MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A CALIBRATION WORKFLOW FOR “PROSUMER” UAV CAMERAS

2019· article· en· W2948640278 on OpenAlexaff
C. R. Radford, George Bevan

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVideographyQuadcopterPhotogrammetryComputer scienceSoftwareComputer visionCalibrationArtificial intelligenceWorkflowCamera resectioningBundle adjustmentOrientation (vector space)Digital cameraDroneDistortion (music)Computer graphics (images)Remote sensingEngineeringGeographyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. High-end consumer quadcopter UAVs or so-called “prosumer devices”, have made inroads into the mapping industry over the past few years, arguably displacing more expensive purpose-built systems. In particular, the DJI Phantom series quadcopters, marketed primarily for videography, have shown considerable promise due to their relatively high-quality cameras. Camera pre-calibration has long been a part of the aerial photogrammetric workflow with calibration certificates being provided by operators for every project flown. Most UAV data, however, is processed today in Structure-from-Motion software where the calibration is generated “on-the-fly” from the same image-set being used for mapping. Often the scenes being mapped and their flight-plans are inappropriate for calibration as they do not have enough variation in altitude to produce a good focal-length solution, and do not have cross-strips to improve the estimation of the principal point. What we propose is a new type of flight-plan that can be run on highly textured scenes of varying height prior to mapping missions that will significantly improve the estimation of the interior orientation parameters and, as a consequence, improve the overall accuracy of projects undertaken with these sorts of UAV systems. We also note that embedded manufacturer camera profiles, which correct for distortion automatically, should be removed prior to all photogrammetric processing, something that is often overlooked as these profiles are not made visible to the end user in most image conversion software, particularly Adobe’s CameraRAW.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207