4.7 Article

Performance Evaluation for 3-D City Model Generation of Six Different DSMs From Air- and Spaceborne Sensors

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JSTARS.2011.2178399

关键词

Active shape model; digital elevation models; remote sensing; urban areas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since remote sensing provides more and more sensors and techniques to accumulate data on urban regions, three-dimensional representations of these complex environments gained much interest for various applications. In order to obtain three-dimensional representations, one of the most practical ways is to generate Digital Surface Models (DSMs) using very high resolution remotely sensed images from two or more viewing directions, or by using LIDAR sensors. Due to occlusions, matching errors and interpolation techniques these DSMs do not exhibit completely steep walls, and in order to obtain real three-dimensional urban models including objects like buildings from these DSMs, advanced methods are needed. A novel approach based on building shape detection, height estimation, and rooftop reconstruction is proposed to achieve realistic three-dimensional building representations. Our automatic approach consists of three main modules as; detection of complex building shapes, understanding rooftop type, and three-dimensional building model reconstruction based on detected shape and rooftop type. Besides the development of the methodology, the goal is to investigate the applicability and accuracy which can be accomplished in this context for different stereo sensor data. We use DSMs of Munich city which are obtained from different satellite (Cartosat-1, Ikonos, WorldView-2) and airborne sensors (3K camera, HRSC, and LIDAR). The paper later focuses on a quantitative comparisons of the outputs from the different multi-view sensors for a better understanding of qualities, capabilities and possibilities for applications. Results look very promising even for the DSMs derived from satellite data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据