High-resolution stereo satellite imagery is widely used in environmental monitoring, topographic mapping, and urban three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction. However, a critical issue in these applications using high-resolution stereo satellite imagery is to improve the accuracy of point geo-positioning. This paper presents a framework for comparison of the performance of the three-dimensional (3D) geo-positioning of the bias-corrected Rigorous Sensor Models (RSMs) and rational function models (RFMs) with respect to the high-resolution QuickBird stereo images in three spaces (i.e., orbital space, image space and object space). The compared models include a bias-corrected RSM in the orbital space, a bias-corrected RSM and RFM in the image space, and a bias-corrected RSM and RFM in the object space. In the comparison, the RSMs and RFMs use the vendor-provided orbit data and Rational Polynomial Coefficients (RPCs), respectively. The experimental results indicated that, (1) these five bias-corrected models can provide a sub-pixel geo-positioning accuracy. With the zero-order polynomial correction model in the orbital space and a minimum of three Ground Control Points (GCPs), the accuracy based on RPCs better than 0.8 m in horizontal direction and 1.3 m in vertical direction. With an increase in the number of GCPs, or in the order of correction models, the regenerated orbital parameters achieve a slight improved positioning accuracy of 0.5 m in horizontal direction and 0.8 m in vertical direction with 25 GCPs, which indicates that the low-order correction model in the orbital space can accurately model the effects of ephemeris and attitude errors; (2) the performances of bias-corrected RSM and RFM in image space are rather similar. However, the bias-corrected RSM and RFM in image space achieve a better accuracy than the bias-corrected RSM and RFM in object space, with the same configuration of GCPs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hong et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: