Computers in Geological Photointerpretation

  • K. L. Burns
Part of the Computer Applications in the Earth Sciences book series (CAES)


Computer processing of digital remote-sensing data can produce imagery of high spectral and geometric fidelity without the degradation associated with photographic reproduction. This is a significant advance in quality control in the data-acquisition system.

However progress in the interpretation system lags considerably. In one specific application, interpretation for geological lineaments, there occur low correlations between annotations which have hindered the acceptance of geological photointerpretations as reliable data.

Recently, perception models have been developed which radically alter our understanding of the properties of annotations. In particular the models imply that presence-absence data associated with the existence of lineaments is not a ranked binary variable and correlation measures are meaningless as indicators of data quality.

Computer processing now seems to be essential in geological photointerpretation. The procedures developed to date comprise estimation of operator resolution, digitization of annotations to arrays of cells, fitting perception models, and using the model parameters to assign probability estimates to quality maps written as shade prints or on filmwriters.


LANDSAT Imagery Perception Model Positive Message Negative Message Decision Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burns, K.L., Shepherd, J., and Berman, M., 1976, Reproducibility of geological lineaments and other discrete features interpreted from imagery: measurement by a coefficient of association: Remote Sensing of the Environment, v. 5, no. 4, p. 267–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burns, K.L., Huntington, J.F., and Green, A.A., 1977, Computer assisted photointerpretation of geological lineaments: perception method, in Lynch, A.J., ed., APCOM 77: 15th Intern. symp. on application of computers and operations research in the mineral industries (Brisbane): Aust. Inst. Min. Metall. (Melbourne), p. 275–285.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, K.L., and Brown, G.H., 1978, The human perception of geological lineaments and other discrete features in remote sensing imagery: signal strengths, noise levels and quality: Remote Sensing of the Environment, v. 7, no. 2, p. 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chadwick, P.K., 1975, A psychological analysis of observations in geology: Nature, v. 256, no. 5518, p. 570–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crain, I.K., 1972, A statistical approach to the analysis of tectonic elements: unpubl. doctoral dissertation, Australian National Univ., 72 p.Google Scholar
  6. Estes, W.K., 1975, Human behaviour in mathematical perspective: Am. Scientist, v. 63, no. 6, p. 649–655.Google Scholar
  7. Gilluly, J., 1976, Lineaments-ineffective guide to ore deposits: Econ. Geology, v. 71, no. 8, p. 1507–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huntington, J.F., and Raiche, A.P., 1978, A quantitative method for comparing geological lineament patterns: Remote Sensing of the Environment, v. 7, no. 2, p. 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelley, V.C., and Clinton, N.J., 1960, Fracture systems and tectonic elements of the Colorado Plateau: Univ. New Mexico Publ, in Geology, Univ. New Mexico Press, Publ. No. 6, 104 p.Google Scholar
  10. Lance, G.N., and Williams, W.T., 1967, Mixed-data classi-ficatory programs. I. Agglomerative systems: Aust. Computer Journal, v. 1, no. 1, p. 15–20.Google Scholar
  11. Podwysocki, M.H., Moik, J.G., and Sharp, W.C., 1975, Quantification of geologic lineaments by manual and machine processing techniques: Proc. NASA Earth Res. Symp. v. 1B, NASA TM X-58168, p. 885–904.Google Scholar
  12. Renner, J.G.A., 1968, The structural significance of lineaments in the eastern Monsech area, province of Lerida, Spain: Publ. Intern. Inst. Aerial Survey and Earth Sciences (Ser. B) No. 45, p. 12–25.Google Scholar
  13. Schulz, P.H., and Ingerson, F.E., 1973, Martian lineaments from Mariner 6 and 7 images: Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 78, no. 35, p. 8415–8427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sepkoski, J.J., 1974, Quantified coefficients of association and measurement of similarity: Jour. Math. Geology, v. 6, no. 2, p. 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shepherd, J., and Gaskell, J.L., 1977, Trend analysis of fractures and fissure vein mineralization in the Drake Volcanics of NSW, Australia: Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. (Sect. B), v. 86, p. 9–16.Google Scholar
  16. Siegal, B.S., and Short, N.M., 1977, Significance of operator variation and the angle of illumination in lineament analysis on synoptic images: Modern Geology, v. 6, no. 1, p. 75–85.Google Scholar
  17. Sperling, G., and Melchner, M.J., 1978, The attention operating characteristic: examples from visual search: Science, v. 202, no. 4365, p. 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vanderbrug, G.J., 1975, Line detection in satellite imagery: Symp. Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data, Purdue Univ., p. 2A-16–2A-21.Google Scholar
  19. Wishart, D., 1969, FORTRAN II programs for 8 methods of cluster analysis (CLUSTAN I): Kansas Geol. Survey Computer Contr. 38, 112 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. L. Burns
    • 1
  1. 1.Syracuse UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations