Remote Sensing Image Registration Based on the HEIV Model

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 549)


In Earth observation missions, a large number of remote sensing images (RSIs) are obtained through satellites and aerial photography. RSIs are often huge and they generally have large edge distortions. Therefore, registration is required when the RSIs are used for mapping and change-detection. Since the RSIs usually have complex variation and the large distortions, the current existing global image registration algorithms cannot achieve high-precision matching of the target area. We propose a method based on the Heteroscedastic error-in-variables (HEIV) model to solve the registration problem of RSIs. Though HEIV model, the registration parameter estimation problem can be expressed as a quasi-linear form of the design matrix, which consists of observation vectors and parameter vectors with heteroscedasticity. Based on the image pre-processing and feature intensity, the HEIV model is utilized to estimate the registration parameters. Experiments are carried by using the RSIs taken with helicopter in comparison with the method based on Harris corner registration and the method based on SIFT registration, respectively. Compared with the Harris, the best group’s accuracy is increased by 54.76%. In comparison with the SIFT algorithm, the T-Rank group’s increment on RMSE is 1.88%. The results show that our method has more advantages in the parameter estimation of RSI registration and it can be better applied to Earth observation missions.


HEIV model Image registration Structured total least squares Random sampling consistency 


  1. 1.
    Martinez, A., Garcia-Consuegra, J., & Abad, F. (1999). A correlation-symbolic approach to automatic remotely sensed image rectification. In Geoscience and remote sensing symposium, 1999. IGARSS ’99 proceedings. IEEE 1999 international (Vol. 1, pp. 336–338). IEEE.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Colerhodes, A., Zavorin, I., & Moigne, J. L. (2001). Mutual information as a similarity measure for remote sensing image registration. Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering, 4383(4383), 51–61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li, W., & Leung, H. (2004). A maximum likelihood approach for image registration using control point and intensity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(8), 1115–1127.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anuta, P. E. (1970). Spatial registration of multispectral and multitemporal digital imagery using fast fourier transform techniques. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience Electronics, 8(4), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reddy, B. S., & Chatterji, B. N. (1996). An FFT-based technique for translation, rotation, and scale-invariant image registration. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 5(8), 1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antonini, M., Barlaud, M., Mathieu, P., et al. (1992). Image coding using wavelet transform. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 1(2), 205–220. A Publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lowe, D. G. (2004). Distinctive image features from scale-invariant key-points. International Journal of Computer Vision, 60(2), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bay, H., Ess, A., Tuytelaars, T., et al. (2008). Speeded-up robust features. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 110(3), 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris, C., & Stephens, M. (1988). A combined corner and edge detector. Alvey Vision Conference, 15, 50.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dong, Q., Liu, J., & Zhou, Q. (2017). Image registration algorithm based on improved surf and its application to remote sensing image mosaicing. Journal of Jilin University, 3.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu-Yan, M. A., Yuan, Y., Wang, C.-Y., et al. (2016). Homogenization algorithm for high resolution remote sensing image registration control points. Remote Sensing Information, 31(3), 24–30.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cao, S., Pan, Y.-Z., Zhang, J.-S., et al. (2014). Automatic registration of multi-temporal remote sensing images of land cover patches. Journal of Surveying & Mapping, (3), 290–297.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han, Y., Bovolo, F., & Bruzzone, L. (2017). Segmentation-based fine registration of very high resolution multitemporal images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 55(5), 2884–2897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhengang, C., & Zhang, L. (2016). A aerial image stitching method based on UAV pose information. Journal of Surveying and Mapping, 45(6), 698–705.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soderstroma, T., Wang, L. P., Pintelonc, R., & Schoukens, J. (2013). Can errors-in-variables systems be identified from closed-loop experiments? Automatica, 49(2), 681–684.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cerone, V., Piga, D., & Regruto, D. (2012). Setmembership error-in-variables identification through convex relaxation techniques. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 57(2), 517–522.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matei, B. C., & Meer, P. (2006). Estimation of nonlinear errors-in-variables models for computer vision application. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 28(10), 1537–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou, Y., Kou, X., Li, J., et al. (2016). Comparison of structured and weighted total least-squares adjustment methods for linearly structured errors-in-variables models. Journal of Surveying Engineering, 143(1), 04016019.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aeronautics and AstronauticsShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.School of Naval Architecture, Ocean & Civil EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Institute of Surveying and Mapping, Information Engineering UniversityZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations