An orientation based correction method for SfM-MVS point clouds—Implications for field geology

Abstract Advancements in computing capabilities over the last decade have allowed for the routine creation of Structure from Motion-Multiview Stereo (SfM-MVS) terrain models that can serve as base for high resolution geologic mapping. Outcrops models developed from these systems are high-resolution, photo-realistic 3D base providing unprecedented capability for geometric analysis. Yet, before this technology becomes a mainstay of field geology, the potential errors associated with it must be well understood. Here, we compare orientation measurements from multi-point analyses on the SfM-MVS point clouds to those taken in the field with the objective of resolving the geometry of complex folds within the outcrop. We also analyzed two point clouds of the same exposure created from different ground-based cameras to compare the ranges of error. We found that the point clouds produced from ground-based photos exhibited significant rigid-body rotation relative to the real world despite well distributed ground control, yet the models maintained a realistic scale and internal geometry. To correct the error the model values were rotated and the discrepancy reassessed. The two point clouds produced similar results, however, the Sony compact-digital-camera-based point cloud ultimately corresponded more closely to field values. We suggest that the primary cause of the error in the point clouds was GPS-based and was enhanced by the lack of significant topographic relief in our camera positions, allowing rigid-body rotations along the axis of the photographic array. This outcome suggests that care must be taken when GPS errors are a significant fraction of the outcrop size and relatively 2D outcrops imaged by a relatively 1D image array are subject to rotation errors that are difficult to remove without high-resolution ground control. Short of using a UAV and/or RTK-GPS we show how this can be resolved simply by collecting several known orientations in the field, which can then be used to orient the model more accurately, akin to ground control points. This addition is a key step if this method is to be used for more thorough analysis and is a general method that could be used to orient virtual outcrops with no geographic reference.

[1]  H. C. Longuet-Higgins,et al.  A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections , 1981, Nature.

[2]  Stefano Tavani,et al.  Building a virtual outcrop, extracting geological information from it, and sharing the results in Google Earth via OpenPlot and Photoscan: An example from the Khaviz Anticline (Iran) , 2014, Comput. Geosci..

[3]  T. Pavlis,et al.  The new world of 3D geologic mapping , 2017 .

[4]  T. Pavlis,et al.  Structural overprinting of Mesozoic thrust systems in eastern California and its importance to reconstruction of Neogene extension in the Southern Basin and Range , 2014 .

[5]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  Towards Internet-scale multi-view stereo , 2010, 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[6]  Jean Ponce,et al.  Accurate Camera Calibration from Multi-View Stereo and Bundle Adjustment , 2008, 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[7]  John R. Andrews,et al.  A method for acquiring and processing ground-based lidar data in difficult-to-access outcrops for use in three-dimensional, virtual-reality models , 2007 .

[8]  M. Westoby,et al.  ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications , 2012 .

[9]  B. Wernicke,et al.  Basin and Range Extensional Tectonics Near the Latitude of Las Vegas, Nevada , 1991 .

[10]  C. Bond,et al.  LiDAR, UAV or compass-clinometer? Accuracy, coverage and the effects on structural models , 2017 .

[11]  J. A. Brush Evaluating methods of field-based 3D visualization and their application to mapping metamorphic terranes: An example from the Panamint Mountains, California , 2015 .

[12]  Matthew A. Brown,et al.  Unsupervised 3D object recognition and reconstruction in unordered datasets , 2005, Fifth International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling (3DIM'05).

[13]  Samuel T. Thiele,et al.  Ground-based and UAV-Based photogrammetry: A multi-scale, high-resolution mapping tool for structural geology and paleoseismology , 2014 .

[14]  F. Storti,et al.  Photogrammetric digital outcrop reconstruction, visualization with textured surfaces, and three-dimensional structural analysis and modeling: Innovative methodologies applied to fault-related dolomitization (Vajont Limestone, Southern Alps, Italy) , 2015 .

[15]  Emmanuel P. Baltsavias,et al.  A comparison between photogrammetry and laser scanning , 1999 .

[16]  J. Walker,et al.  Low-temperature thermochronology of the Black and Panamint mountains, Death Valley, California: Implications for geodynamic controls on Cenozoic intraplate strain , 2015 .

[17]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  Modeling the World from Internet Photo Collections , 2008, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[18]  B. Wernicke,et al.  Black Mountains crustal section, Death Valley extended terrain, California , 1990 .

[19]  Stefano Tavani,et al.  High precision analysis of an embryonic extensional fault-related fold using 3D orthorectified virtual outcrops: The viewpoint importance in structural geology , 2016 .

[20]  T. Quine,et al.  Testing the utility of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry reconstructions using small unmanned aerial vehicles and ground photography to estimate the extent of upland soil erosion , 2017 .

[21]  Elliott D. Kaplan Understanding GPS : principles and applications , 1996 .

[22]  Mark W. Smith,et al.  Structure from Motion in the Geosciences , 2016 .