Applied Geomatics

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 353–369 | Cite as

Innovative techniques of photogrammetry for 3D modeling

  • Vincenzo Barrile
  • Alice Pozzoli
  • Giuliana BilottaEmail author
  • Antonino Fotia
Original Paper


This note presents the experimental results deriving from the application of two innovative photogrammetric techniques (with particular reference to non-conventional photogrammetric applications) for the production of time-space 3D models of the marine surface. Moreover, the first method (automatic three images processing (ATIP)) proposes some easy procedures to solve typical non-linear problems of analytical photogrammetry. In particular, once validated the technique of orientation of two images (two-step procedure based on two phases: relative orientation and absolute orientation, both characterized by non-linear functions), we propose a procedure for the automatic orientation of three images (the introduction of a third image allows avoiding human decision to find the final solution). The second method (Computer Vision Raspberry Pi—CVR) refers to the use of the “prompt” technique of computer vision (structure from motion) using five appropriately synchronized cameras to acquire simultaneously the various frames, thanks to the use of an acquisition system based on the use of Raspberry Pi. The experimentation was conducted both in the laboratory (on a model that allows to study a typical phenomenon of the Alpine Valtellina region, in the North of Italy) that directly at sea (on a portion of marine surface located in Reggio Calabria near the seafront). The results obtained show a substantial comparability of the results both between the two methods and with the actual data measured at sea with dedicated instrumentation.


Analytical photogrammetry Relative orientation Absolute orientation Non-linear problems Computer vision 


