Next Article in Journal
Conceptual Design of a Novel Unmanned Ground Effect Vehicle (UGEV) and Flow Control Integration Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Implementing Mitigations for Improving Societal Acceptance of Urban Air Mobility
Previous Article in Journal
A New Visual Inertial Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) Algorithm Based on Point and Line Features
Previous Article in Special Issue
SuSy-EnGaD: Surveillance System Enhanced by Games of Drones
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Demystifying the Differences between Structure-from-MotionSoftware Packages for Pre-Processing Drone Data

1
College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University Townsville, Bebegu Yumba Campus, 1 James Cook Drive, Douglas, QLD 4811, Australia
2
GeoNadir, Trinity Beach, QLD 4879, Australia
3
TropWATER/College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University Cairns, Nguma-bada Campus, 14-88 McGregor Road, Smithfield, QLD 4878, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Drones 2022, 6(1), 24; https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6010024
Submission received: 16 December 2021 / Revised: 9 January 2022 / Accepted: 9 January 2022 / Published: 14 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers of Drones)

Abstract

With the increased availability of low-cost, off-the-shelf drone platforms, drone data become easy to capture and are now a key component of environmental assessments and monitoring. Once the data are collected, there are many structure-from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry software options available to pre-process the data into digital elevation models (DEMs) and orthomosaics for further environmental analysis. However, not all software packages are created equal, nor are their outputs. Here, we evaluated the workflows and output products of four desktop SfM packages (AgiSoft Metashape, Correlator3D, Pix4Dmapper, WebODM), across five input datasets representing various ecosystems. We considered the processing times, output file characteristics, colour representation of orthomosaics, geographic shift, visual artefacts, and digital surface model (DSM) elevation values. No single software package was determined the “winner” across all metrics, but we hope our results help others demystify the differences between the options, allowing users to make an informed decision about which software and parameters to select for their specific application. Our comparisons highlight some of the challenges that may arise when comparing datasets that have been processed using different parameters and different software packages, thus demonstrating a need to provide metadata associated with processing workflows.
Keywords: unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); digital elevation model (DEM); digital surface model (DSM); orthomosaic; photogrammetry; Earth observation; environmental monitoring unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); digital elevation model (DEM); digital surface model (DSM); orthomosaic; photogrammetry; Earth observation; environmental monitoring

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pell, T.; Li, J.Y.Q.; Joyce, K.E. Demystifying the Differences between Structure-from-MotionSoftware Packages for Pre-Processing Drone Data. Drones 2022, 6, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6010024

AMA Style

Pell T, Li JYQ, Joyce KE. Demystifying the Differences between Structure-from-MotionSoftware Packages for Pre-Processing Drone Data. Drones. 2022; 6(1):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6010024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pell, Taleatha, Joan Y. Q. Li, and Karen E. Joyce. 2022. "Demystifying the Differences between Structure-from-MotionSoftware Packages for Pre-Processing Drone Data" Drones 6, no. 1: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6010024

APA Style

Pell, T., Li, J. Y. Q., & Joyce, K. E. (2022). Demystifying the Differences between Structure-from-MotionSoftware Packages for Pre-Processing Drone Data. Drones, 6(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6010024

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop