Advertisement

Imaging Sensors

  • Jung-Sup Um
Chapter

Abstract

In the previous chapter, we described the location sensor under the CPS spectrum and the integration concept of GPS and INS sensors. It is said that the imagery data obtained by human eye accounts for 90% of total information acquired from various human sensory organs such as ear, nose and tongue. As the animals evolve from lower level (e.g. insects) to higher grade (e.g human), the utilization of visual data becomes higher. Likewise, as the substitution of natural intelligence by artificial intelligence advances, the dependence on imagery data increases. The underlying principle in data acquisition for CPS systems is to select imaging sensor suitable for operational application based on customer requirements and intended information such as training AI (Artificial Intelligence). An imaging sensor is a sensor converting the variable electromagnetic radiation delivered from the target into signals that convey the information. In order to identify the sensing requirements desired by the CPS instruments such as drones and self-driving cars, the pros and cons of various imaging sensors should be identified and utilized properly. Subsequently this chapter presented advantages and values of low-cost drone photography for hyper-localized targets (e.g. structural cracks in the skeleton of a concrete building and human hand gesture in the street crosswalk) in comparison to the existing methods.

References

  1. 1.
    Dickerson K (2015) Companies want to launch satellites that can see a phone in your hand from space. Business InsiderGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bracher A, Sinnhuber BM (2009) An introduction to remote sensing. http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/~bms/remote_sensing/remote_sensing_chap5.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2018
  3. 3.
    Natural Resources Canada (2015) Spatial resolution, pixel size, and scale. Natural Resources Canada. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/node/9407. Accessed 22 Sept 2018
  4. 4.
    Strüder L, Davis JM, Hartman R, Holl P, Ihle S, Kalok D, Soltau H (2017) Spatial resolution smaller than the pixel size? Yes we can! Microsc Microanal 23(S1):90–91.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927617001131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (2016) Tutorial: fundamentals of remote sensing. Natural Resources Canada. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/earthsciences/pdf/resource/tutor/fundam/pdf/fundamentals_e.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2018
  6. 6.
    Mavi HS, Tupper GJ (2004) Agrometeorology: principles and applications of climate studies in agriculture. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karpowicz J (2016) Figuring out aerial surveying with a Drone instead of arguing about photogrammetry vs LiDAR. Commercial UAV News. Diversified Communications, Free Street, Portland, MEGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Veys C, Hibbert J, Davis P, Grieve B (2017) An ultra-low-cost active multispectral crop diagnostics device. In: SENSORS, 2017. IEEE, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wikipedia (2018) Hyperspectral imaging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspectral_imaging. Accessed 30 Sept 2018
  10. 10.
    Smith RB (2012) Introduction to remote sensing of environment (RSE). MicroImages, Inc. http://www.microimages.com/documentation/Tutorials/introrse.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2018
  11. 11.
    Aber JS, Marzolff I, Ries JB (2010) Chapter 1 – introduction to small-format aerial photography. In: Aber JS, Marzolff I, Ries JB (eds) Small-format aerial photography. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53260-2.10001-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neumann KJ (2008) Trends for digital aerial mapping cameras. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Info Sci (ISPRS) 28:551–554Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boon MA, Greenfield R, Tesfamichael S (2016) Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry produces accurate high-resolution orthophotos, point clouds and surface models for mapping wetlands. S Afr J Geol 5(2):186–200Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2018) Data processing levels. NASA. https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/earth-science-data/data-processing-levels-for-eosdis-data-products/. Accessed 22 Sept 2018
  15. 15.
    Verhoeven G (2011) Taking computer vision aloft–archaeological three-dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with photoscan. Archaeol Prospect 18(1):67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nogueira K, dos Santos JA, Cancian L, Borges BD, Silva TS, Morellato LP, Torres RdS (2017) Semantic segmentation of vegetation images acquired by unmanned aerial vehicles using an ensemble of ConvNets. In: Geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS), 2017 IEEE International, pp 3787–3790Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ammour N, Alhichri H, Bazi Y, Benjdira B, Alajlan N, Zuair M (2017) Deep learning approach for car detection in UAV imagery. Remote Sens 9(4):312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crisp S (2013) Camera sensor size: why does it matter and exactly how big are they? New Atlas. GIZMAG PTY LTD 2018Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Connor JO, Smith M (2016) Selecting cameras for UAV surveys. GIM Int 30:34–37. Geomares PublishingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Um J-S (1999) Airborne video as a remote sensor for linear target: academic research and field practice. Korean J Remote Sens 15(2):159–174MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Um J-S, Wright R (2000) Effect of angular field of view of a video sensor on the image content in a strip target: the example of revegetation monitoring of a pipeline route. Int J Remote Sens 21(4):723–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Um J-S, Wright R (1999) ‘Video strip mapping (VSM)‘for time-sequential monitoring of revegetation of a pipeline route. Geocarto Int 14(1):24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Um J-S, Wright R (1998) A comparative evaluation of video remote sensing and field survey for revegetation monitoring of a pipeline route. Sci Total Environ 215(3):189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Um J-S, Wright R (1996) Pipeline construction and reinstatement monitoring: current practice, limitations and the value of airborne videography. Sci Total Environ 186(3):221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramos TB, Caeiro S, de Melo JJ (2004) Environmental indicator frameworks to design and assess environmental monitoring programs. Impact Assess Project Apprais 22(1):47–62.  https://doi.org/10.3152/147154604781766111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Caeiro S (2004) Environmental data management in the Sado estuary: weight of evidence to assess sediment quality. Universidade Nova de LisboaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Akanmu A, Anumba C, Messner J (2014) Critical review of approaches to integrating virtual models and the physical construction. Int J Confl Manag 14(4):267–282.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2014.972021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aber JS, Aber SW, Pavri F (2002) Unmanned small format aerial photography from kites acquiring large-scale, high-resolution, multiview-angle imagery. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 34(1):1–6Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park S-I, Um J-S (2018) Differentiating carbon sinks versus sources on a university campus using synergistic UAV NIR and visible signatures. Environ Monit Assess 190(11):652.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-7003-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adão T, Hruška J, Pádua L, Bessa J, Peres E, Morais R, Sousa JJ (2017) Hyperspectral imaging: a review on UAV-based sensors, data processing and applications for agriculture and forestry. Remote Sens 9(11):1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keller J (2014) Infrared sensors blending with signal processing to yield new levels of surveillance. Military & Aerospace ElectronicsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Calderón R, Navas-Cortés J, Zarco-Tejada P (2015) Early detection and quantification of verticillium wilt in olive using hyperspectral and thermal imagery over large areas. Remote Sens 7(5):5584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Uto K, Seki H, Saito G, Kosugi Y (2013) Characterization of rice paddies by a UAV-mounted miniature hyperspectral sensor system. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 6(2):851–860.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2013.2250921 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keller J (2012) Advanced military night-vision sensors rely on sensor fusion, networking, and signal processing. Military & Aerospace ElectronicsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Markus Melin ACS, Paul Glover-Kapfer (2017) Remote sensing: lidar. WWF Conservation Technology Series, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lin Y, Hyyppa J, Jaakkola A (2011) Mini-UAV-borne LIDAR for fine-scale mapping. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 8(3):426–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Agishev R, Comerón A (2018) Assessment of capabilities of lidar systems in day-and night-time under different atmospheric and internal-noise conditions. In: EPJ Web of conferences. EDP Sciences, p 01018Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lefsky MA, Cohen WB, Parker GG, Harding DJ (2002) Lidar remote sensing for ecosystem studies lidar, an emerging remote sensing technology that directly measures the three-dimensional distribution of plant canopies, can accurately estimate vegetation structural attributes and should be of particular interest to forest, landscape, and global ecologists. Bioscience 52(1):19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0019:LRSFES]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chuvieco E, Vega JM (1990) Visual versus digital analysis for vegetation mapping: some examples on Central Spain. Geocarto Int 5(3):21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049009354265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parasuraman R, Cosenzo KA, De Visser E (2009) Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Mil Psychol 21(2):270–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cook KL (2017) An evaluation of the effectiveness of low-cost UAVs and structure from motion for geomorphic change detection. Geomorphology 278:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lucieer A, de Jong SM, Turner D (2014) Mapping landslide displacements using structure from motion (SfM) and image correlation of multi-temporal UAV photography. Prog Phys Geogr 38(1):97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sui H, Tu J, Song Z, Chen G, Li Q (2014) A novel 3D building damage detection method using multiple overlapping UAV images. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 40(7):173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chen B, Chen Z, Deng L, Duan Y, Zhou J (2016) Building change detection with RGB-D map generated from UAV images. Neurocomputing 208:350–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eisenbeiß H (2009) UAV photogrammetry. University of Technology DresdenGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schenk T (2005) Introduction to photogrammetry. The Ohio State University, Columbus. http://www.mat.uc.pt/~gil/downloads/IntroPhoto.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2018
  47. 47.
    Rossi P, Mancini F, Dubbini M, Mazzone F, Capra A (2017) Combining nadir and oblique UAV imagery to reconstruct quarry topography: methodology and feasibility analysis. Eur J Remote Sens 50(1):211–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2017.1313097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jiang S, Jiang W, Huang W, Yang L (2017) UAV-based oblique photogrammetry for outdoor data acquisition and offsite visual inspection of transmission line. Remote Sens 9(3):278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    DJI (2015) Inspire 1 user manual V1.0Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Um J-S (1997) Evaluating operational potential of video strip mapping in monitoring reinstatement of a pipeline route. University of Aberdeen, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Greenwood F (2015) How to make maps with drones. Drones and aerial observation, July, pp 35–47Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Linder W (2009) Digital photogrammetry. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Um J-S, Wright R (1999) Video strip mosaicking: a two-dimensional approach by convergent image bridging. Int J Remote Sens 20(10):2015–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Westoby MJ, Brasington J, Glasser NF, Hambrey MJ, Reynolds JM (2012) Structure-from-motion’ photogrammetry: a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179:300–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    James M, Robson S (2012) Straightforward reconstruction of 3D surfaces and topography with a camera: accuracy and geoscience application. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 117(F3):F03017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vasisht D, Kapetanovic Z, Won J, Jin X, Chandra R, Sinha SN, Kapoor A, Sudarshan M, Stratman S (2017) FarmBeats: an IoT platform for data-driven agriculture. In: 14th USENIX symposium on networked systems design and implementation, Boston, MA, USA, 2017. USENIX Association, pp 515–529Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tenedório JA, Rebelo C, Estanqueiro R, Henriques CD, Marques L, Gonçalves JA (2016) New developments in geographical information technology for urban and spatial planning. In: Geospatial research: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. IGI Global, pp 1965–1997Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Marques LFdESC (2017) Augmented valuation of cultural heritage through digital representation based upon geographic information technologies: the case study of Lisbon aqueduct system within an augmented reality environment. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nex F, Remondino F (2014) UAV for 3D mapping applications: a review. Appl Geomatics 6(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Howard C (2012) Unmanned, sensor-laden, and ubiquitous. Military & Aerospace Electronics. Military & Aerospace ElectronicsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jung-Sup Um
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyKyungpook National UniversityDaeguKorea (Republic of)

Personalised recommendations