Assessment of Photogrammetric Performance Test on Large Areas by Using a Rolling Shutter Camera Equipped in a Multi-Rotor UAV
Source abstract
Abstract
The generation of digital aerial photogrammetry products using unmanned aerial vehicle-digital aerial photogrammetry (UAV-DAP) has become an essential task due to the increasing use of UAVs in the world of geomatics, thanks to their low cost and spatial resolution. Therefore, it is relevant to explore the performance of new digital cameras equipped in UAVs using electronic rolling shutters instead of ideal mechanical or global shutter cameras to achieve accurate and reliable photogrammetric products, if possible, while minimizing workload, especially for their application in projects that require a high level of detail. In this paper, we analyse performance using oblique images along the perimeter (3D perimeter) on a flat area, i.e., with slopes of less than 3%. The area was photogrammetrically surveyed with a DJI (Dà-Jiāng Innovations) Inspire 2 multirotor UAV equipped with a Zenmuse X5S rolling shutter camera. The photogrammetric survey was accompanied by a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) survey, in which dual frequency receivers were used to determine the ground control points (GCPs) and checkpoints (CPs). The study analysed different scenarios, including the combination of forward and transversal strips and oblique images. After examining the ideal scenario with the least root mean square error (RMSE), six different combinations were analysed to find the best location for the GCPs. The most significant results indicate that the optimal calibration of the camera is obtained in scenarios including oblique images, which outperform the rest of the scenarios for achieving the lowest RMSE (2.5x the GSD in Z and 3.0x the GSD in XYZ) with optimum GCPs layout; with non-ideal GCPs layout, unacceptable errors can be achieved (11.4x the GSD in XYZ), even with ideal block geometry. The UAV-DAP rolling shutter effect can only be minimised in the scenario that uses oblique images and GCPs at the edges of the overlapping zones and the perimeter.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage · Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications · Optical measurement and interference techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Grupo de Investigación en Fotogrametría y Láser Escáner (GIFLE), Departamento de Ingeniería Cartográfica, Geodesia y Fotogrametría, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
Integrated Remote Sensing Studio, Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Grupo de Investigación en Geovisualización, Espacios Singulares y Patrimonio (GESyP), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ctra. Valencia km 7, 28031 Madrid, Spain
Institute of Geosciences (IGEO), CSIC-UCM, Calle del Doctor Severo Ochoa, 7, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Funding
Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación
References (70)
Show source-provided references
1. Orthomosaics and Digital Elevation Models Generated from Images Taken with UAV Systems
2. Sanz-Ablanedo, E., Chandler, J.H., Rodríguez-Pérez, J.R., and Ordóñez, C. (2018). Accuracy of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and SfM Photogrammetry Survey as a Function of the Number and Location of Ground Control Points Used. Remote Sens., 10.10.3390/rs10101606 ↗
3. Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for High-Resolution Reconstruction of Topography: The Structure from Motion Approach on Coastal Environments10.3390/rs5126880 ↗
4. Topographic Structure from Motion: A New Development in Photogrammetric Measurement10.1002/esp.3366 ↗
5. Unmanned Aerial Systems for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: A Review10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.02.013 ↗
