Advertisement

Standardization of the Shape of Ground Control Point (GCP) and the Methodology for Its Detection in Images for UAV-Based Mapping Applications

  • Aman Jain
  • Milind Mahajan
  • Radha SarafEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 943)

Abstract

The challenge of georeferencing aerial images for an accurate object to image correspondence has gained significance over the past couple of years. There is an ever-increasing need to establish accurate georeferencing techniques for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for tasks like aerial surveyance of mines/construction sites, change detection along national highways, inspection of major pipelines, intelligent farming, among others. With this paper, we aim to establish a standard method of georeferencing by proposing the design of a simple, white colored, L-shaped marker along with the pipeline for its detection. In a first, the less common DRGB color space is used along with the RGB color space to segment the characteristic white color of the marker. To carry out recognition, a scale and rotation invariant modification of the edge oriented histogram is used. To allow for accurate histograms, improvements are made on canny edge detection using adaptive approaches and exploiting contour properties. The histogram obtained displayed a characteristic distribution of peaks for GCP-markers. Thus, a new peak-detection and verification methodology is also proposed based on the normalized cross-correlation. Finally, a CNN model is trained on the Regions of Interest around the GCP-markers that are received after the filtering. The results from EOH and CNN were then used for classification. Regions with a diverse range of locality, terrain, soil quality were chosen to test the pipeline developed. The results of the design and the pipeline combined were quite impressive, with regards to the accuracy of detection as well as its reproducibility in diverse geographical locations.

Keywords

Ground control point Differential RGB Edge oriented histogram LeNet model CNN Normalized cross-correlation 

References

  1. 1.
    Oniga, V.-E., Breaban, A.-I., Statescu, F.: Determining the optimum number of ground control points for obtaining high precision results based on UAS images. In: Proceedings vol. 2, no. 7 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tiwari, A., Dixit, A.: Unmanned aerial vehicle and geospatial technology pushing the limits of development. Am. J. Eng. Res. (AJER) 4, 16–21 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eltohamy, F., Hamza, E.H.: Effect of ground control points location and distribution on geometric correction accuracy of remote sensing satellite images (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tucker, C.J., Grant, D.M., Dykstra, J.D.: NASA’s global orthorectified Landsat dataset. Photogram. Eng. Remote Sens. 70, 313–322 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koeln, G.T., Dykstra, J.D., Cunningham, J.: Geocover and Geocover-LC: orthorectified Landsat TM/MSS data and derived land cover for the world (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armston, J.D., Danaher, T.J., Goulevitch, B.M., Byrne, M.I.: Geometric correction of Landsat MSS, TM, and ETM+ imagery for mapping of woody vegetation cover and change detection in Queensland (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liba, N., Berg-Jürgens, J.: Accuracy of orthomosaic generated by different methods in example of UAV platform MUST Q. In: Proceedings of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landau, H., Chen, X., Klose, S., Leandro, R., Vollath, U.: Trimble’s Rtk And DGPS solutions in comparison with precise point positioning. In: Sideris, M.G. (eds.) Observing our Changing Earth. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 133. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alhamlan, S., Mills, J.P., Walker, A.S., Saks, T.: The influence of ground control points in the triangulation of Leica Ads 40 Data (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, K.-L., Chun, H.-W., Lee, H.-N.: Ground control points acquisition using spot image - the operational comparison. In: International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. XXXIII, Part B3. Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou, G.: Determination of ground control points to subpixel accuracies for rectification of spot imagery (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ren, H., Li, Z.: Object detection using edge histogram of oriented gradient. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Paris, pp. 4057–4061 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen, T.: Optimal ground control points for geometric correction using genetic algorithm with global accuracy. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 48, 101–120 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P.: Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86(11), 2278–2324 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tahar, K.N., Ahmad, A., Abdul, W., Wan, A., Akib, M., Mohd, W., Wan, N.: Assessment on ground control points in unmanned aerial system image processing for slope mapping studies. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 3, 1–10 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hinton, G.E., Srivastava, N., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., Salakhutdinov, R.R.: Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.0580 (2012)
  17. 17.
    Federman, A., Santana Quintero, M., Kretz, S., Gregg, J., Lengies, M., Ouimet, C., Laliberte, J.: Uav photogrammetric workflows: a best practice guideline. In: ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLII-2/W5.237-244 (2017). https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-xlii-2-w5-237-2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huo, Y.-K., Wei, G., Zhang, Y., Wu, L.: An adaptive threshold for the canny operator of edge detection. In: International Conference on Image Analysis and Signal Processing, Zhejiang, pp. 371–374 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fang, M., Yue, G., Yu, Q.: The study on an application of Otsu method in canny operator (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Canny, J.: A Computational Approach to Edge Detection. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. PAMI-8(6), 679–698 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ioffe, S., Szegedy, C.: Batch normalization: accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167 (2015)
  22. 22.
    Diederik, P., Kingma, J.B.: Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)
  23. 23.
    Cortes, C., Vapnik, V.N.: Support vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 273–297 (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ballard, D.H.: Generalizing the hough transform to detect arbitrary shapes. Pattern Recogn. 13, 111–122 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ullman, S.: Visual routines. In: Cognition, vol. 18, pp. 97–159 (1985)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    David, G.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vision 60(2), 91–110 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mori, G., Belongie, S., Malik, J.: Efficient shape matching using shape contexts. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27, 1832–1837 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hu, M.-K.: Visual pattern recognition by moment invariants. IRE Trans. Inf. Theory 8(2), 179–187 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Viola, P., Jones, M.: Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dalal, N., Triggs, B.: Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition CVPR (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Olson, E.: AprilTag: a robust and flexible visual fiducial system. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Visvesvaraya National Institute of TechnologyNagpurIndia
  2. 2.Medi-Caps Institute of Technology and ManagementIndoreIndia
  3. 3.Skylark Drones Pvt. Ltd.BangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations