Bundle Block Adjustments in the
practical Close Range applications
Filippo Campolo
Vincenzo Barrile
University
of
Reggio Calabria
Italy
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Why this test ?
Verify the results of four softwares mainly being used in Italian industry and targeting potential “PHOTOMOD” users, and to furnish useful suggestions to those peoples that operate in this sector.
Verify if the results are suitable for monitoring architectural and monumental patrimony.
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Some typical objects of monitoring
Castle of San Niceto, Motta San Giovanni, Italy
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Some typical objects of monitoring
Villa Zerbi, Reggio Calabria, ItalyRacurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Variety of softwares
Commercial Academic
Expensive
Cheap
Only for the research
For development
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
What of this software companies like to buy ?
Mainly multifunction(total solution)
Aerial-photogrammetry and Close Range
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Softwares tested
Socet Set by LH-Systems
Bluh by Hannover University
Visual Giant by ElaSoft
PHOTOMOD by Racurs
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005 Latest versions
First object for test : Altar
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005 Gold altar of Sant’Ambrogio in Milano
Second object for test : Façade
Church of
San Benedetto in
Catania
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Used equipments
Theodolite Wild T3000 (0.1” angular)
Distomat Di3002 (1 mm)
Metric camera by Zeiss (9x13 cm)
Vexcel Scanner (Scan 5 micron)
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Scheme of stripswith allpoints
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Strip 1
Strip 2
1_01 1_02 1_03 1_04
2_01 2_02 2_03 2_04
Control point
Tie point
Check point
Area for search correlation
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Tie points measured
Strip 1
Strip 2
1_01 1_02 1_03 1_04
2_01 2_02 2_03 2_04
Tie point
Area for search correlation
Strip 1
Strip 2
1_01 1_02 1_03 1_04
2_01 2_02 2_03 2_04
Control points marked and measured
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Control point
Strip 1
Strip 2
1_01 1_02 1_03 1_04
2_01 2_02 2_03 2_04
Check points measured
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Check point
Block accurasy evalu tion us ing GCP's, RMS in mm
Altar
Church facade
XY
Z
XY
Z
Bluh Visual GiantSocet SetAxisSubject
0.8 3
0.7 2
0.2 5
0.1 8
Photo mod
0.7 4
0.6 3
0.1 9
0.1 4
0.8 1
0.7 0
0.2 6
0.1 9
0.8 1
0.7 3
0.2 4
0.1 7
Results of the test on the control points
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Results on the control points from Socet Set
Block accurasy evalution using GCP in mm
Altar
Church facade
XY
Z
XY
Z
Average RMSMaxAxisSubject
1.05
0.93
0.7 2
0.40
0.29
0.6 4
0.1 8
0.1 5
0.8 3
0.7 2
0.2 5
0.1 8
Socet Set
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Results on the control points from Bluh
Block accurasy evalution using GCP in mm
Altar
Church facade
XY
Z
XY
Z
Average RMSMaxAxisSubject
0.93
0.82
0.6 8
0.35
0.24
0.6 0
0.1 5
0.1 2
0.7 4
0.6 3
0.1 9
0.1 4
Bluh
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Results on the control points from Visual Giant
Block accurasy evalution using GCP in mm
Altar
Church facade
XY
Z
XY
Z
Average RMSMaxAxisSubject
1.01
0.94
0.6 9
0.42
0.31
0.6 0
0.1 7
0.1 4
0.81
0.70
0.26
0.19
Visual Giant
0.81
0.70
0.26
0.19
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Results on the control points from PHOTOMOD
Block accurasy evalution using GCP in mm
Altar
Church facade
XY
Z
XY
Z
Average RMSMaxAxisSubject
1.04
0.90
0.7 0
0.39
0.28
0.6 5
0.1 9
0.1 6
0.81
0.73
0.24
0.17
Photomod
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Results the test on the check pointsComparative evalution on check points , differences in mm
Altar
Church facade
Bluh Visual GiantSocet SetAxisSubject Photomod
X
Y
Z
X
Y
Z
0.12
0.06
0.10
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.13
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.16
0.12
0.13
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.14
0.12
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Differences on check po ints in mm
Altar
Church facade
Average MaxMinAxisSubject
Socet Set
0.1 0
0.0 5
0.12
0.0 3
0.0 2
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.1 3
0.0 7
0.0 5
0.0 3
0.1 2
0.0 9
0.13
0.11
0.1 6
0.1 2
X
Y
Z
X
Y
Z
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Differences check points: Socet Set
Differences check points: Bluh
Differences on check po ints in mm
Altar
Church facade
X
Y
Z
X
Average MaxMinAxisSubject
Bluh
Y
Z
0.08
0.03
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.10
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Differences on check po ints in mm
Altar
Church faca de
X
Y
Z
X
Average MaxMinAxisSubject
Visual Giant
Y
Z
0.0 9
0.0 3
0.1 0
0.0 4
0.0 3
0.0 6
0.0 5
0.0 4
0.1 2
0.0 8
0.0 6
0.0 6
0.1 3
0.1 0
0.1 4
0.1 0
0.1 7
0.1 4
Differences check points: Visual Giant
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Differences check points: PHOTOMOD
Differences on check po ints in mm
Altar
Church facade
X
Y
Z
X
Average MaxMinAxisSubject
Photomod
Y
Z
0.12
0.03
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.14
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.13
0.08
0.14
0.12
0.17
0.15
Conclusion
A block adjustment is never perfect.
If the adjustment residual errors exceed the tolerance, a great deal of imagination is required to visualize the source of the problem from error values, which only describe the deformation in numerical terms.
After analyzing the errors, the photogrammetrist will often revisit the point marking or mensuration process, and then discard or statistically weight certain points and re-process the data to obtain a better adjustment.
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Modern bundle block adjustment programs also directly output model parameter, including control and image points’ ground coordinates, residual errors in the original measurements and the adjustment, and all-important bundle parameters ( Xo, Yo, Zo, Omega, Phi, Kappa), which define location and attitude of each aerial and close range photograph.
For that it is impossible to say which is the best:
Socet Set
Bluh
Visual Giant
PHOTOMOD
ALL GIVE GOOD RESULTS IN THE
BUNDLE BOCK ADJUSTMENT
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
WHICH ONE IS THE BEST OUT OF THE FOUR?
Our opinion is that the results coming from
“PHOTOMOD”
are very good, and it is very interesting
software to be used in close range applications.
IT IS FOR YOU TO CHOOSERacurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Thanks for attentionand
arrivederci
Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005
Filippo Campolo and Vincenzo Barrile
University of Reggio Calabria
Italy
Top Related