6. Is UAV-SfM Surveying Ready to Replace Traditional Surveying Techniques?
7. Accuracy Assessment of RTK-GNSS Equipped UAV Conducted as-Built Surveys for Construction Site Modelling10.1080/00396265.2020.1830544 ↗
8. Accuracy Assessment of Direct Georeferencing UAV Images with Onboard Global Navigation Satellite System and Comparison of CORS/RTK Surveying Methods10.1088/1361-6501/abf25d ↗
9. Yurtseven, H. (2019). Comparison of GNSS-, TLS- and Different Altitude UAV-Generated Datasets on the Basis of Spatial Differences. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 8.10.3390/ijgi8040175 ↗
10. Gindraux, S., Boesch, R., Farinotti, D., Melgani, F., Nex, F., Kerle, N., and Thenkabail, P. (2017). Accuracy Assessment of Digital Surface Models from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’ Imagery on Glaciers. Remote Sens., 9.10.3390/rs9020186 ↗
11. Pires, A., Chaminé, H.I., Nunes, J.C., Borges, P.A., Garcia, A., Sarmento, E., Antunes, M., Salvado, F., and Rocha, F. (2015). New Mapping Techniques on Coastal Volcanic Rock Platforms Using UAV LiDAR Surveys in Pico Island, Azores (Portugal). Volcanic Rocks and Soils, CRC Press.10.1201/b18897-45 ↗
12. Effect of DEM Resolution on Assessing Hydrological Connectivity in Tropical and Semi-Arid Basins of Central Mexico10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128104 ↗
13. Scale Effect Analysis of Basin Topographic Features Based on Spherical Grid and DEM: Taking the Yangtze River Basin as an Example
14. An Integrated Approach of Flash Flood Analysis in Ungauged Mediterranean Watersheds Using Post-Flood Surveys and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles10.1002/hyp.13913 ↗
15. Hydrological Assessment and Management Implications for the Ancient Nabataean Flood Control System in Petra, Jordan10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126583 ↗
16. Dávila-Hernández, S., González-Trinidad, J., Júnez-Ferreira, H.E., Bautista-Capetillo, C.F., Morales de Ávila, H., Cázares Escareño, J., Ortiz-Letechipia, J., Robles Rovelo, C.O., and López-Baltazar, E.A. (2022). Effects of the Digital Elevation Model and Hydrological Processing Algorithms on the Geomorphological Parameterization. Water, 14.10.3390/w14152363 ↗
17. Mora Mur, D., Ibarra Benlloch, P., Ferrer, D.B., Echeverría Arnedo, M.T., Losada García, J.A., Ojeda, A.O., and Sánchez Fabre, M. (2015). Paisaje y SIG: Aplicación a Los Embalses de La Cuenca Del Ebro. Análisis Espacial y Representación Geográfica: Innovación y Aplicación, Departamento de Geografía y Ordenación del Territorio.
18. Vertical Slip Distribution along Immature Active Thrust and Its Implications for Fault Evolution: A Case Study from Linze Thrust, Hexi Corridor
19. Geomorphic Analysis of Xiadian Buried Fault Zone in Eastern Beijing Plain Based on SPOT Image and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Data10.1080/19475705.2020.1870168 ↗
20. Surface Slip Distribution Along the West Helanshan Fault, Northern China, and Its Implications for Fault Behavior10.1029/2020JB019983 ↗
21. Landslide Mapping and Geomorphologic Change Based on a Sky-View Factor and Local Relief Model: A Case Study in Hongye Village, Taitung
22. Modeling for Temporal Land Subsidence Forecasting Using Field Surveying with Complementary Drone Imagery Testing in Yazd Plain, Iran10.1007/s10661-021-09675-x ↗
23. Geomorphological Characterization of Rivers Using Virtual Globes and Digital Elevation Data: A Case Study from the Naryn River in Kyrgyzstan10.52939/ijg.v17i1.1707 ↗
24. Carbonell-Rivera, J.P., Torralba, J., Estornell, J., Ruiz, L.Á., and Crespo-Peremarch, P. (2022). Classification of Mediterranean Shrub Species from UAV Point Clouds. Remote Sens., 14.10.3390/rs14010199 ↗
25. Nevalainen, O., Honkavaara, E., Tuominen, S., Viljanen, N., Hakala, T., Yu, X., Hyyppä, J., Saari, H., Pölönen, I., and Imai, N.N. (2017). Individual Tree Detection and Classification with UAV-Based Photogrammetric Point Clouds and Hyperspectral Imaging. Remote Sens., 9.10.3390/rs9030185 ↗
26. (2025, January 31). DJI Fixed-Wing vs Multirotor: Which Drone Should You Choose for Aerial Surveying?. Available online: https://enterprise-insights.dji.com/blog/fixed-wing-vs-multirotor-drone-surveying.
27. Analysis of Power Source of Multirotor UAVs
28. Jiménez-Jiménez, S.I., Ojeda-Bustamante, W., Marcial-Pablo, M.D.J., and Enciso, J. (2021). Digital Terrain Models Generated with Low-Cost UAV Photogrammetry: Methodology and Accuracy. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 10.10.3390/ijgi10050285 ↗
29. UAV for 3D Mapping Applications: A Review10.1007/s12518-013-0120-x ↗
30. Quispe, O.C. (2015). GSD Analysis for Generating Cartography Using Drone Technology, Huaca of San Marcos University.
31. Pix4D, S.A. (2017). USER MANUAL Pix4Dmapper 4.1, Pix4D.
32. (2021, June 02). Agisoft Agisoft PhotoScan User Manual—Professional Edition, Version 1.2. Available online: https://www.agisoft.com/pdf/photoscan-pro_1_2_en.pdf.
33. Rolling Shutter Effect on the Accuracy of Photogrammetric Product Produced by Low-Cost UAV10.30897/ijegeo.948676 ↗
34. A Two-Step Approach for the Correction of Rolling Shutter Distortion in UAV Photogrammetry10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.11.020 ↗
35. Photogrammetric accuracy and modeling of rolling shutter cameras
36. Accuracy Assessment Using Different UAV Image Overlaps10.1139/juvs-2018-0014 ↗
37. A Novel Approach of Efficient 3D Reconstruction for Real Scene Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Oblique Photogrammetry with Five Cameras10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.107804 ↗
38. Mitigating Systematic Error in Topographic Models Derived from UAV and Ground-Based Image Networks10.1002/esp.3609 ↗
39. Mora, O.E., Suleiman, A., Chen, J., Pluta, D., Okubo, M.H., and Josenhans, R. (2019). Comparing SUAS Photogrammetrically-Derived Point Clouds with GNSS Measurements and Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Topographic Mapping. Drones, 3.10.3390/drones3030064 ↗
40. Combining Nadir and Oblique UAV Imagery to Reconstruct Quarry Topography: Methodology and Feasibility Analysis10.1080/22797254.2017.1313097 ↗
41. Evaluation of DEM Generation Accuracy from UAS Imagery10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-529-2014 ↗
42. Quantification of the Error of Digital Terrain Models Derived from Images Acquired with UAV10.5154/r.inagbi.2017.03.007 ↗
43. Ferrer-González, E., Agüera-Vega, F., Carvajal-Ramírez, F., and Martínez-Carricondo, P. (2020). UAV Photogrammetry Accuracy Assessment for Corridor Mapping Based on the Number and Distribution of Ground Control Points. Remote Sens., 12.10.3390/rs12152447 ↗
44. Ewertowski, M.W., Tomczyk, A.M., Evans, D.J.A., Roberts, D.H., and Ewertowski, W. (2019). Operational Framework for Rapid, Very-High Resolution Mapping of Glacial Geomorphology Using Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Structure-from-Motion Approach. Remote Sens., 11.10.3390/rs11010065 ↗
45. Arévalo-Verjel, A.N., Lerma, J.L., Prieto, J.F., Carbonell-Rivera, J.P., and Fernández, J. (2022). Estimation of the Block Adjustment Error in UAV Photogrammetric Flights in Flat Areas. Remote Sens., 14.10.3390/rs14122877 ↗
46. (2021, April 05). DroneDeploy.com. Drone Deploy. Available online: https://help.dronedeploy.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500004964162-3D-Models.
47. (2022, November 27). AEMET España—Agencia Estatal de Meteorología. Gobierno de España. Available online: https://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/prediccion/espana.
48. (2022, June 22). Instituto Geográfico Nacional Centro de Descargas Del CNIG (IGN). Available online: http://centrodedescargas.cnig.es/CentroDescargas/index.jsp.
