4.3 Article

Evaluation of Geometric Elements of Repeat Station Imaging and Registration

Journal

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING AND REMOTE SENSING
Volume 82, Issue 10, Pages 775-788

Publisher

AMER SOC PHOTOGRAMMETRY
DOI: 10.14358/PERS.82.10.775

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation Directorate of Engineering, Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events (IMEE) program [G00010529]
  2. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research & Technology (OST-R) Commercial Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies Program (CRSSI) [OASRTRS-14-H-UNM]
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1360041, 1361222] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Repeat station imaging (RSI) is an approach to precise aerial image registration and change detection. It involves planning and conducting aerial imaging flights such that the same sensor returns to the same imaging stations over time, replicating view geometry, and the resultant images are geometrically processed on a frame-by-frame basis. The objective of this paper is to elucidate and model the geometric elements associated with RSI capture and processing that influence the accuracy of co-registration. When each type of offset or difference in orientation is modeled separately, relative displacement of features in RSI pairs are linear functions of the varying orientation parameters and focal length, with the exception of an inverse square relationship with altitude above ground level; the combination of higher altitude and longer focal length reduces image displacements approximately in half. The average difference (bias) between modeled and measured parallax in ground dimensions is 0.1 m. Isolating the effects of orientation and offset factors is a useful first step towards developing a robust analytical model of the geometry of RSI pairs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available