Bundle Block Adjustments in the practical Close Range applications Filippo Campolo Vincenzo Barrile University of Reggio Calabria Italy Racurs Conference,

Bundle Block Adjustments in the

practical Close Range applications

Filippo Campolo

Vincenzo Barrile

University

of

Reggio Calabria

Italy

Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005

Why this test ?

Verify the results of four softwares mainly being used in Italian industry and targeting potential “PHOTOMOD” users, and to furnish useful suggestions to those peoples that operate in this sector.

Verify if the results are suitable for monitoring architectural and monumental patrimony.


Some typical objects of monitoring

Castle of San Niceto, Motta San Giovanni, Italy


Some typical objects of monitoring

Villa Zerbi, Reggio Calabria, ItalyRacurs Conference, Jurmala 2005

Variety of softwares

Commercial Academic

Expensive

Cheap

Only for the research

For development


What of this software companies like to buy ?

Mainly multifunction(total solution)

Aerial-photogrammetry and Close Range


Softwares tested

Socet Set by LH-Systems

Bluh by Hannover University

Visual Giant by ElaSoft

PHOTOMOD by Racurs

Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005 Latest versions

First object for test : Altar

Racurs Conference, Jurmala 2005 Gold altar of Sant’Ambrogio in Milano

Second object for test : Façade

Church of

San Benedetto in

Catania


Used equipments

Theodolite Wild T3000 (0.1” angular)

Distomat Di3002 (1 mm)

Metric camera by Zeiss (9x13 cm)

Vexcel Scanner (Scan 5 micron)


Scheme of stripswith allpoints


Strip 1

Strip 2

1_01 1_02 1_03 1_04

2_01 2_02 2_03 2_04

Control point

Tie point

Check point

Area for search correlation


Tie points measured

Strip 1

Strip 2

1_01 1_02 1_03 1_04

2_01 2_02 2_03 2_04

Tie point

Area for search correlation

Strip 1

Strip 2

1_01 1_02 1_03 1_04

2_01 2_02 2_03 2_04

Control points marked and measured


Control point

Strip 1

Strip 2

1_01 1_02 1_03 1_04

2_01 2_02 2_03 2_04

Check points measured


Check point

Block accurasy evalu tion us ing GCP's, RMS in mm

Altar

Church facade

XY

Z

XY

Z

Bluh Visual GiantSocet SetAxisSubject

0.8 3

0.7 2

0.2 5

0.1 8

Photo mod

0.7 4

0.6 3

0.1 9

0.1 4

0.8 1

0.7 0

0.2 6

0.1 9

0.8 1

0.7 3

0.2 4

0.1 7

Results of the test on the control points


Results on the control points from Socet Set

Block accurasy evalution using GCP in mm

Altar

Church facade

XY

Z

XY

Z

Average RMSMaxAxisSubject

1.05

0.93

0.7 2

0.40

0.29

0.6 4

0.1 8

0.1 5

0.8 3

0.7 2

0.2 5

0.1 8

Socet Set


Results on the control points from Bluh


Altar

Church facade

XY

Z

XY

Z


0.93

0.82

0.6 8

0.35

0.24

0.6 0

0.1 5

0.1 2

0.7 4

0.6 3

0.1 9

0.1 4

Bluh


Results on the control points from Visual Giant


Altar

Church facade

XY

Z

XY

Z


1.01

0.94

0.6 9

0.42

0.31

0.6 0

0.1 7

0.1 4

0.81

0.70

0.26

0.19

Visual Giant

0.81

0.70

0.26

0.19


Results on the control points from PHOTOMOD


Altar

Church facade

XY

Z

XY

Z


1.04

0.90

0.7 0

0.39

0.28

0.6 5

0.1 9

0.1 6

0.81

0.73

0.24

0.17

Photomod


Results the test on the check pointsComparative evalution on check points , differences in mm

Altar

Church facade

Bluh Visual GiantSocet SetAxisSubject Photomod

X

Y

Z

X

Y

Z

0.12

0.06

0.10

0.04

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.13

0.07

0.05

0.03

0.13

0.11

0.10

0.08

0.16

0.12

0.13

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.14

0.12


Differences on check po ints in mm

Altar

Church facade

Average MaxMinAxisSubject

Socet Set

0.1 0

0.0 5

0.12

0.0 3

0.0 2

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.1 3

0.0 7

0.0 5

0.0 3

0.1 2

0.0 9

0.13

0.11

0.1 6

0.1 2

X

Y

Z

X

Y

Z


Differences check points: Socet Set

Differences check points: Bluh


Altar

Church facade

X

Y

Z

X


Bluh

Y

Z

0.08

0.03

0.10

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.11

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.10

0.07

0.10

0.08

0.11

0.10




Altar

Church faca de

X

Y

Z

X


Visual Giant

Y

Z

0.0 9

0.0 3

0.1 0

0.0 4

0.0 3

0.0 6

0.0 5

0.0 4

0.1 2

0.0 8

0.0 6

0.0 6

0.1 3

0.1 0

0.1 4

0.1 0

0.1 7

0.1 4

Differences check points: Visual Giant


Differences check points: PHOTOMOD


Altar

Church facade

X

Y

Z

X


Photomod

Y

Z

0.12

0.03

0.13

0.03

0.01

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.14

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.13

0.08

0.14

0.12

0.17

0.15

Conclusion

A block adjustment is never perfect.

If the adjustment residual errors exceed the tolerance, a great deal of imagination is required to visualize the source of the problem from error values, which only describe the deformation in numerical terms.

After analyzing the errors, the photogrammetrist will often revisit the point marking or mensuration process, and then discard or statistically weight certain points and re-process the data to obtain a better adjustment.


Modern bundle block adjustment programs also directly output model parameter, including control and image points’ ground coordinates, residual errors in the original measurements and the adjustment, and all-important bundle parameters ( Xo, Yo, Zo, Omega, Phi, Kappa), which define location and attitude of each aerial and close range photograph.

For that it is impossible to say which is the best:

Socet Set

Bluh

Visual Giant

PHOTOMOD

ALL GIVE GOOD RESULTS IN THE

BUNDLE BOCK ADJUSTMENT


WHICH ONE IS THE BEST OUT OF THE FOUR?

Our opinion is that the results coming from

“PHOTOMOD”

are very good, and it is very interesting

software to be used in close range applications.

IT IS FOR YOU TO CHOOSERacurs Conference, Jurmala 2005

Thanks for attentionand

arrivederci


Filippo Campolo and Vincenzo Barrile

University of Reggio Calabria

Italy

Bundle Block Adjustments in the practical Close Range applications Filippo Campolo Vincenzo Barrile University of Reggio Calabria Italy Racurs Conference,

Documents

racurs racurs conference

check points racurs

photomod racurs conference

bluh racurs conference

measured racurs conference

altar racurs conference

micron racurs conference

catania racurs conference