Advertisement

International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 215–234 | Cite as

Fast, Accurate and Consistent Modeling of Drainage and Surrounding Terrain

Article

Abstract

We propose an automated approach to modeling drainage channels—and, more generally, linear features that lie on the terrain—from multiple images. It produces models of the features and of the surrounding terrain that are accurate and consistent and requires only minimal human intervention.

We take advantage of geometric constraints and photommetric knowledge. First, rivers flow downhill and lie at the bottom of valleys whose floors tend to be either V- or U-shaped. Second, the drainage pattern appears in gray-level images as a network of linear features that can be visually detected.

Many approaches have explored individual facets of this problem. Ours unifies these elements in a common framework. We accurately model terrain and features as 3-dimensional objects from several information sources that may be in error and inconsistent with one another. This approach allows us to generate models that are faithful to sensor data, internally consistent and consistent with physical constraints. We have proposed generic models that have been applied to the specific task at hand. We show that the constraints can be expressed in a computationally effective way and, therefore, enforced while initializing the models and then fitting them to the data. Furthermore, these techniques are general enough to work on other features that are constrained by predictable forces.

constrained optimization delineation deformable models rivers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Band, L.E. 1986. Topographic partition of watersheds with digital elevation models. Water Resources Research, 22:15-24.Google Scholar
  2. Brechbühler, C., Gerig, G., and Kübler, O. 1995. Parametrization of closed surfaces for 3-D shape description. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing: Image Understanding, 61(2):154-170.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, L. and Kimmel, R. 1996. Global minimum for active contour models: A minimal path approach. In Conference on Computer Vision andPattern Recognition, San Francisco, CA, pp. 666-673.Google Scholar
  4. Fairfield, J. and Leymarie, P. 1991. Drainage networks from grid digital evaluation models. Water Resources Research, 27(5):709-717.Google Scholar
  5. Fischler, M.A., Tenenbaum, J.M., and Wolf, H.C. 1981. Detection of roads and linear structures in low-resolution aerial imagery using a multisource knowledge integration technique. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 15(3):201-223.Google Scholar
  6. Fischler, M.A. and Wolf, H.C. 1983. Linear delineation. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 351-356.Google Scholar
  7. Fletcher, R. 1987. Practical Methods of Optimization. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore, 2nd edition. Wiley-Interscience Publication.Google Scholar
  8. Fua, P. 1996. Model-based optimization: Accurate and consistent site modeling. In XVIII ISPRS Congress, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  9. Fua, P. and Leclerc, Y.G. 1990. Model driven edge detection. Machine Vision and Applications, 3:45-56.Google Scholar
  10. Fua, P. and Leclerc, Y.G. 1995. Object-centered surface reconstruction: Combining multi-image stereo and shading. International Journal of Computer Vision, 16:35-56.Google Scholar
  11. Fua, P. and Brechbühler, C. 1996. Imposing hard constraints on soft snakes. In European Conference on Computer Vision, Cambridge, England, pp. 495-506. Available as Tech Note 553, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
  12. Fua, P. and Leclerc, Y.G. 1996. Taking advantage of image-based and geometry-based constraints to recover 3-D surfaces. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing: Image Understanding, 64(1):111-127. Also available as Tech Note 536, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
  13. Gill, P.E., Murray, W., and Wright, M.H. 1981. Practical Optimization. Academic Press: London.Google Scholar
  14. Gilluly, J., Waters, A.C., and Woodford, A.O. 1968. Principles of Geology. W.H. Freeman and Company: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Gülch, E. 1988. Results of test on image matching of ISPRS WG III/4. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 27(3):254-271.Google Scholar
  16. Hannah, M.J. 1988. Digital stereo image matching techniques. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 27(3):280-293.Google Scholar
  17. Heipke, C. 1992. Integration of digital image matching and multi image shape from shading. In International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Washington, D.C., pp. 832-841.Google Scholar
  18. Kass, M., Witkin, A., and Terzopoulos, D. 1988. Snakes: Active contour models. International Journal of Computer Vision, 1(4):321-331.Google Scholar
  19. Koenderink, J.J. and van Doorn, J. 1991. Two-plus-one dimensional differential geometry. Pattern Recognition Letters, 15(5):439- 443.Google Scholar
  20. Koenderink, J.J. and van Doorn, J. 1993. Local features of smooth shapes: Ridges and courses. In SPIE, Vol. 2031.Google Scholar
  21. Koh, E., Metaxas, D., and Badler, N. 1994. Hierarchical shape representation using locally adaptative finite elements. In European Conference on Computer Vision, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  22. Lengagne, R., Fua, P., and Monga, O. 1996. Using crest line to guide surface reconstruction from stereo. In International Conference on Image Processing, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  23. McInerney, T. and Terzopoulos, D. 1993. A finite element model for 3D shape reconstruction and nonrigid motion tracking. In International Conference on Computer Vision, Berlin, Germany, pp. 518- 523.Google Scholar
  24. Merlet, N. and Zerubia, J. 1995. New prospects in line detection by dynamic programming. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 18(4).Google Scholar
  25. Metaxas, D. and Terzopoulos, D. 1991. Shape and nonrigid motion estimation through physics-based synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15(6):580-591.Google Scholar
  26. Mortensen, E.N. and Barrett, W.A. 1995. Intelligent scissors for image composition. In Computer Graphics, SIGGRAPH Proceedings, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 191-198.Google Scholar
  27. Mundy, J.L., Welty, R., Quam, L., Strat, T., Bremmer, W., Horwedel, M., Hackett, D., and Hoogs, A. 1992. The RADIUS Common Development Environment. In ARPA Image Understanding Workshop, Morgan Kaufmann: San Diego, CA, pp. 215-226.Google Scholar
  28. O'Callaghan, J., and Mark, D.M. 1984. The extraction of networks from digital elevation data. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing: Image Understanding, 28:323-344.Google Scholar
  29. Paige, C.C. and Saunders, M.A. 1982. LSQR: An algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 8(1).Google Scholar
  30. Rosen, 1961. Gradient projection method for nonlinear programming. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 8:181-217.Google Scholar
  31. Sander, P.T. and Zucker, S.W. 1990. Inferring surface trace and differential structure from 3-D images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 12(9):833-854.Google Scholar
  32. Taubin, G. 1995. Estimating the tensor of curvature of a surface from a polyhedral approximation. In International Conference on Computer Vision. Cambridge, MA, pp. 902-907.Google Scholar
  33. Wrobel, B.P. 1991. The evolution of digital photogrammetry from analytical photogrammetry. Photogrammetric Record, 13(77):765-776.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Fua
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Graphics Lab (LIG), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; and SRI International

Personalised recommendations