.020/ 0.020-0.008 0.000 0.009 1.584 6 / 6 PP6 (3D) 0.020/ 0.020 0.000-0.000-0.007 0.773 5 / 5 Mean [m] -0.000400 0.000355-0.001644 Sigma [m] 0.007885 0.004586 0.008449 RMS Error [m] 0.007895 0.004600 0.008607 0 out of 2 check points have been labeled as inaccurate. Check Point Name Accuracy XY/Z [m] Error X [m] Error Y [m] Error Z [m] Projection Error [pixel] Verified/Marked PP2 0.0200/0.0200 0.0044 0.0011-0.0645 0.5327 3 / 3 FMBOLT 0.0200/0.0200 0.0096 0.0061 0.0652 0.8553 3 / 3 Mean [m] 0.007000 0.003577 0.000341 Sigma [m] 0.002623 0.002506 0.064825 RMS Error [m] 0.007475 0.004368 0.064826 Localisation accuracy per GCP and mean errors in the three coordinate directions. The last column counts the number of calibrated images where the GCP has been automatically verified vs. manually marked. Absolute Geolocation Variance Min Error [m] Max Error [m] Geolocation Error X [%] Geolocation Error Y [%] Geolocation Error Z [%] - -2.85 0.00 0.00 0.00-2.85-2.28 0.00 0.00 2.50-2.28-1.71 3.00 1.50 4.50-1.71-1.14 6.00 4.00 9.50-1.14-0.57 15.50 11.50 14.00-0.57 0.00 20.50 31.50 23.50 0.00 0.57 29.50 23.50 17.00 0.57 1.14 21.00 23.00 12.50 1.14 1.71 3.00 4.50 6.50 1.71 2.28 1.50 0.50 6.00 2.28 2.85 0.00 0.00 2.50 2.85-0.00 0.00 1.50 Mean [m] -0.314720 1.371729 44.672755 Sigma [m] 0.796417 0.716013 1.210639 RMS Error [m] 0.856347 1.547358 44.689156 Min Error and Max Error represent geolocation error intervalsbetween -1.5 and 1.5 times the maximum accuracy of all the images. Columns X, Y, Z show the percentage of images with geolocation errors within the predefined error intervals. The geolocation error is the difference between the intial and computed image positions. Note that the image geolocation errors do not correspond to the accuracy of the observed 3D points.

Geolocation Bias X Y Z Translation [m] -0.303073 1.330176 44.666413 Bias between image initial and computed geolocation given in output coordinate system. Relative Geolocation Variance Relative Geolocation Error Images X [%] Images Y [%] Images Z [%] [-1.00, 1.00] 71.00 73.50 78.00 [-2.00, 2.00] 94.50 98.00 96.50 [-3.00, 3.00] 100.00 100.00 100.00 Mean of Geolocation Accuracy [m] 0.809413 0.809413 1.559946 Sigma of Geolocation Accuracy [m] 0.046958 0.046958 0.181895 Images X, Y, Z represent the percentage of images with a relative geolocation error in X, Y, Z. Geolocation Orientational Variance RMS [degree] Omega 2.986 Phi 3.889 Kappa 3.579 Geolocation RMS error of the orientation angles given by the difference between the initial and computed image orientation angles. Initial Processing Details System Information Hardware Operating System CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4710mq CPU @ 2.50GHz RAM: 32GB GPU: Intel(R) HD Graphics 4600 (Driver: 10.18.14.4414), NVIDIA Quadro K1100M (Driver: 10.18.13.5435), RDPDD Chained DD (Driver: unknown), RDP Encoder Mirror Driver (Driver: unknown), RDP Reflector Display Driver (Driver: unknown) Windows 7 Professional, 64-bit Coordinate Systems Image Coordinate System Ground Control Point (GCP) Coordinate System Output Coordinate System WGS84 WGS84 / UTM zone 32N WGS84 / UTM zone 32N Processing Options Detected Template No Template Available Keypoints Image Scale Custom, Image Scale: 1 Advanced: Matching Image Pairs Advanced: Matching Strategy Free Flight or Terrestrial Use Geometrically Verified Matching: no Advanced: Keypoint Extraction Targeted Number of Keypoints: Custom, Number of Keypoints: 35000 Advanced: Calibration Calibration Method: Standard Internal Parameters Optimization: All External Parameters Optimization: All Lever-Arm Parameters Optimization: None Rematch: Auto, yes Bundle Adjustment: Classic Point Cloud Densification details

Processing Options Image Scale multiscale, 1/2 (Half image size, Default) Point Density Optimal Minimum Number of Matches 3 3D Textured Mesh Generation no Advanced: Matching Window Size 9x9 pixels Advanced: Image Groups group1 Advanced: Use Processing Area yes Advanced: Use Annotations yes Advanced: Limit Camera Depth Automatically yes Time for Point Cloud Densification 01h:35m:14s Results Number of Generated Tiles 1 Number of 3D Densified Points 25127947 Average Density (per m 3 ) 3674.17 DSM, Orthomosaic and Index Details Processing Options DSM and Orthomosaic Resolution DSM Filters Raster DSM Orthomosaic Time for DSM Generation Time for Orthomosaic Generation 1 x GSD (0.963 [cm/pixel]) Noise Filtering: yes Surface Smoothing: yes, Type: Sharp Generated: yes Method: Inverse Distance Weighting Merge Tiles: yes Generated: yes Merge Tiles: yes GeoTIFF Without Transparency: no Google Maps Tiles and KML: no 27m:31s 01h:43m:40s