Applied Geomatics

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 123–134 | Cite as

Comparison of GRASS-LiDAR modules–TerraScan with respect to vegetation filtering

  • Maria Antonia Brovelli
  • Sara LuccaEmail author
Original Paper


The work presents the comparison of results obtained with two different methods for filtering LiDAR data, focusing specifically on ground (bare Earth) and vegetation classification. Data was filtered with TerraScan, a leading proprietary software for processing LiDAR point clouds, and with the specific modules available in GRASS GIS. The LiDAR dataset (1.5 points/m2) was produced with an Optech ALTM Gemini and covers an area of the Sardinia region where there are available also orthophotos and false color infrared images, both with resolution of 20 cm. Concerning TerraScan two classifications were computed: the former is a completely automatic and the latter is a semi-automatic one, with a heavy manual reclassification of the previously obtained automatic results. In GRASS GIS the modules developed by the Geomatic Laboratory of the Politecnico di Milano were applied; parameters to be used by the modules were at first calibrated on specific training sub-areas. The purpose of the work is the evaluation of the accuracy in ground and vegetation extraction. Moreover, since GRASS divides points belonging to vegetation in two classes, corresponding to high and low vegetation, the comparison is done for the latter category. The choice of concentrating on this category is motivated by the greater difficulty in distinguishing between terrain and low vegetation. As “ground truth” the result of the supervised classification performed on the orthophotos and the false color infrared images was used.


Vegetation Classification LiDAR GRASS TerraScan Comparison 



We would like to thank Regione Sardinia for having provided the LiDAR dataset, the orthophoto, and the false color infrared image for the experimentation area. We would like to thank Blom-CGR (Compagnia Generale Ripreseaeree), in particular Simone Ceresini and Andrea Orsi, for having provided the TerraScan results.

This research was partially supported by grants of the Italian Ministry for School, University and Scientific Research (MIUR) in the frame of the project MIUR-COFIN 2007 “Free and open source geoservices as interoperable tools for sharing geographic data through the internet”.


  1. Axelsson P (1999) Processing of laser scanner data—algorithms and applications. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 54(1999):138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bretar F, Chehata N (2007) Digital terrain model on vegetated areas: joint use of airborne LiDAR data and optical images. Photogramm Image Anal 36(3/W49A):19–24Google Scholar
  3. Brovelli MA, Cannata M (2002) Digital terrain model reconstruction in urban areas from airborne laser scanning data: the method and the example of the town of Pavia (Northern Italy). Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens 34:43–48Google Scholar
  4. Brovelli MA, Lucca S (2009) Inverse calibration of LiDAR filtering parameters: UCODE/GRASS integration. Proceedings of ISPRS Hannover Workshop “High-resolution Earth Imaging for Geospatial Information”, Hannover, Germany, 2–5 JuneGoogle Scholar
  5. Barazzetti L, Brovelli MA, Valentini L (2010) LiDAR digital building models for true orthophoto generation. Applied Geomatics 2:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brovelli MA, Cannata M, Longoni UM (2004) LiDAR data filtering and DTM interpolation within GRASS. Trans GIS 8(2):155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Matikainen L, Kaartinen H, Hyyppa J (2007) Classification tree based building detection from laser scanner and aerial image data. ISPRS Work Laser Scan SilviLaser 36(Part 3/W52):280–287Google Scholar
  8. Poeter EP, Hills MC (1998) Documentation of UCODE, a computer code for universal inverse modelling. Water-Resources investigations report pp. 1–116Google Scholar
  9. Poeter EP, Hills MC, Banta ER, Mehl S, Christensen S (2008) UCODE_2005 and six other computer codes for universal sensitivity analysis, calibration and uncertainty evaluation. Book 6 (11) Modeling Techniques, Section A. Ground Water Google Scholar
  10. Secord J, Zakhor A (2007) Tree detection in urban regions using aerial LiDAR and image data. Geosci Remote Sens Lett IEEE 4:196–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sithole G (2005) Segmentation and Classification of Airborne Laser Scanner Data. Publication on Geodesy 59, NCG, Netherlands Geodetic Commission (ISBN 9061322928)Google Scholar
  12. Steinle E, Vogtle T (2001) Automated extraction and reconstruction of buildings in laserscanning data for disaster management. Automatic extraction of mad-made objects from aerial and space images (III), Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 309–318Google Scholar
  13. Tarsha-Kurdi F, Landes T, Grussenmeyer P, Smigiel E (2006) New approach for automatic detection of buildings in airborne laser scanner data using first echo only. ISPRS Symposium of Commission III—Photogrammetric Computer Vision, pp. 20–22Google Scholar
  14. Tovari D, Pfeifer N (2005) Segmentation based robust interpolation—a new approach to laser data filtering. Proc ISPRS Work Laser Scan 36:79–84Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fotogrammetria e Topografia (SIFET) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIIARPolitecnico di MilanoComoItaly

Personalised recommendations