Assessment of Photogrammetric Performance Test on Large Areas by Using a Rolling Shutter Camera Equipped in a Multi-Rotor UAV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generation of digital aerial photogrammetry products using unmanned aerial vehicle-digital aerial photogrammetry (UAV-DAP) has become an essential task due to the increasing use of UAVs in the world of geomatics, thanks to their low cost and spatial resolution. Therefore, it is relevant to explore the performance of new digital cameras equipped in UAVs using electronic rolling shutters instead of ideal mechanical or global shutter cameras to achieve accurate and reliable photogrammetric products, if possible, while minimizing workload, especially for their application in projects that require a high level of detail. In this paper, we analyse performance using oblique images along the perimeter (3D perimeter) on a flat area, i.e., with slopes of less than 3%. The area was photogrammetrically surveyed with a DJI (Dà-Jiāng Innovations) Inspire 2 multirotor UAV equipped with a Zenmuse X5S rolling shutter camera. The photogrammetric survey was accompanied by a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) survey, in which dual frequency receivers were used to determine the ground control points (GCPs) and checkpoints (CPs). The study analysed different scenarios, including the combination of forward and transversal strips and oblique images. After examining the ideal scenario with the least root mean square error (RMSE), six different combinations were analysed to find the best location for the GCPs. The most significant results indicate that the optimal calibration of the camera is obtained in scenarios including oblique images, which outperform the rest of the scenarios for achieving the lowest RMSE (2.5x the GSD in Z and 3.0x the GSD in XYZ) with optimum GCPs layout; with non-ideal GCPs layout, unacceptable errors can be achieved (11.4x the GSD in XYZ), even with ideal block geometry. The UAV-DAP rolling shutter effect can only be minimised in the scenario that uses oblique images and GCPs at the edges of the overlapping zones and the perimeter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".