  1. Agrawal A, Ramalingam S, Taguchi Y, Chari V (2012) A theory of multi-layer flat refractive geometry. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE Conference on 2012, pp 3346–3353Google Scholar
  2. Alterman M, Schechner YY, Swirski Y (2013) Triangulation in random refractive distortions. In: IEEE International Conference on Computational Photography (ICCP), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  3. Asano Y, Zheng Y, Nishino K, Sato I (2016) Shape from water: bispectral light absorption for depth recovery. In: Leibe B, Matas J, Sebe N, Welling M (eds) ECCV 2016. LNCS, vol. 9910. Springer, Cham, pp 635–649. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrile V, Meduri GM, Bilotta G (2015) Lidar for Analysis of Hydraulic Risk Territories. Advances in Environmental and Geological Science and Engineering - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Environmental and Geological Science and Engineering, Salerno, June 27-29, 2015. Energy, Environmental and Structural Engineering Series 38:157–161Google Scholar
  5. Barrile V, Gelsomino V, Lamari D (2016) Tecniche Imaging per la modellazione 3D della superficie marina. Atti del 61° Convegno nazionale SIFET, 8-10 giugno 2016, LecceGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrile V, Bilotta G, Fotia A (2018) Analysis of hydraulic risk territories: comparison between LIDAR and other different techniques for 3D modeling WSEAS transactions on environment and development, vol 14, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  7. Belden J (2013) Calibration of multi-camera systems with refractive interfaces. Exp Fluids 54(2):1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang YJ, Chen T (2011) Multi-view 3D reconstruction for scenes under the refractive plane with known vertical direction. In: IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, pp 351–358Google Scholar
  9. Ding Y, Li F, Ji Y, Yu J (2011) Dynamic fluid surface acquisition using a camera array. In: IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, pp 2478–2485Google Scholar
  10. Han K, Wong KYK, Liu M (2015) A fixed viewpoint approach for dense reconstruction of transparent objects. Proc IEEE Conf Comput Vis Pattern Recognit:4001–4008Google Scholar
  11. Hartley RI, Zisserman A (2000) Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Hattori S, Myint Y (1995) Automatic estimation of initial approximations of parameters for bundle adjustment. PE&RS 61(7):909–915Google Scholar
  13. Heipke C (1997) Automation of interior, relative and absolute orientation. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 52:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim J, Reshetouski I, Ghosh A (2017) Acquiring axially-symmetric transparent objects using single-view transmission imaging. In: 30th IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR)Google Scholar
  15. Kraus K (1993) Photogrammetry. 1, 2. Dümmler Verlag, BonnGoogle Scholar
  16. Kudela L, Frischmann F, Yossef OE, Kollmannsberger S, Yosibash Z, Rank E (2018) Image-based mesh generation of tubular geometries under circular motion in refractive environments. Mach Vis Appl 29(5):719–733. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kutulakos KN, Steger E (2008) A theory of refractive and specular 3D shape by light-path triangulation. Int J Comput Vis 76(1):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morris NJ, Kutulakos KN (2011) Dynamic refraction stereo. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 33(8):1518–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murez Z, Treibitz T, Ramamoorthi R, Kriegman DJ (2017) Photometric stereo in a scattering medium. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 39(9):1880–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mussio L, Pozzoli A (2003a) Non-linear problems of analytical photogrammetry. IAPRS 34:210–215Google Scholar
  21. Mussio L, Pozzoli A (2003b) Quick solutions particularly in close range photogrammetry. IAPRS 34:273–278Google Scholar
  22. Niini I (2000) Comparison of the projective block adjustment method versus the bundle method. IAPRS 33:643–650Google Scholar
  23. Pan HP (1996) A direct closed-form solution to general relative orientation. Technical report on Photogrammetron, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  24. Pan HP (1999) A direct closed-form solution to general relative orientation of two stereo views. Digit Signal Process 9(3):195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qian Y, Gong M, Yang YH (2015) Frequency-based environment matting by compressive sensing. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision:3532–3540Google Scholar
  26. Qian Y, Gong M, Hong Yang Y (2016) 3D reconstruction of transparent objects with position-normal consistency. Proc IEEE Conf Comput Vis Pattern Recognit:4369–4377Google Scholar
  27. Qian Y, Gong M, Yang YH (2017) Stereo-based 3D reconstruction of dynamic fluid surfaces by global optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 1269–1278Google Scholar
  28. Ressl C (2000) An introduction to the relative orientation using the trifocal tensor. IAPRS 33:769–776Google Scholar
  29. Sarjakoski T (1981) Concept of a completely digital stereoplotter. PJF 2:95–100Google Scholar
  30. Sedlazeck A, Koch R (2011) Calibration of housing parameters for underwater stereo-camera rigs. In: BMVC. Citeseer, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  31. Shan Q, Agarwal S, Curless B (2012) Refractive height fields from single and multiple images. In: IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp 286–293Google Scholar
  32. Tanaka K, Mukaigawa Y, Kubo H, Matsushita Y, Yagi Y (2016) Recovering transparent shape from time-of-flight distortion. Proc IEEE Conf Comput Vis Pattern Recognit:4387–4395Google Scholar
  33. Tian Y, Narasimhan SG (2009) Seeing through water: image restoration using model-based tracking. In: IEEE 12th international conference on computer vision. IEEE, pp 2303–2310Google Scholar
  34. Torr PHS, Murray DW (1997) The development and comparison of robust methods for estimating the fundamental matrix. Int J Comput Vis 24(3):271–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wetzstein G, Raskar R, Heidrich W (2011) Hand-held Schlieren photography with light field probes. In: IEEE international conference on computational photography (ICCP). IEEE, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  36. Wu B, Zhou Y, Qian Y, Gong M, Huang H (2018) Full 3D reconstruction of transparent objects. ACM Trans Graph (Proc SIGGRAPH) 37(4):103:1–103:11Google Scholar
  37. Xue T, Rubinstein M, Wadhwa N, Levin A, Durand F, Freeman WT (2014) Refraction wiggles for measuring fluid depth and velocity from video. In: Fleet D, Pajdla T, Schiele B, Tuytelaars T (eds) ECCV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8691. Springer, Cham, pp 767–782. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yau T, Gong M, Yang YH (2013) Underwater camera calibration using wavelength triangulation. In: IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp 2499–2506Google Scholar
  39. Ye J, Ji Y, Li F, Yu J (2012) Angular domain reconstruction of dynamic 3D fluid surfaces. In: IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp 310–317Google Scholar
  40. Zhang Z (2000) A flexible new technique for camera calibration. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(11):1330–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang X, Cox CS (1994) Measuring the two-dimensional structure of a wavy water surface optically: a surface gradient detector. Exp Fluids 17(4):225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang M, Lin X, Gupta M, Suo J, Dai Q (2014) Recovering scene geometry under wavy fluid via distortion and defocus analysis. In: Fleet D, Pajdla T, Schiele B, Tuytelaars T (eds) ECCV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8693. Springer, Cham, pp 234–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fotogrammetria e Topografia (SIFET) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DICEAM Department, Faculty of Engineering MediterraneanUniversity of Reggio CalabriaReggio CalabriaItaly
  2. 2.DICA DepartmentPolitecnico di MilanMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of PlanningIUAV University of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations