Abstract
Point cloud produced by using theoretically and practically different techniques is one of the most preferred data types in various engineering applications and projects. The advanced methods to obtain point cloud data in terrestrial studies are close range photogrammetry (CRP) and terrestrial laser scanning (TLS). In the TLS technique, separated from the CRP in terms of system structure, denser point cloud at certain intervals can be produced. However, point clouds can be produced with the help of photographs taken at appropriate conditions depending on the hardware and software technologies. Adequate quality photographs can be obtained by consumer grade digital cameras, and photogrammetric software widely used nowadays provides the generation of point cloud support. The tendency and the desire for the TLS are higher since it constitutes a new area of research. Moreover, it is believed that TLS takes the place of CRP, reviewed as antiquated. In this study that is conducted on rock surfaces located at Istanbul Technical University Ayazaga Campus, whether point cloud produced by means photographs can be used instead of point cloud obtained by laser scanner device is investigated. Study is worked on covers approximately area of 30 m × 10 m. In order to compare the methods, 2D and 3D analyses as well as accuracy assessment were conducted. 2D analysis is areal-based whereas 3D analysis is volume-based. Analyses results showed that point clouds in both cases are similar to each other and can be used for similar other studies. Also, because the factors affecting the accuracy of the basic data and derived product for both methods are quite variable, it was concluded that it is not appropriate to make a choice regardless of the object of interest and the working conditions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alkan, R. M., & Karsidag, G. (2012). Analysis of the accuracy of terrestrial laser scanning measurements. FIG working week 2012, Rome, Italy, 6–10 May.
Besl, P. J., & McKay, N. D. (1992). A method for registration of 3D shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(2), 239–256.
Bitenc, M., Kieffer, D. S., Khoshelham, K., & Vezočnik, R. (2015). Quantification of rock joint roughness using terrestrial laser scanning. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, 6, 835–838.
Boehler, W., Bordas Vicent, M., & Marbs, A. (2003). Investigating the laser scanner accuracy. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 34(5/c15), 696–701.
Cacciari, P. P., & Futai, M. M. (2016). Mapping and characterization of rock discontinuities in a tunnel using 3D terrestrial laser scanning. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 75(1), 223–237.
Evin, A., Souter, T., Hulme-Beaman, A., Ameen, C., Allen, R., Viacava, P., et al. (2016). The use of close-range photogrammetry in zooarchaeology: Creating accurate 3D models of wolf crania to study dog domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science, 9, 87–93.
Fau, M., Cornette, R., & Houssaye, A. (2016). Photogrammetry for 3D digitizing bones of mounted skeletons: Potentials and limits. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 15, 968–977.
Gasparovic, M., & Malaric, I. (2012). Increase of readability and accuracy of 3D models using fusion of close range photogrammetry and laser scanning. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XXXIX-B5, 93–98.
Gigli, G., Morelli, S., Fornera, S., & Casagli, N. (2014). Terrestrial laser scanner and geomechanical surveys for the rapid evaluation of rock fall susceptibility scenarios. Landslides, 11(1), 1–14.
Golparvar-Fard, M., Bohn, J., Teizer, J., Savarese, S., & Pena-Mora, F. (2011). Evaluation of image-based modelling and laser scanning accuracy for emerging automated performance monitoring techniques. Automation in Construction, 20, 1143–1155.
Gonzalez-Jorge, H., Riveiro, B., Arias, P., & Armesto, J. (2012). Photogrammetry and laser scanner technology applied to length measurements in car testing laboratories. Measurement, 45, 354–363.
Gordon, S. J., & Lichti, D. D. (2004). Terrestrial laser scanners with a narrow field of view: The effect on 3D resection solutions. Survey Review, 37(292), 448–468.
Gumus, K., & Erkaya, H. (2011). Analyzing the geometric accuracy of simple shaped reference object models created by terrestrial laser scanners. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 6(28), 6529–6536.
Haneberg, W. C. (2008). Using close range terrestrial digital photogrammetry for 3-D rock slope modeling and discontinuity mapping in the United States. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 67(4), 457–469.
Incekara, A., Seker, D. Z., Tezcan, C. S., Bozkutoglu, E., & Gazioglu, C. (2017). Interpreting temperature- based discontinuity and roughness of rock surfaces by using photogrammetric technique. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 4(3), 206–213.
Jorda, F., Navarro, S., Perez, A., Cachero, R., Lopez, D., & Lerma, J. L., (2011). Close range photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning: High resolution texturized 3D model of the Chapel of the Kings in the Palencia Cathedral as a case study. In Proceedings of the XXIIIrd ınternational CIPA symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, September 12–16.
Kajzar, V., Kukutsch, R., & Heroldova, N. (2015). Verifying the possibilities of using a 3D laser scanner in the mining underground. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, 12(1), 51–58.
Kedzierski, M., Walczykowski, P., Orcych, A., & Czarnecka, P. (2015). Accuracy assessment of modelling architectural structures and details using terrestrial laser scanning. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XL-5/W7, 241–243.
Kersten, T. P., & Mechelke, K. (2008). Geometric accuracy investigations of the latest terrestrial laser scanning. FIG working week 2008, Stockholm, Sweden, 14–19 June.
Kim, D. H., Gratchev, I., & Balasubramaniam, A. (2015). A photogrammetric approach for stability analysis of weathered rock slopes. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 33(3), 443–454.
Luhmann, T., Robson, S., Kyle, S., & Hartley, I. (2006). Close range photogrammetry: Principles, techniques and applications (pp. 3–6). Dunbeath: Whittles.
Morgan, J. A., Brogan, D. J., & Nelson, P. A. (2017). Application of structure-from-motion in photogrammetry in laboratory flumes. Geomorphology, 276, 125–143.
Nuikka, M., et al. (2008). Comparison of three accurate 3D measurement methods for evaluating as-built floor flatness. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XXXVII-B5, 129–134.
Rath, R. (2003). Geomorphic signatures of ore deposits: A case study from Sukinda Chromite and Nickel Complex, Orissa. Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 31(2), 107–117.
Skarlatos, D., & Kiparissi, S. (2012). Comparison of laser scanning, photogrammetry and SFM-MVS pipeline applied in structures and artificial surfaces. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, I-3, 299–304.
Stumpf, A., Malet, J.-P., Allemand, P., Pierrot-Deseilligny, M., & Skupinski, G. (2015). Ground-based multi-view photogrammetry for the monitoring of landslide deformation and erosion. Geomorphology, 231, 130–145.
Sturzenegger, M., & Stead, D. (2009). Close-range terrestrial digital photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning for discontinuity characterization on rock cuts. Engineering Geology, 106, 163–182.
Telling, J., Lyda, A., Hartzell, P., & Glennie, C. (2017). Review of Earth science research using terrestrial laser scanning. Earth-Science Reviews, 169, 35–68.
Yang, R., Hu, Y., Lu, M., Hua, X., & Wu, Hao. (2015). Initial study on information quantity of point cloud. Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 43(2), 243–258.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Incekara, A.H., Seker, D.Z. Comparative Analyses of the Point Cloud Produced by Using Close-Range Photogrammetry and Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Rock Surface. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 46, 1243–1253 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-018-0805-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-018-0805-z