Rolling Shutter Effect on the Accuracy of Photogrammetric Product Produced by Low-Cost UAV

Abstract

Low-level cameras are generally used in low-cost UAVs employed for photogrammetric product generation. Although such cameras have advantageous features in terms of flight time and maneuverability thanks to their light weight in a compact structure, they have also some limitations. These sensors are generally operated by rolling shutter which affects the image geometry. Unlike global shutter, a camera with rolling shutter creates the photograph by scanning line by line. In this study, two flights were performed by means of DJI Phantom 4 Pro to investigate the rolling shutter effect on the accuracy of photogrammetric product. Study area was a part of approximately 60 ha of Tasliciftlik Campus, Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University. Average speeds of the platform during photography were 8 m/sec and 12 m/sec. Obtained data were evaluated according to SfM workflow. The orthophotos of the study area were produced from aerial photographs both with and without rolling shutter correction by using photogrammetric software. 24 ground control points located in the study area were used to strength the model and to make accuracy assessment. According to the results, total root mean square error values were improved from 6.33 cm to 4.78 cm and 7.01 cm to 4 cm for the flights pertaining to the 8 m/sec and 12 m/sec, respectively. Thus, it can be said that better accuracy values can be obtained when rolling shutter correction are implemented during the process. Lower speeds may require multiple flight tasks depending on the extents of the study area. Therefore, it is more reasonable to fly at higher speeds and then apply rolling shutter correction to complete field work in less time.

Keywords

• Accuracy
• Aerial Photogrammetry
• Global Shutter
• Rolling Shutter
• SfM

References

1. Amrullah, C. Suwardhi, D. and Meilano, I. (2016). Product accuracy effect of oblique and vertical non-metric digital camera utilization in UAV-photogrammetry to determine fault plane, ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, III-6, 41-48.
2. Dandois, J.P. Olano M. and Ellis, E.C. (2015). Optimal altitude, overlap, and weather conditions for computer vision UAV estimates of forest structure, Remote Sensing, 7, 13895-13920.
3. Deng, L. Mao, Z. Li, X. Hu, Z. Duan, F. and Yan, Y. (2018). UAV-based multispectral remote sensing for precision agriculture: a comparison between different cameras, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 146, 124-136.
4. Lao, Y. Ait-Aider, O. and Araujo, H. (2018). Robustified Structure from Motion with rolling-shutter camera using straightness constraint, Pattern Recognition Letters, 111, 1-8.
5. Letessier, T.B. Juhel, J.B. Vigliola, L. and Meeuwig, J. (2015). Low-cost small action cameras in stereo generates accurate underwater measurements of fish, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 466, 120-126.
6. Martínez-Carricondo, P. Agüera-Vega, F. Carvajal-Ramírez, F. Mesas-Carrascosa, F.J. García-Ferrer, A. and Pérez-Porras, F.J. (2018). Assessment of UAV-photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation of ground control points, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 72, 1-10.
7. Mesas-Carrascosa F.J. García, M.D.N. Meroño de Larriva, J.E. and García-Ferrer, A. (2016). An analysis of the influence of flight parameters in the generation of unmanned aerial vehicle orthomosaics to survey archaeological areas, Sensors, 16, 1838.
8. Oniga, V.E. Breaban, A.I. Statescu, F. (2018). Determining the optimum number of ground control points for obtaining high precision results based on UAS images, Proceedings, 2 (352), 1-11.

9. Ren, H. Zhao, Y. Xiao, W. Wang, X. and Sui. T. (2020). An improved ground control point configuration for digital surface model construction in a coal waste dump using an unmanned aerial vehicle system, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 160, 51-66.
10. Tahar, K.N. and Ahmad, A. (2013). An evaluation on fixed wing and multi-rotor UAV images using photogrammetric image processing, International Journal of Computer Information Engineering, 7 (1), 48-52.
11. Vautherin, J. et al. (2016). Photogrammetric accuracy and modeling of rolling shutter cameras, ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume III-3, 139-146.
12. Wäny, M. and Israel G.P. (2003). CMOS image sensor with NMOS-only global shutter and enhanced responsivity, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 50(1), 57-62.
13. Wierzbicki, D. Kedzierski, M. and Fryskowska, A. (2015). Assessment of the influence of UAV image quality on the orthophoto production, The International Archieves of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XL-1/W4, 1-7.
14. Url-1:https://www.diyphotography.net/sony-shares-previews-of-global-shutter-on-cmos-sensors-and-super-low-light-technology/
15. Url-2:https://www.pix4d.com/blog/rolling-shutter-correction