Comparison of ZEB1 and Leica C10 indoor laser scanning point clouds

We present a comparison of point cloud generation and quality of data acquired by Zebedee (Zeb1) and Leica C10 devices which are used in the same building interior. Both sensor devices come with different practical and technical advantages. As it could be expected, these advantages come with some drawbacks. Therefore, depending on the requirements of the project, it is important to have a vision about what to expect from different sensors. In this paper, we provide a detailed analysis of the point clouds of the same room interior acquired from Zeb1 and Leica C10 sensors. First, it is visually assessed how different features appear in both the Zeb1 and Leica C10 point clouds. Next, a quantitative analysis is given by comparing local point density, local noise level and stability of local normals. Finally, a simple 3D room plan is extracted from both the Zeb1 and the Leica C10 point clouds and the lengths of constructed line segments connecting corners of the room are compared. The results show that Zeb1 is far superior in ease of data acquisition. No heavy handling, hardly no measurement planning and no point cloud registration is required from the operator. The resulting point cloud has a quality in the order of centimeters, which is fine for generating a 3D interior model of a building. Our results also clearly show that fine details of for example ornaments are invisible in the Zeb1 data. If point clouds with a quality in the order of millimeters are required, still a high-end laser scanner like the Leica C10 is required, in combination with a more sophisticated, time-consuming and elaborative data acquisition and processing approach.

[1]  Peyman Moghadam,et al.  HeatWave : a handheld 3D thermography system for energy auditing , 2013 .

[2]  Klaus Schilling,et al.  Evaluation of a Backpack-Mounted 3D Mobile Scanning System , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[3]  Franck Marzani,et al.  Integration of 3D and multispectral data for cultural heritage applications: Survey and perspectives , 2013, Image Vis. Comput..

[4]  Babak Taati,et al.  Difference of Normals as a Multi-scale Operator in Unorganized Point Clouds , 2012, 2012 Second International Conference on 3D Imaging, Modeling, Processing, Visualization & Transmission.

[5]  M. James,et al.  Ultra‐rapid topographic surveying for complex environments: the hand‐held mobile laser scanner (HMLS) , 2014 .

[6]  M. Menenti,et al.  Scanning geometry: Influencing factor on the quality of terrestrial laser scanning points , 2011 .

[7]  Kevin Curran,et al.  An evaluation of indoor location determination technologies , 2011, J. Locat. Based Serv..

[8]  Michael Bosse,et al.  Zebedee: Design of a Spring-Mounted 3-D Range Sensor with Application to Mobile Mapping , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[9]  Hugh F. Durrant-Whyte,et al.  Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I , 2006, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[10]  Michael Bosse,et al.  Efficient Large‐scale Three‐dimensional Mobile Mapping for Underground Mines , 2014, J. Field Robotics.

[11]  J. Roebroeks,et al.  Generating a full 3D Model of The Windmill (Molen de Roos) , 2015 .

[12]  Emily Williams,et al.  Assessing Handheld Mobile Laser Scanners for Forest Surveys , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[13]  Roderik Lindenbergh,et al.  IDENTIFYING CORRESPONDING SEGMENTS FROM REPEATED SCAN DATA , 2012 .

[14]  Sander Oude Elberink,et al.  Accuracy and Resolution of Kinect Depth Data for Indoor Mapping Applications , 2012, Sensors.

[15]  Jan Boehm,et al.  MOBILE LASER SCANNING FOR INDOOR MODELLING , 2013 .

[16]  Avideh Zakhor,et al.  Indoor Localization Algorithms for an Ambulatory Human Operated 3D Mobile Mapping System , 2013, Remote. Sens..

[17]  Michael Bosse,et al.  Efficiently capturing large, complex cultural heritage sites with a handheld mobile 3D laser mapping system , 2014 .