Scholarly record
MAKING 3D MODELS USING CLOSE-RANGE PHOTOGRAMMETRY: COMPARSION OF CAMERAS AND SOFTWARE
Abstract
Aim of the study is to unveil how the choice of software and cameras influences the quality of 3D models. There were compared three different softwares: (1) Pix4D (2) Agisoft Phtoscan, and (3) Visual SFM with dense cloud module Yasutaka Furukawa's CMVS tool and four different cameras (1) Canon EOS 760D, (2) Canon EOS 600D, (3) Canon Ixus 185, and (4) Sony Xperia Z1 smartphone camera D5503. Cameras represent different price segments and technical parameters. The photos were taken with all the cameras from identical positions during two photo sessions (obtaining altogether 8 sets of photos). Comparison of primary 3D models, dense point clouds revealed that in terms of visual appeal, results were the best with Agisoft Phtoscan, which was the only software that managed to create visually appealing dense point cloud from photos taken with smartphone camera. Geometric quality of models was further investigated using Agisoft Pohotoscan software. Hypothesis was that digital single-lens reflex cameras will perform better in terms of model accuracy. The results were surprising. In case of first photo session, Canon EOS 760D images delivered a model with largest total error (5.9 mm) and model made of photos taken with Canon Ixus 185 was the most accurate (total error of the model 3.4 mm). Total errors of the models built from images of the second photo session were significantly larger. Worst result was obtained using Sony Xperia Z1 camera (total error 17.9 mm), Canon EOS 600D performed best (total error of the model 11.2 mm). It is hard to interpret the results as Agisoft Photosan is a commercial software with closed source code (so-called ?black-box? programme). In current research, model accuracy was calculated in reference to 19?23 check points measured with total station. In archaeology, it is important to document the exact volumes of structures and artefacts, therefore in the future dense 3D point clouds should be compared to reference data obtained with terrestrial laser scanner.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References10
Agisoft Phtoscan… (2018): Agisoft PhotoScan User Manual: Professional Edition, Version 1.4. http://www.agisoft.com/pdf/PhotoScan-pro_1_4_en.pdf (15.05.2018).
Kangur, M. (2016). Fotokaameraga tehtud fotode põhjal loodud 3D mudeli kvaliteeti mõjutavad faktorid. Bakalaureusetöö. Eesti Maaülikooli metsandus- ja maaehitusinstituut. Tartu. 52 lk. https://dspace.emu.ee/xmlui/handle/10492/2631
Liba, N. (2005). Fotogramm-meetria alused. Tartu. 303 pp.
Liba, N., Berg-Jurgens, J. (2015). Accuracy of Orthomosaic Generated by Different Methods in Example of UAV Platform “MUST Q”. Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Innovative Materials, Structures and Technologies. IOP Publishing Ltd.
Liba, N., Berg-Jürgens, J., Järve, I. (2016) Impact of the Use of Ground Control Points on the Accuracy of Orthomosaic in Example of UAV platform “MUST Q”. 16th Interantional Multidisciplinary Acientific Geoconference SGEM 2016.
Luhmann, T., Robson, S., Kyle, S., Harley, I. (2006). Close Range Photogrammetry. Principles, techniques and applications. Whittles Publishing.
Niederheiser, R., Mokroš, M., Lange, J., Petschko, H., Prasicek, G., Elberink, S.O. (2016). Deriving 3D Point Clouds from Terrestrial Photographs – Comparison of Different Sensors and Software. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLI-B5, pp 685–692.
Pasumansky, A 2014: Comments by Agisoft PhotoScan team member and programmer in user forum https://www.agisoft.com/forum/index.php?topic=2687.0 (accessed 15.05.2018).
Sepp, E., Oja, T., Kohv, M. (2016). UAV-ga kogutud andmete põhjal loodud ortofoto ja reljeefimudeli täpsus. Kaugseire Eestis 2016. Artiklikogumik. Pp 49–59.
Westoby, M.J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., Reynolds, J.M. (2012).‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179. Pp 300–314.
Citing literature
Number of times cited according to Crossref: 3
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.
