A comparison of multi-view 3D reconstruction of a rock wall using several cameras and a laser scanner

Abstract

ABSTRACT:This work presents a comparative study between multi-view 3D reconstruction using various digital cameras and a terrestrial laser scanner (TLS). Five different digital cameras were used in order to estimate the limits related to the camera type and to establish the minimum camera requirements to obtain comparable results to the ones of the TLS. The cameras used for this study range from commercial grade to professional grade and included a GoPro Hero 1080 (5 Mp), iPhone 4S (8 Mp), Panasonic Lumix LX5 (9.5 Mp), Panasonic Lumix ZS20 (14.1 Mp) and Canon EOS 7D (18 Mp). The TLS used for this work was a FARO Focus 3D laser scanner with a range accuracy of ±2 mm. The study area is a small rock wall of about 6 m height and 20 m length. The wall is partly smooth with some evident geological features, such as non-persistent joints and sharp edges. Eight control points were placed on the wall and their coordinates were measured by using a total station. These coordinates were then used to georeference all models. A similar number of images was acquired from a distance of between approximately 5 to 10 m, depending on field of view of each camera. The commercial software package PhotoScan was used to process the images, georeference and scale the models, and to generate the dense point clouds. Finally, the open-source package CloudCompare was used to assess the accuracy of the multi-view results. Each point cloud obtained from a specific camera was compared to the point cloud obtained with the TLS. The latter is taken as ground truth. The result is a coloured point cloud for each camera showing the deviation in relation to the TLS data. The main goal of this study is to quantify the quality of the multi-view 3D reconstruction results obtained with various cameras as objectively as possible and to evaluate its applicability to geotechnical problems.

Camera system considerations for geomorphic applications of SfM photogrammetry

“…Several studies have shown that SfM can generate highly‐accurate and high‐resolution DTMs more efficiently and cost‐effective than laser‐based alternatives in suitable environments (Niethammer et al , ; James and Robson, ; Nouwakpo et al , ). Accuracy of SfM‐derived data has been evaluated previously by comparing results to data derived from traditional photogrammetry (James and Robson, ; Rosnell and Honkavaara, ; Welty et al , ), ALS (Fonstad et al , ; Dietrich, ), TLS (Castillo et al , ; James and Robson, ; Westoby et al , ; James and Quinton, ; Gómez‐Gutiérrez et al , ; Thoeni et al , ; Micheletti et al , ; Nouwakpo et al , ; Smith and Vericat, ), and terrestrial topographic surveys (Fonstad et al , ; Javernick et al , ; Woodget et al , ; Smith and Vericat, ). These comparisons promote the utility of SfM, which is rapidly becoming part of the geomorphologist's toolbox (Gomez, ).…”

Accuracy Assessment of Underwater Photogrammetric Three Dimensional Modelling for Coral Reefs

“…The accuracy of the high-resolution 3D model produced by such solutions is comparable to more expensive photogrammetric and Lidar techniques (Thoeni et al, 2014;Javernick et al, 2014;Remondino et al, 2012). Therefore it is very straightforward to adapt such techniques to underwater 3D modelling.…”

Panorama Image Sets for Terrestrial Photogrammetric Surveys

“…This approach is lower in instrument costs compared to light detection and ranging technology (LiDAR), and has lower requirements on user expertise to create a geometrical 3D model thanks to the high level of automation in image processing. Additionally, in different fields of the geosciences (James and Robson, 2014;Thoeni et al, 2014;Piermattei et al, 2015;Smith and Vericat, 2015;Stumpf et al, 2015) it was shown that accuracy and resolution obtained are comparable to those obtained by LiDAR. However, as reported in the investigations on error sources and obtained precision by (Wackrow and Chandler, 2011;James and Robson, 2012;Micheletti et al, 2014;Nocerino et al, 2014;Bemis et al, 2014) the quality of the photogrammetric results depends principally upon (i) the camera network geometry and (ii) control data.…”