Advertisement

3D Image Based Modelling Using Google Earth Imagery for 3D Landscape Modelling

  • Laura InzerilloEmail author
  • Ronald Roberts
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 919)

Abstract

In recent years SfM technique experiments have been innumerable and increasingly refined under metric profiles. The techniques rely on photographic datasets of the objects or landscapes which can require in most cases time consuming and expensive surveys. Recently however there have been increases in the available 3D data of sites worldwide on the Google Earth (GE) platform. This paper presents a unique experimentation that considers integrating readily available datasets from GE and images taken during surveys on ground level for 3D replication without the use of expensive aerial surveys. This will enable practitioners the ability to more easily create 3D models of cultural heritage significance. This paper utilizes the methodology using a church with cultural and architectural significance to the city of Palermo: Santa Caterina D’Alessandria d’Egitto. It aims at verifying the process’ reliability using three chunks of data on the same object; 2 from Ground level cameras and one from GE.

Keywords

SfM Photogrammetry Google Earth Landscape modelling 3D models 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper was carried out as part of the H2020-MSCA-ETN-2016. This project has received funding from the European Union’s H2020 Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement number 721493.

References

  1. Barsanti SG, Remondino F, Visintini D (2012) Photogrammetry and laser scanning for archaeological site 3D modeling-some critical issues. In: Roberto V, Fozzati L (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on ‘the new technologies for aquileia’, pp 1–10. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-948/paper2.pdf
  2. Chen J, Clarke KC (2016) Rapid 3D modeling using photogrammetry applied to Google Earth. In: Proceedings, AutoCarto2016, The 19th international research symposium on computer-based cartography Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, September 14–16, 2016. Edited by S.M. Freundschuh. Online Proceedings published by the Cartography and Geographic Information SocietyGoogle Scholar
  3. Gillan JK et al (2017) Fine-resolution repeat topographic surveying of dryland landscapes using UAS-based structure-from-motion photogrammetry: assessing accuracy and precision against traditional ground-based erosion measurements. Remote Sens 9(5):1–24.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9050437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Inzerillo L (2013) Augmented reality: past, present, future. In: Proceedings of SPIE- The international society for optical engineering, 8649, 86490 EGoogle Scholar
  5. Inzerillo L, Santagati C (2016) Crowdsourcing cultural heritage: from 3D modeling to the engagement of young generations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), LNCS, vol 10058, pp 869–879.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Inzerillo L (2017) Integrated SfM techniques using data set from Google Earth 3D model and from street level. ISPRS Int Arch Photogrammetry Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci XLII-2/W5:361–367.  https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-xlii-2-w5-361-2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lausch A et al (2015) Understanding and quantifying landscape structure - a review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecol Model 295:31–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu K et al (2018) Large-scale mapping of gully-affected areas: an approach integrating Google Earth images and terrain skeleton information. Geomorphology 314(2):13–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lubis MZ et al (2017) Interactive modelling of buildings in Google Earth and GIS: a 3D tool for urban planning (Tunjuk Island, Indonesia). J Appl Geospatial Inf 1(2):44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mikhail EM, Bethel JS, Mcglone JC (2001) Introduction to modern photogrammetry. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Menna F et al (2016) 3D digitization of an heritage masterpiece - a critical analysis on quality assessment. Int Arch Photogrammetry Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci ISPRS Arch 41:675–683.  https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-xli-b5-675-2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nikolakopoulos KG et al (2017) UAV vs classical aerial photogrammetry for archaeological studies. J Archaeol Sci Rep 14:758–773.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Remondino F et al (2017) A critical review of automated photogrammetric processing of large datasets. ISPRS Int Arch Photogrammetry Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci XLII-2/W5:591–599.  https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-xlii-2-w5-591-2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Verhoeven G (2010) Taking computer vision aloft-archaeological three-dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with photoscan. Archaeol Prospection 62:61–62.  https://doi.org/10.1002/arp

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DARCH - Department of ArchitectureUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.DICAM - Department of Civil, Environmental, Aerospace, Materials EngineeringUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations