Applied Geomatics

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 231–244 | Cite as

Analysis of the ground sample distance on large photogrammetric surveys

  • Beatriz Felipe-García
  • David Hernández-López
  • José Luis Lerma
Original Paper

Abstract

One of the most important parameters when formalising the specifications for a photogrammetric project is the ground sample distance (GSD). While there are a variety of methods for the computation of the mean GSD for an aerial image, the aim of this research paper is to propose a method for the computation of the GSD that balances both precision and speed of computation. The rigorous computation of the mean GSD on an image requires the evaluation of the ground projection for each pixel over the digital terrain model. Three large photogrammetric projects within the Spanish National Plan for Aerial Orthophotography (PNOA) are evaluated to determine the degree of fulfilment of the required GSDs. The statistical distribution of the GSD is analysed to confirm its (lack of) normality. The rigorous approach to compute the mean GSD was presented, tested and compared with ten approximate solutions based on regular patterns of GSDs. The results achieved with the mean GSD value based on two object points with maximum and minimum ground elevations per image are also presented as well as the base/height ratios achieved on the three large PNOA projects. It is empirically demonstrated that the computation of the mean GSD based on a pattern of 3 × 3 GSDs is recommended. An error better than 1 cm is achieved for 99.8 % of the images, independent of the topography of the mission.

Keywords

Aerial flight mission Quality control Orthophoto Ground sample distance (GSD) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the support provided by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional. The support of the Ministry of Science and Innovation to the project HAR2010-18620 is also acknowledged.

References

  1. Arozarena Villar A, García Asensio L, Villa Alcázar G, Hermosilla Cárdenas J, Arozarena Villar A, García Asensio L, Villa Alcázar G, Hermosilla Cárdenas J, Papí Montanel F, Valcárcel Sanz N, Peces Morera JJ, Doménech Tofiño E, García González C, Tejeiro Orellana JA (2008) Spanish National Plan for Territory Observation (PNOT). The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 37(B4):1729–1733Google Scholar
  2. Baltsavias EP (1999) A comparison between photogrammetry and laser scanning. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing 54(2–3):83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CGIAR (2008) The CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information, Available at: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org. Accessed 20 November 2009
  4. Cramer M (2006) Calibration and validation of digital airborne cameras. Proceedings ISPRS Commission I Symposium “From sensors to imagery”, Paris—Marne le Vallee, July 4–6Google Scholar
  5. Demirel AS, Akdeniz H, Aksu O (2004) Two functional software for internal use; flight planning and presenting of digital orthophotos. Proceedings of Commission IV, XXth ISPRS Congress, 12-23 July, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 344–347Google Scholar
  6. Ferrano G, Neumann KJ, Doerstel Ch (2004) New quality standards for digital images. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 35(B2):249–253Google Scholar
  7. Grenzdörffer GJ (2008) Medium format digital cameras—a EuroSDR project. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 37(B1):1043–1049Google Scholar
  8. Kraus K (1993) Photogrammetry, volume 1: fundamentals and standard processes. Dümmler, BonnGoogle Scholar
  9. Kraus K (2007) Photogrammetry, geometry from images and laser scans, 2nd edn. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McGlone JC, Mikhail EM, Bethel J (2004) Manual of photogrammetry, Fifth edition, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  11. Neumann KJ (2004) Operational aspects of digital aerial mapping cameras. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 35(B1):222–225Google Scholar
  12. Neumann KJ (2008) Trends for digital aerial mapping cameras. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 37(B1):551–553Google Scholar
  13. Park HM (2008) Univariate analysis and normality test using SAS. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University, Stata and SPSS. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  14. Ruzgienė B (2004) Requirements for aerial photography. Geodesy and Cartography 30(3):75–79Google Scholar
  15. Stensaas GL (2007) U.G. geological survey digital aerial mapping camera certification and quality assurance plan for digital imagery. In: Fritsch D (ed) Photogrammetric week ’07. Wichmann, Heidelberg, pp 107–116Google Scholar
  16. Stensaas G, Lee G (2008) Driving toward a worldwide acceptance procedure for digital airborne sensors. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 37(B1):561–566Google Scholar
  17. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1:80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wolf PR, Dewitt BA (2000) Elements of photogrammetry with applications in GIS, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fotogrammetria e Topografia (SIFET) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz Felipe-García
    • 1
  • David Hernández-López
    • 2
  • José Luis Lerma
    • 3
  1. 1.Instituto de Desarrollo RegionalUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaAlbaceteSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Ingeniería Geológica y MineraUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaAlbaceteSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Ingeniería Cartográfica, Geodesia y FotogrametríaUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations