UAV Platforms and the SfM-MVS Approach in the 3D Surveys and Modelling: A Review in the Cultural Heritage Field
Source abstract
Abstract
In recent years, structure from motion (SfM) and multi-view stereo (MVS) algorithms have been successfully applied to stereo images generated by cameras mounted on unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) platforms to build 3D models. Indeed, the approach based on the combination of SfM-MVS and UAV-generated images allows for cost-effective acquisition, fast and automated processing, and detailed and accurate reconstruction of 3D models. As a consequence, this approach has become very popular for representation, management, and conservation in the field of cultural heritage (CH). Therefore, this review paper discusses the use of UAV photogrammetry in CH environments with a focus on state of the art trends and best practices in image acquisition technologies and 3D model-building software. In particular, this paper intends to emphasise the different techniques of image acquisition and processing in relation to the different platforms and navigation systems available, as well as to analyse and deepen the aspects of 3D reconstruction that efficiently describe the entire photogrammetric process, providing further insights for new applications in different fields, such as structural engineering and conservation and maintenance restoration of sites and structures belonging to the CH field.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage · Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications · Robotics and Sensor-Based Localization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Engineering and Geology (InGeo), “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro, 42, 65127 Pescara, Italy
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, del Territorio, Edile e di Chimica, Polytechnic University of Bari, Via E. Orabona 4, 70125 Bari, Italy
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: A review10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.02.013 ↗
2. Tsouros, D.C., Bibi, S., and Sarigiannidis, P.G. (2019). A review on UAV-based applications for precision agriculture. Information, 10.10.3390/info10110349 ↗
3. Field application of UAS-based bridge inspection10.1177/0361198118780825 ↗
4. Esposito, S., Fallavollita, P., Melis, M.G., Balsi, M., and Jankowski, S. (June, January 27). UAS imaging for archaeological survey and documentation. Proceedings of the Photonics Applications in Astronomy, Communications, Industry, and High-Energy Physics Experiments 2013, Wilga, Poland.10.1117/12.2035318 ↗
5. Survey and photogrammetric restitution of monumental complexes: Issues and solutions—The case of the manfredonic castle of mussomeli10.3390/heritage2010050 ↗
6. Girelli, V.A., Borgatti, L., Dellapasqua, M., Mandanici, E., Spreafico, M.C., Tini, M.A., and Bitelli, G. (September, January 28). Integration of geomatics techniques for digitizing highly relevant geological and cultural heritage sites: The case of san leo (italy). Proceedings of the 26th International CIPA Symposium 2017, Ottawa, ON, Canada.10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-281-2017 ↗
7. Drones in archaeology. State-of-the-art and future perspectives10.1002/arp.1569 ↗
8. Opitz, R.S., and Cowley, D.C. (2013). Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation, and Observation, Oxbow. Occasional Publications of the Aerial Archaeology Research Group 5.10.2307/j.ctvh1dqdz ↗
9. Saleri, R., Cappellini, V., Nony, N., De Luca, L., Pierrot-Deseilligny, M., Bardiere, E., and Campi, M. (November, January 28). UAV photogrammetry for archaeological survey: The Theaters area of Pompeii. Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage), Marseille, France.10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6744818 ↗
10. Mouget, A., and Lucet, G. (2014, January 23–25). Photogrammetric archaeological survey with UAV. Proceedings of the ISPRS Technical Commission V Symposium, Riva del Garda, Italy.10.5194/isprsannals-II-5-251-2014 ↗
11. Adami, A., Fregonese, L., Gallo, M., Helder, J., Pepe, M., and Treccani, D. (2019, January 2–3). Ultra light UAV systems for the metrical documentation of cultural heritage: Applications for architecture and archaeology. Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop LowCost 3D–Sensors, Algorithms, Applications, Strasbourg, France.10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W17-15-2019 ↗
12. Kadhim, I., and Abed, F.M. (2021). The Potential of LiDAR and UAV-photogrammetric data analysis to interpret archaeological sites: A Case Study of Chun Castle in South-West England. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 10.10.3390/ijgi10010041 ↗
13. UAV in Development of 3D Heritage Monument Model: A Case Study of Kota Gullu, Warangal, India10.1007/s12524-020-01250-0 ↗
14. The use of UAV photogrammetry in modeling ancient structures: A case study of “Kanytellis”
15. UAV photogrammetry and 3D modelling of complex architecture for maintenance purposes: The case study of the masonry bridge on the Sele river, Italy
16. Integrated Geomatic Techniques for the Localization and Georeferencing of Ancient Hermitages10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVI-M-1-2021-31-2021 ↗
17. Ozimek, A., Ozimek, P., Skabek, K., and Labędź, P. (2021). Digital modelling and accuracy verification of a complex architectural object based on photogrammetric reconstruction. Buildings, 11.10.3390/buildings11050206 ↗
18. Combination of HBIM and UAV photogrammetry for modelling and documentation of forgotten heritage. Case study: Isabel II dam in Níjar (Almería, Spain)10.1186/s40494-021-00571-8 ↗
19. The Application of Photogrammetry in Architecture Historical Documentation: The measured drawing of Tanjung Sembrong Mosque and Teratak Selari Bonda10.1088/1755-1315/1022/1/012007 ↗
20. The history and the evolution of UAVs from the beginning till the 70s
21. Unmanned aerial vehicle in military operations
22. Vogler, L.C.A., and Hughes, T. Anything but ‘drone’: Why Naming Matters.
23. Less talk more drone: Social research with UAVs10.1080/03098265.2014.1003799 ↗
24. Major, R. (2012). RQ-2 Pioneer: The Flawed System that Redefined US Unmanned Aviation, Air Command And Staff College Mawell AFB United States.
25. Saboor, A., Coene, S., Vinogradov, E., Tanghe, E., Joseph, W., and Pollin, S. (2021). Elevating the future of mobility: UAV-enabled Intelligent Transportation Systems. arXiv.10.36227/techrxiv.16826743.v1 ↗
26. Mohsan, S.A.H., Othman, N.Q.H., Khan, M.A., Amjad, H., and Żywiołek, J. (2022). A Comprehensive Review of Micro UAV Charging Techniques. Micromachines, 13.10.3390/mi13060977 ↗
27. Barnhart, R.K., Marshall, D.M., and Shappee, E. (2021). Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, CRC Press.10.1201/9780429347498 ↗
28. Austin, R. (2011). Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAVS Design, Development and Deployment, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470664797 ↗
29. Mini Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAV)-A Review of the Parameters for Classification of a Mini UAV
30. Eisenbeiß, H. (2009). UAV Photogrammetry. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Technology Dresden].
31. Investigation of UAV systems and flight modes for photogrammetric applications10.1111/j.1477-9730.2011.00657.x ↗
32. Quan, Q. (2017). Introduction to Multicopter Design and Control, Springer.10.1007/978-981-10-3382-7 ↗
33. Verbeke, J., Hulens, D., Ramon, H., Goedeme, T., and De Schutter, J. (2014, January 27–30). The design and construction of a high endurance hexacopter suited for narrow corridors. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Orlando, FL, USA.10.1109/ICUAS.2014.6842296 ↗
34. Singhal, G., Bansod, B., and Mathew, L. (2018). Unmanned aerial vehicle classification, applications and challenges: A review. Preprints.10.20944/preprints201811.0601.v1 ↗
35. Single point positioning using full and fractional pseudorange measurements from GPS and BDS10.1080/00396265.2019.1683327 ↗
36. Kaplan, E.D., and Hegarty, C. (2017). Understanding GPS/GNSS: Principles and Applications, Artech House.
37. CORS architecture and evaluation of positioning by low-cost GNSS receiver10.3846/gac.2018.1255 ↗
38. Schwieger, V., Lilje, M., and Sarib, R. (2009, January 19–22). GNSS CORS-Reference frames and services. Proceedings of the 7th FIG Regional Conference, Hanoi, Vietnam.
39. Tomaštík, J., Mokroš, M., Surovỳ, P., Grznárová, A., and Merganič, J. (2019). UAV RTK/PPK method—An optimal solution for mapping inaccessible forested areas?. Remote Sens., 11.10.3390/rs11060721 ↗
40. Evaluating the potential of post-processing kinematic (PPK) georeferencing for UAV-based structure-from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry and surface change detection10.5194/esurf-7-807-2019 ↗
41. Pepe, M., Costantino, D., Vozza, G., and Alfio, V.S. (2021). Comparison of two approaches to gnss positioning using code pseudoranges generated by smartphone device. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11114787 ↗
42. (2022, September 05). Jason. Available online: https://jason.docs.rokubun.cat/strategies/.
43. Krajník, T., Vonásek, V., Fišer, D., and Faigl, J. (2011, January 15-17). AR-drone as a platform for robotic research and education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Research and Education in Robotics, Prague, Czech Republic.10.1007/978-3-642-21975-7_16 ↗
44. Woodman, O.J. (2007). An Introduction to Inertial Navigation, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory.
45. de Alteriis, G., Conte, C., Moriello, R.S.L., and Accardo, D. (2020, January 22–24). Use of consumer-grade MEMS inertial sensors for accurate attitude determination of drones. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 7th International Workshop on Metrology for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace), Pisa, Italy.10.1109/MetroAeroSpace48742.2020.9160134 ↗
46. Direct georeferencing of ultrahigh-resolution UAV imagery10.1109/TGRS.2013.2265295 ↗
47. Petovello, M.G. (2003). Real-Time Integration of a Tactical-Grade IMU and GPS for High-Accuracy Positioning and Navigation. [Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Calgary].
48. Cazzaniga, N.E. (2007). Sviluppo e implementazione di algoritmi per la navigazione inerziale assistita. [PhD Thesis, Tesi di dottorato].
49. A new calibration method using low cost MEM IMUs to verify the performance of UAV-borne MMS payloads10.3390/s150306560 ↗
50. Tightly coupled GPS/INS integration for missile applications10.1016/j.ast.2004.07.003 ↗
51. Direct georeferencing on small unmanned aerial platforms for improved reliability and accuracy of mapping without the need for ground control points10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-1-W4-397-2015 ↗
52. Chung, P.-H., Ma, D.-M., and Shiau, J.-K. (2019). Design, manufacturing, and flight testing of an experimental flying wing UAV. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9153043 ↗
53. Photogrammetric mission planner for RPAS10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-1-W4-61-2015 ↗
54. Planning airborne photogrammetry and remote-sensing missions with modern platforms and sensors10.1080/22797254.2018.1444945 ↗
55. Moustris, G., and Tzafestas, C. (2020). Image-Guided Motion Compensation for Robotic-Assisted Beating Heart Surgery. Handbook of Robotic and Image-Guided Surgery, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-814245-5.00021-9 ↗
56. Neumann, K.J. (2005). Digital Aerial Cameras, Intergraph Z/I Deutschland GmbH.
57. An automatic approach to UAV flight planning and control for photogrammetric applications10.14358/PERS.79.1.87 ↗
58. (2022, September 13). Pix4D Capture. Available online: https://www.pix4d.com/product/pix4dcapture.
59. (2022, September 13). UgCS UAV Mission Planning. Available online: https://www.geometrics.com/software/ugcs-uav-mission-planning-software/.
60. (2022, September 13). Uav Flight Map Pro Planner. Available online: www.uavflightmap.com.
61. (2022, September 13). DJI GS PRO. Available online: https://www.dji.com/it/ground-station-pro.
62. (2022, September 13). eMotion. Available online: https://www.sensefly.com/drone-software/emotion/.
63. Photogrammetric modelling of sakahane masjid using an unmanned aerial vehicle10.31127/tuje.316675 ↗
64. Hong, Y., Fang, J., and Tao, Y. Ground control station development for autonomous UAV. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications.
65. (2022, September 02). License To Fly. Available online: https://surfshark.com/drone-privacy-laws.
66. (2022, September 02). Global Drone Regulations Database. Available online: https://www.droneregulations.info/.
67. Kutila, M., Korpinen, J., and Viitanen, J. (2001, January 27–29). Camera calibration in machine automation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Machine Automation, ICMA 2000, Osaka, Japan.10.1016/B978-044450649-8/50036-X ↗
68. Close-range camera calibration
69. Verhoeven, G., Wieser, M., Briese, C., and Doneus, M. (2013, January 2–6). Positioning in time and space: Cost-effective exterior orientation for airborne archaeological photographs. Proceedings of the XXIV International CIPA Symposium, Strasbourg, France.10.5194/isprsannals-II-5-W1-313-2013 ↗
70. Georeferencing experiments with UAS imagery10.5194/isprsannals-II-1-25-2014 ↗
71. The use of direct georeferencing in aerial photogrammetry with micro UAV
72. Georeferencing of close range photogrammetric data
73. 10 years of direct georeferencing for airborne photogrammetry
74. Digital camera self-calibration10.1016/S0924-2716(97)00005-1 ↗
75. Optimization of ground control point (GCP) configuration for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) survey using structure from motion (SFM)10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W12-167-2019 ↗
76. Assessment of UAV-photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation of ground control points
77. Direct georeferencing using GPS/inertial exterior orientations for photogrammetric applications
78. Fraser, C.S. (September, January 28). Network Design in Close-range Photogrammetry and Machine Vision. Proceedings of the 26th International CIPA Symposium 2017, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
79. Fraser, C. (2018, January 3–7). Camera calibration considerations for UAV photogrammetry. Proceedings of the ISPRS TC II Symposium: Towards Photogrammetry, Riva del Garda, Italy.
80. Solem, J.E. (2012). Programming Computer Vision with Python: Tools and Algorithms for Analyzing Images, O’Reilly Media, Inc.
81. Hartley, R., and Zisserman, A. (2003). Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511811685 ↗
82. Efficient structure from motion for large-scale UAV images: A review and a comparison of SfM tools10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.04.016 ↗
83. Sift-the scale invariant feature transform
84. Fischler, M.A., and Bolles, R.C. (1987). Perceptual organization and curve partitioning. Readings in Computer Vision, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-08-051581-6.50026-X ↗
85. Bianco, S., Ciocca, G., and Marelli, D. (2018). Evaluating the performance of structure from motion pipelines. J. Imaging, 4.10.3390/jimaging4080098 ↗
86. Nocedal, J., and Wright, S.J. (1999). Numerical Optimization, Springer.10.1007/b98874 ↗
87. Wei, X., Zhang, Y., Li, Z., Fu, Y., and Xue, X. Deepsfm: Structure from motion via deep bundle adjustment. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision.
88. Multi-view stereo: A tutorial10.1561/0600000052 ↗
89. Seitz, S.M., Curless, B., Diebel, J., Scharstein, D., and Szeliski, R. (2006, January 17–22). A Comparison and Evaluation of Multi-View Stereo Reconstruction Algorithms. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’06), New York, NY, USA.
90. Automatic Camera Calibration in Close Range Photogrammetry10.14358/PERS.79.4.381 ↗
91. Accurate, Dense, and Robust Multiview Stereopsis10.1109/TPAMI.2009.161 ↗
92. Goesele, M., Snavely, N., Curless, B., Hoppe, H., and Seitz, S.M. (2007, January 14–21). Multi-View Stereo for Community Photo Collections. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.10.1109/ICCV.2007.4408933 ↗
93. Accurate multiple view 3d reconstruction using patch-based stereo for large-scale scenes10.1109/TIP.2013.2237921 ↗
94. (2022, September 05). Agisoft Metashape. Available online: https://www.agisoft.com/.
95. Tinkham, W.T., and Swayze, N.C. (2021). Influence of Agisoft Metashape parameters on UAS structure from motion individual tree detection from canopy height models. Forests, 12.10.3390/f12020250 ↗
96. (2022, September 05). 3DF Zephyr. Available online: https://www.3dflow.net/it.
97. Oniga, V.-E., Breaban, A.-I., Pfeifer, N., and Chirila, C. (2020). Determining the suitable number of ground control points for UAS images georeferencing by varying number and spatial distribution. Remote Sens., 12.10.3390/rs12050876 ↗
98. (2022, September 05). Autodesk ReCap. Available online: https://www.autodesk.com/products/recap/overview?term=1-YEAR&tab=subscription.
99. Photogrammetry is for everyone: Structure-from-motion software user experiences in archaeology
100. (2022, September 05). Pix4D. Available online: https://www.pix4d.com/.