Finding GCPs in Loc8 was the topic of my previous blog post. I was able to find many of the points but was given many false positives. I believe this was due to using "Min pixel" at 1 and a large range of colors taken from the target. I also mentioned that the samples I took were affected by the distance from camera to target, the colors blurred together a bit. My first step in reducing false positives was to eliminate this issue, and hopefully this would reduce the color range collected.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c978a/c978aed161663b4c82ce70f3cead0fa375477260" alt=""
Figure 1: Manual GCP samples
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d9f26/d9f2610b98606532658295bdf8b673103ce8bcab" alt=""
Figure 2: Aeropoint samples
When comparing the color ranges collected from aerial imagery (figures 3 and 4) to the ranges collected from the ground we can see that the ground collection has more vibrant colors.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/74eeb/74eebe5114ca5647d603d61db3e6b5be3f85aace" alt=""
Figure 3: Manual GCP color range
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/da0c4/da0c4a013248418631a2f3be375906fbc4b57f19" alt=""
Figure 4: Aeropoint color range
Since I decided to change up the data sampling method in this test I decided to keep the settings the same, shown in figure 5. This way I could determine the effect of collecting data from images taken prior to the search.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8ba50/8ba50348ed6063cd3ff97e33642a3b967f52c4dd" alt=""
Figure 5: Settings used
During this round of processing Loc8 alerted me to 18 images, 14 false positives and 4 positives. In my opinion this is already a massive improvement over the previous run. While I was still given mostly false positive alerts I was only given 14 of them instead of 132. The 14 false positives each had one or two alerts in each image which reduced the amount of time I had to spend checking each alert.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/02b8d/02b8d93d7d659482e84b6084b95242ed4aadd014" alt=""
Figure 6: False positive
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/add1d/add1d2103fd0cd822bd26fa9189f57cbd3eb7739" alt=""
Figure 7: Found Aeropoint
Figure 7 shows a successfully located aeropoint, but also shows two manual GCPs that were not found. Figure 8 zooms in closer to allow for a clearer view of all 3 targets.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/91786/91786f0aee7ade0ef8233f1842775c53886079dd" alt=""
Figure 8
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b64e7/b64e76927cc5f0b62295e1754b25ce4ce1d84de6" alt=""
Figure 9: Found manual GCP
Figure 9 shows a manual GCP being found, but multiple aeropoints being ignored. The "scents" given to the software were able to find both kinds of GCPs, but still generated a high ratio of false positives to positives. While the ratio was still high this method reduced the number of images flagged by false positives by ~90%, and the total number of false positives by more than that. There were also many false negatives given by this method, and that will need to be corrected for. I believe one way to find a balance between the two could be to set a color range based on an image captured before the flight.
Comments