EOM
Airborne: Minimizing Subjective Image Interpretation in
Digital Orthophotography
By
Mark Klimiuk
The production, acceptance
and use of Digital Orthophoto Imagery (DOI) has improved
significantly over the past few years. Prior to deciding
whether DOI will be a component of a GIS, the
functionality and use of DOI must be determined. Once the
decision is made to utilize DOI technology, an
understanding of the product and its development process
is necessary to define production techniques, acceptance
criteria and expectations. Those requesting DOI with
little information or experience have extremely high
expectations for the product, and inevitably may become
disillusioned if all expectations aren't met. If DOI is to
become understood and accepted by the GIS community,
defining project specifications at the outset is critical
to satisfying expectations at delivery.
DOI can be separated into
two distinct categories for evaluation, photogrammetry and
imagery. The photogrammetric process includes Aerial
Triangulation (A.T.) and Digital Terrain Model (DTM)
collection. There are standards for mapping accuracy that
can be easily measured on a DOI to satisfy photogrammetric
acceptance. The aspect of DOI image quality is difficult
and very subjective - beauty is in the eyes of the
beholder. It is very difficult to select a control image
during the pilot phase of the project and match it exactly
throughout the project. The terrain and content of the
imagery may vary significantly in a project area. It is
very easy to show a digital orthophoto to a group of
people and have various opinions formulated about its
quality and interpretability. The only way to define
acceptance criteria for DOI is to first understand,
categorize, and quantify subjective issues related to
image quality.
Aerial Imagery
Throughout the aerial photography production and handling
process there exists the unfortunate problem of
particulate matter such as dust or lint coming in contact
with the original film or diapositive. When the aerial
photography is viewed at high resolution, these sometimes
microscopic particles can appear to be quite large. The
occurrence of these particles will be more noticeable in
small scale imagery because of the high magnification
usually involved during scanning. Another problem on the
photograph are scratches. Scratches can be introduced at
any time during handling of the photographic materials.
The majority of scratches are created during the aerial
photography and thus are in the imagery from the
beginning. The worst type of scratches are introduced
while the film is in the camera, and are called pressure
scratches. These scratches can be on either the base or
emulsion side of the film, or both, and are caused by the
film contacting the platen or other surfaces inside the
camera during frame advance. The scratches found on the
base side of the film negative can only be detected by
projecting a point light source at an oblique angle to the
film. When a diapositive is created, the scratches will
appear as thin white lines. A scratch that is not easily
detectable in the original aerial film will now show in a
reproduction. As with particulate matter, scratches will
be more prevalent as scanning magnification increases.
Particulate matter and scratches can all be corrected in
the digital image.
The film required as input
to DOI must be selected, exposed, developed and handled
differently from other aerial film used for non-DOI
purposes. The time of day, year and geographic features
determine radiometric properties of the photography. The
geographic area of photography, whether coastal, desert or
urban will further determine radiometric properties.
Special filters may be required to photograph through
certain atmospheric conditions such as haze. The natural
reflectance of materials both man-made and natural cause
not only interpretability problems but in extreme cases,
flare-outs. Steel roofs, water bodies and snow all exhibit
reflectance problems. Smaller scale photography exhibits a
phenomenon known as "hot spots" in an image. A
"hot spot" is a portion of an image that is
considerably brighter than the rest. It is safe to assume
that most digital or analog dodging techniques can remedy
these problems during diapositive creation.
Sun angle determines the
magnitude of shadows that are present. Shadows are a
natural occurrence that cause interpretability problems in
DOI. Expectations about shadow detail should be defined
prior to photography as this is the best place to begin.
Hardware Limitations
An 8-bit gray scale DOI or 24-bit color DOI is comprised
of picture elements or pixels. A gray scale DOI has 256
levels of gray, 0 (black) to 255 (white). It must be the
intent during scanning to capture as much detail as
possible in the analog photographic image. Most scanning
production systems today use a charge-coupled device (CCD)
array to digitize the aerial photograph. CCD arrays have
their own limitations, one being that they only linearly
function in density ranges of around 1.0. Photography that
is characterized by a density range larger than this may
not be accurately captured. Bright or dark areas may
become compressed and detail lost. Scan lines, dropouts
and visible tile mismatches could possibly occur with a
failure or calibration problem with the scanning device.
Most hardware or software application packages allow the
user to adjust brightness and contrast. It should be noted
here that an image may appear different from one
workstation platform to another.
Digital Terrain Model
In aerial photography, all terrain features and objects
lean outward from the center of the photograph. This
feature is known as relief displacement. During the
differential rectification process of the DOI, all objects
are mapped to the ground surface or DTM and are therefore
corrected for relief displacement. Tall buildings, trees,
utility poles, bridges and other features will be
projected to the DTM (Figure 3). If these objects are not
near the center of the photograph, they will not only lean
but may become very distorted after rectification (Figure
1). As mentioned previously, it is very easy to determine
if a digital orthophoto meets accuracy requirements. Some
problems caused by problems with the DTM usually manifest
themselves as shifts, blurring or smearing of the image.
Mosaicking
After individual digital orthophotos have been created
they should be mosaicked together. Mosaicking is the
process in which adjacent images are sutured or seamed
together (Figures 2a-b). An overlap area is defined
between images and brightness values are compared. A
weighted linear function is then used to perform the
mosaic. This procedure minimizes sharp differences in
contrast and brightness between imagery. If all input
imagery were only mosaicked, our end result would be an
image database that looked like a checker board. A
technique of spatial or histogram equalization is used
when some images may be darker or brighter than others. A
histogram for gray scale DOI is a graphical representation
of the distribution of pixels from 0-255. In this process,
a control image is selected and all surrounding imagery is
spatially changed to match it. This technique works well
as long as there isn't a large variation of shading
problems within a photograph. When internal shading
anomalies are present, the only course of action is a
frequency domain manipulation. An example of a frequency
domain manipulation is a low-pass filter utilizing a fast
fourier transform (Figures 5a-b). The idea in the low-pass
filter is to suppress the frequencies causing the
radiometric problems. This process takes knowledge and
experience as it could be detrimental if not performed
properly. As another example, a high-pass filter could be
used for edge enhancement.
Mosaicking and subsequent image
processing may remove many of the radiometric problems,
but now the geometric problems of mosaicking should be
addressed. Each DOI has an associated accuracy. It would
seem that joining two images together, a tolerance would
now be twice the individual accuracy. As an example,
consider a road that runs between adjacent images. The
road may be shifted 1 foot in one image, and 1 foot in the
opposite direction in the adjacent image. Individually
each DOI satisfied accuracy but now a 2 foot difference is
present. This edgematching problem is usually small enough
that mosaicking smooths the edge match. As another
example, imagine that a building is leaning opposite
directions in adjacent photographs. A ghosting or
collapsing effect may now result on the building in the
DOI (Figure 4). After mosaicking, it may become further
distorted.
Conclusion
The digital orthophoto is becoming an integral part of
most GIS implementations today. As can be discerned, the
original aerial photography is extremely important to the
final DOI product. The image quality issues of DOI are
extremely subjective and must be quantified at the outset
of each project and mutual expectations derived. The first
delivery is typically too late to make a significant
change in the product quality without great expense and
delay. Before beginning a project, both the purpose of the
imagery and the typical uses must be understood. Will
features such as fire hydrants, utility poles, manholes or
property boundaries need to be identified? Determining
potential uses of the data from the user population will
determine the functionality and requirements for the
imagery. Most users expect imagery that is both
radiometrically and geometrically seamless and have very
little tolerance for any imagery problems. Quantifying and
removing the subjective nature of imagery analysis will
allow the project to be a success for all project
participants and users. One methodology for establishing
project criteria is to set up a scoring method in order to
remove the subjective nature of imagery interpretation and
acceptance. The model allows the client to determine which
categories are most important and weigh them. Each
category is then defined in great detail and tolerances
established. Each deliverable image, whether softcopy or
hardcopy is then scored and, based on the weighing system,
passed or failed. If the criteria for acceptance are known
prior to delivery, minimal failure rates should be
expected.
About the Author:
Mark A. Klimiuk is the digital imaging director
for Analytical Surveys, Inc. He may be reached at
719-593-0093.
Back
|