Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging Sensors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Drones as Cyber-Physical Systems

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These situations include, but are not limited to: flying in the course of taking off, landing or conducting a missed approach, flying in accordance with instructions from an air traffic controller undertaking certain kinds of specialised aerial work, for example, power line inspection, geographical survey work, aerial firefighting, agricultural spraying.

  2. 2.

    91.119 – Minimum safe altitudes: General. [Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294 , Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223 , Feb. 1, 2010] Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft such altitudes. A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums over congested areas and other than congested areas, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by FAA

  3. 3.

    All images covering an area and being processed in a block adjustment.

References

  1. Dickerson K (2015) Companies want to launch satellites that can see a phone in your hand from space. Business Insider

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Mavi HS, Tupper GJ (2004) Agrometeorology: principles and applications of climate studies in agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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, ME

    Google Scholar 

  8. Veys C, Hibbert J, Davis P, Grieve B (2017) An ultra-low-cost active multispectral crop diagnostics device. In: SENSORS, 2017. IEEE, pp 1–3

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wikipedia (2018) Hyperspectral imaging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspectral_imaging. Accessed 30 Sept 2018

  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. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Neumann KJ (2008) Trends for digital aerial mapping cameras. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Info Sci (ISPRS) 28:551–554

    Google Scholar 

  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):186–200

    Google Scholar 

  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. Verhoeven G (2011) Taking computer vision aloft–archaeological three-dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with photoscan. Archaeol Prospect 18(1):67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 3787–3790

    Google Scholar 

  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):312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Crisp S (2013) Camera sensor size: why does it matter and exactly how big are they? New Atlas. GIZMAG PTY LTD 2018

    Google Scholar 

  19. Connor JO, Smith M (2016) Selecting cameras for UAV surveys. GIM Int 30:34–37. Geomares Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  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):159–174

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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):723–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):24–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):189–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):221–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Caeiro S (2004) Environmental data management in the Sado estuary: weight of evidence to assess sediment quality. Universidade Nova de Lisboa

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Keller J (2014) Infrared sensors blending with signal processing to yield new levels of surveillance. Military & Aerospace Electronics

    Google Scholar 

  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):5584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Keller J (2012) Advanced military night-vision sensors rely on sensor fusion, networking, and signal processing. Military & Aerospace Electronics

    Google Scholar 

  35. Markus Melin ACS, Paul Glover-Kapfer (2017) Remote sensing: lidar. WWF Conservation Technology Series, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lin Y, Hyyppa J, Jaakkola A (2011) Mini-UAV-borne LIDAR for fine-scale mapping. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 8(3):426–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 01018

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):270–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cook KL (2017) An evaluation of the effectiveness of low-cost UAVs and structure from motion for geomorphic change detection. Geomorphology 278:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):97–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chen B, Chen Z, Deng L, Duan Y, Zhou J (2016) Building change detection with RGB-D map generated from UAV images. Neurocomputing 208:350–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Eisenbeiß H (2009) UAV photogrammetry. University of Technology Dresden

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. DJI (2015) Inspire 1 user manual V1.0

    Google Scholar 

  50. Um J-S (1997) Evaluating operational potential of video strip mapping in monitoring reinstatement of a pipeline route. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen

    Google Scholar 

  51. Greenwood F (2015) How to make maps with drones. Drones and aerial observation, July, pp 35–47

    Google Scholar 

  52. Linder W (2009) Digital photogrammetry. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  53. Um J-S, Wright R (1999) Video strip mosaicking: a two-dimensional approach by convergent image bridging. Int J Remote Sens 20(10):2015–2032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):F03017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 515–529

    Google Scholar 

  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 1965–1997

    Google Scholar 

  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, Portugal

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nex F, Remondino F (2014) UAV for 3D mapping applications: a review. Appl Geomatics 6(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Howard C (2012) Unmanned, sensor-laden, and ubiquitous. Military & Aerospace Electronics. Military & Aerospace Electronics

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea (Republic of)

    Jung-Sup Um

Authors
  1. Jung-Sup Um
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Um, JS. (2019). Imaging Sensors. In: Drones as Cyber-Physical Systems. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3741-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3741-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3740-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3741-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation