Photogrammetric material mapping of heritage facades under constrained survey conditions
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates facade-scale photogrammetric material mapping of architectural heritage under constrained survey conditions. High-resolution orthophotos derived from terrestrial image acquisition were analyzed using a color-encoded Pixel Texture Segmentation (PTS) framework comprising eight material classes. To complement qualitative inspection, a region-of-interest (ROI)-based quantitative validation scheme was implemented using confusion matrices and intersection-over-union (IoU) metrics. Four facades of the Adana Ulu Mosque were examined to evaluate facade-dependent variability in segmentation performance. The results indicate pronounced orientation-related differences in classification stability. Dominant masonry classes, particularly clean and weathered limestone, achieved moderate to high IoU values across multiple facades. In contrast, visually similar or spatially limited materials, such as brick infill, decorative bands, and metal elements, exhibited systematic misclassification patterns. These findings define the operational reliability limits of texture-based segmentation and highlight the importance of transparent facade-scale validation in digital heritage documentation under constrained survey conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. Lercari, N. et al. Building cultural heritage resilience through remote sensing: an integrated approach using multi-temporal site monitoring, datafication, and Web-GL visualization. Remote Sens. 13, 4130, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13204130 (2021).10.3390/rs13204130 ↗
2. Patrucco, G., Gómez, A., Adineh, A., Rahrig, M. & Lerma, J. L. 3D data fusion for historical analyses of heritage buildings using thermal images: the Palacio de Colomina as a case study. Remote Sens. 14, 5699, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14225699 (2022).10.3390/rs14225699 ↗
3. Agapiou, A. & Skarlatos, D. Geomatic sensors for heritage documentation: a meta-analysis of the scientific literature. Heritage 6, 6843–6861, https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6100357 (2023).10.3390/heritage6100357 ↗
4. Yang, S., Xu, S. & Huang, W. 3D Point Cloud for Cultural Heritage: A Scientometric Survey. Remote Sens. 14, 5542, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14215542 (2022).10.3390/rs14215542 ↗
5. Letellier R. Recording, Documentation, and Information Management for the Conservation of Heritage Places. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute; 2007.
6. Stylianidis E., Remondino F. 3D Recording, Documentation and Management of Cultural Heritage. Dunbeath: Whittles Publishing; 2016.
7. Historic England. 3D Laser Scanning for Heritage: Advice and Guidance. Swindon: Historic England; (2017).
8. Gonizzi Barsanti, S., Remondino, F. & Visintini, D. Photogrammetry and laser scanning for archaeological site 3D modeling—Some critical issues. CEUR Workshop Proc. 948, B1–B10 (2012).
9. McGlone, J. C. Manual of Photogrammetry, 6th ed. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: Bethesda, (2013).
10. Llamas, J., Lerones, P., Medina, R., Zalama, E. & Gómez-García-Bermejo, J. Classification of architectural heritage images using deep learning techniques. Appl. Sci. 7, 992, https://doi.org/10.3390/app7100992 (2017).10.3390/app7100992 ↗
11. Westoby, M. J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N. F., Hambrey, M. J. & Reynolds, J. M. Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179, 300–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021 (2012).10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021 ↗
12. Historic England. Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice. Swindon: Historic England. (2016).
13. Grilli, E. & Remondino, F. Classification of 3D Digital Heritage. Remote Sens. 11, 847, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11070847 (2019).10.3390/rs11070847 ↗
14. Long, J. Shelhamer, E.; Darrell, T. Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmentation. CVPR (2015) 3431–3440. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2015.729896510.1109/CVPR.2015.7298965 ↗
15. Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T. U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. MICCAI (2015) 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_2810.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28 ↗
16. Hackel, T., Wegner, J. D. & Schindler, K. Fast semantic segmentation of 3D point clouds with strongly varying density. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. III-3, 177–184 (2016).
17. Grilli, E., Menna, F. & Remondino, F. A review of point cloud segmentation and classification algorithms. ISPRS Int. Arch. Photogramm., Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XLII-2/W3, 339–344 (2017).
