| Literature DB >> 30453696 |
Guo Zhang1, Qingwei Wu2, Taoyang Wang3, Ruishan Zhao4, Mingjun Deng5, Boyang Jiang6, Xin Li7, Huabin Wang8, Yu Zhu9, Fangting Li10.
Abstract
The Gaofen-3 (GF-3) satellite is the first C-band multi-polarization synthetic aperture radar (SAR) with the ability of high-accuracy mapping in China. However, the Ground Control Points (GCPs) are essential to ensure the accuracy of mapping for GF-3 SAR imagery at present. In this paper, we analyze the error sources that affect the geometric processing and propose a new block adjustment method without GCPs for GF-3 SAR imagery. Firstly, the geometric calibration of GF-3 image is carried out. Secondly, the rational polynomial coefficient (RPC) model is directly generated after the geometric calibration parameters compensation of each image. Finally, we solve the orientation parameters of the GF-3 images through DEM assisted planar block adjustment and conduct ortho-rectification. With two different imaging modes of GF-3 satellite, which include the QPSI and FS2, we carry out the block adjustment without GCPs. Experimental results of testing areas including Wuhan city and Hubei province in China show that the geometric mosaic accuracy and the absolute positioning accuracy of the orthophoto are better than one pixel, which has laid a good foundation for the application of GF-3 image in global high-accuracy mapping.Entities:
Keywords: GF-3; RPC; accuracy; geometric calibration; planar block adjustment; without GCPs
Year: 2018 PMID: 30453696 PMCID: PMC6263381 DOI: 10.3390/s18114023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flow chart of geometric calibration algorithm.
Figure 2Flowchart of RPC model solution process.
Figure 3Flowchart of planar block adjustment and ortho-rectification.
Basic parameters of the test area.
| Item | Wuhan City | Hubei Province |
|---|---|---|
| Imaging mode | QPSI | FS2 |
| Nominal resolution (m) | 8 | 10 |
| Width of image (km) | 30 | 100 |
| Number of orbit | 4 | 9 |
| Number of images | 11 | 31 |
| Number of GCPs/ICPs | 8 | 134 |
| Number of tie points | 33 | 1038 |
| terrain | plain | Mountains, hills, plain |
| area (km2) | 8594 | 185,900 |
ICPs: Independent Check Points, playing a role in checking the accuracy of adjustment.
Figure 4Selection of control/check points in SAR image.
Figure 5DOM and DEM of Hubei province, China.
ICPs’ accuracy of block adjustment without GCPs using GF-3 SAR images before and after calibration.
| Test Area | Scheme | GCP | ICP | Maximum Error (m) | RMSE (m) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | y | plane | x | y | plane | ||||
| Wuhan | before calibration | 0 | 13 | −41.50 | 16.55 | 41.91 | 29.03 | 7.31 | 29.93 |
| after calibration | 0 | 13 | 7.75 | −9.45 | 9.73 | 4.99 | 5.34 | 7.31 | |
Figure 6Residual distributions of IPs of block adjustments for Wuhan without GCPs.
TPs’ accuracy of block adjustment for Wuhan without GCPs before and after calibration.
| Test Area | Scheme | TP | Maximum Error (pixel) | RMSE (pixel) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | y | plane | x | y | plane | |||
| Wuhan | before calibration | 33 | 0.96 | −0.95 | 0.96 | 0.35 | 0.23 | 0.42 |
| after calibration | 33 | 0.86 | −0.98 | 0.99 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.41 | |
ICPs’ accuracy of block adjustment for Hubei without GCPs before and after calibration.
| Test Area | Scheme | GCP | ICP | Maximum Error (m) | RMSE (m) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | y | plane | x | y | plane | ||||
| Hubei | before calibration | 0 | 135 | 54.80 | 13.74 | 55.01 | 38.70 | 4.54 | 38.97 |
| 13 | 122 | 32.32 | −13.95 | 32.63 | 11.35 | 4.88 | 12.35 | ||
| after calibration | 0 | 135 | 14.90 | −17.98 | 19.10 | 4.60 | 7.70 | 8.97 | |
| 13 | 122 | −13.10 | −16.51 | 18.81 | 4.82 | 5.42 | 7.26 | ||
TPs’ accuracy of block adjustment for Hubei without GCPs before and after calibration.
| Test Area | Scheme | GCP | TP | Maximum Error (pixel) | RMSE (pixel) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | y | plane | x | y | plane | ||||
| Hubei | before calibration | 0 | 1038 | −2.72 | 2.65 | 2.92 | 0.67 | 0.61 | 0.91 |
| 13 | 1038 | −5.05 | −2.80 | 5.05 | 0.95 | 0.65 | 1.15 | ||
| after calibration | 0 | 1038 | 3.12 | 2.66 | 3.13 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.90 | |
| 13 | 1038 | 3.11 | −2.79 | 3.11 | 0.70 | 0.65 | 0.95 | ||
Figure 7Residual distributions of ICPs of block adjustments for Hubei without GCPs.
Figure 8Residual distributions of ICPs of block adjustments for Hubei with GCPs.
ICPs’ accuracy of block adjustment for Hubei with different GCPs after calibration.
| Test Area | Scheme | GCP | Maximum Error (m) | RMSE (m) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | y | plane | x | y | plane | |||
| Hubei | After calibration | 1 | 15.00 | −17.42 | 18.41 | 4.53 | 6.55 | 7.96 |
| 4 | 10.93 | −17.14 | 18.12 | 4.38 | 5.50 | 7.03 | ||
| 9 | −12.74 | −16.27 | 18.39 | 4.59 | 5.50 | 7.17 | ||
| 13 | −13.10 | −16.51 | 18.81 | 4.82 | 5.42 | 7.26 | ||
Figure 9The ortho-map of Hubei province made by GF-3.
Figure 10The mosaic maps of adjacent images after ortho-rectification.