49. Fernandez, J., Prieto, J.F., Escayo, J., Camacho, A.G., Luzón, F., Tiampo, K.F., Palano, M., Abajo, T., Pérez, E., and Velasco, J. (2018). Modeling the Two- and Three-Dimensional Displacement Field in Lorca, Spain, Subsidence and the Global Implications. Sci. Rep., 8.10.1038/s41598-018-33128-0 ↗
50. Methodology for Designing, Observing and Computing of Underground Geodetic Networks of Large Tunnels for High-Speed Railways10.3989/ic.13.172 ↗
51. (2023, May 27). Geosystems Leica Infinity Surveying Software|Leica Geosystems. Available online: https://leica-geosystems.com/products/gnss-systems/software/leica-infinity.
52. Troposphere Mapping Functions for GPS and Very Long Baseline Interferometry from European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Operational Analysis Data10.1029/2005JB003629 ↗
53. Use of the Gyrotheodolite in Underground Networks of Long High-Speed Railway Tunnels10.1179/1752270615Y.0000000043 ↗
54. Krzykowska, K., Siergiejczyk, M., and Rosiński, A. (2018). Influence of Selected External Factors on Satellite Navigation Signal Quality. Safety and Reliability–Safe Societies in a Changing World, CRC Press.10.1201/9781351174664-87 ↗
55. Assesment of the influence of UAV image quality on the orthophoto production10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-1-W4-1-2015 ↗
56. Boletín Oficial Del Estado (BOE) (2015). Real Decreto 1036/2017 de 15 de Diciembre, Government of Spain–Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility.
57. Lerma, J.L.G. (2002). Fotogrametría Moderna: Analítica y Digital, Universitat Politècnica de València.
58. Kraus, K. (1993). Photogrammetry. Volume 1, Fundamentals and Standard Processes, Dümmler.
59. Jansa, J., and Kager, H. (1997). Photogrammetry. Volume 2, Advanced Methods and Applications, Dümmler.
60. High-Precise True Digital Orthoimage Generation and Accuracy Assessment Based on UAV Images10.1007/s12524-021-01364-z ↗
61. Liu, Y., Zheng, X., Ai, G., Zhang, Y., and Zuo, Y. (2018). Generating a High-Precision True Digital Orthophoto Map Based on UAV Images. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 7.10.3390/ijgi7090333 ↗
62. (2021, July 30). Agisoft Aerial Data Processing (with GCPs)—Orthomosaic&DEM Generation: Helpdesk Portal. Available online: https://agisoft.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000153696.
63. Sensor Modelling and Camera Calibration for Close-Range Photogrammetry10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.10.006 ↗
64. Bruno, N., and Forlani, G. (2023). Experimental Tests and Simulations on Correction Models for the Rolling Shutter Effect in UAV Photogrammetry. Remote Sens., 15.10.3390/rs15092391 ↗
65. Federal Geographic Data Committee (1998). Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards Part 3: National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy Subcommittee for Base Cartographic Data Federal Geographic Data Committee, Federal Geographic Data Committee.
66. Sensitivity Analysis of UAV-Photogrammetry for Creating Digital Elevation Models (DEM)10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-1-C22-69-2011 ↗
67. Barba, S., Barbarella, M., Di Benedetto, A., Fiani, M., Gujski, L., and Limongiello, M. (2019). Accuracy Assessment of 3D Photogrammetric Models from an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Drones, 3.10.3390/drones3040079 ↗
68. The Impact of the Calibration Method on the Accuracy of Point Clouds Derived Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Multi-View Stereopsis10.3390/rs70911933 ↗
69. Zimmerman, T., Jansen, K., and Miller, J. (2020). Analysis of UAS Flight Altitude and Ground Control Point Parameters on DEM Accuracy along a Complex, Developed Coastline. Remote Sens., 12.10.3390/rs12142305 ↗
70. Liu, X., Lian, X., Yang, W., Wang, F., Han, Y., and Zhang, Y. (2022). Accuracy Assessment of a UAV Direct Georeferencing Method and Impact of the Configuration of Ground Control Points. Drones, 6.10.3390/drones6020030 ↗