18. Zhao, J. et al. A review of point cloud segmentation of architectural cultural heritage. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm., Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-X-1-W1-2023-247-2023 (2023).10.5194/isprs-annals-X-1-W1-2023-247-2023 ↗
19. Buldo, M. et al. Semantic enrichment of architectural heritage point clouds using machine learning. Heritage 7, 321, https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7120321 (2024).10.3390/heritage7120321 ↗
20. Verhoeven, G. Taking computer vision aloft—archaeological three-dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with PhotoScan. Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 67–73, https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.399 (2011).10.1002/arp.399 ↗
21. Hackel, T. et al. Semantic3D.net: A New Large-Scale Point Cloud Classification Benchmark. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2017, IV-1/W1, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1704.0384710.48550/arXiv.1704.03847 ↗
22. Congalton, R. G. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 37, 35–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(91)90048-B (1991).10.1016/0034-4257(91)90048-B ↗
23. Foody, G. M. Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 80, 185–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00295-4 (2002).10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00295-4 ↗
24. Jaccard, P. The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. N. Phytol. 11, 37–50 (1912).10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x ↗
25. Everingham, M., Van Gool, L., Williams, C. K. I., Winn, J. & Zisserman, A. The Pascal Visual Object Classes (VOC) Challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 88, 303–338, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-009-0275-4 (2010).10.1007/s11263-009-0275-4 ↗
26. Canny, J. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE TPAMI 8, 679–698, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851 (1986).10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851 ↗
27. Furukawa, Y. & Ponce, J. Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis. IEEE TPAMI 32, 1362–1376, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2009.161 (2010).10.1109/TPAMI.2009.161 ↗
28. Ahonen, T., Hadid, A. & Pietikäinen, M. Face description with local binary patterns: application to face recognition. IEEE TPAMI 28, 2037–2041, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2006.244 (2006).10.1109/TPAMI.2006.244 ↗
29. Guo, Z., Zhang, L. & Zhang, D. A completed modeling of local binary pattern operator for texture classification. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 19, 1657–1663, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2010.2044957 (2010).10.1109/TIP.2010.2044957 ↗
30. Belgiu, M. & Drăguţ, L. Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 114, 24–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.01.011 (2016).10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.01.011 ↗
31. Kittler, J., Hatef, M., Duin, R. P. W. & Matas, J. On combining classifiers. IEEE TPAMI 20, 226–239, https://doi.org/10.1109/34.667881 (1998).10.1109/34.667881 ↗
32. Huang, T. S., Yang, G. J. & Tang, G. Y. A fast two-dimensional median filtering algorithm. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech, Signal Process. 27, 13–18, https://doi.org/10.1109/TASSP.1979.1163188 (1979).10.1109/TASSP.1979.1163188 ↗
33. Sokolova, M. & Lapalme, G. A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Inf. Process. Manag. 45, 427–437, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2009.03.002 (2009).10.1016/j.ipm.2009.03.002 ↗
34. Pierdicca, R. et al. Point Cloud semantic segmentation using a deep learning framework for cultural heritage. Remote Sens 12, 1005, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12061005 (2020).10.3390/rs12061005 ↗
35. Matrone, F. et al. Comparing machine and deep learning methods for large 3D heritage semantic segmentation. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 9, 535, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9090535 (2020).10.3390/ijgi9090535 ↗
36. Grilli, E. & Remondino, F. Machine learning generalisation across different 3D architectural heritage. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 9, 379, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9060379 (2020).10.3390/ijgi9060379 ↗
37. Remondino, F. Heritage recording and 3D modeling with photogrammetry. Remote Sens. 3, 1104–1138, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs3061104 (2011).10.3390/rs3061104 ↗
38. Ojala, T., Pietikäinen, M. & Mäenpää, T. Multiresolution Gray-Scale and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24, 971–987, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2002.1017623 (2002).10.1109/TPAMI.2002.1017623 ↗