the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
FACA v1 – Fully Automated Co-Alignment of UAV Point Clouds
Abstract. We introduce FACA – Fully Automated Co-Alignment, an open-source software designed to fully automate the workflow for co-aligning point clouds derived from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) images using photogrammetry. We developed FACA to efficiently evaluate fieldwork with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) on landslides and coastal dynamics. The software applies to any research requiring comparative precise rapid multi-temporal point cloud generation from UAV imagery. UAVs are an essential element in most contemporary applied geosciences research toolkits. Typical products of UAV flights are point clouds created with photogrammetry, to measure objects and their change if multi-temporal data exists. Ground Control Points (GCPs) are considered the best method to increase the precision and accuracy of point clouds, but placing and measuring them is not always feasible during fieldwork. Co-alignment leads to the local precise alignment of multiple point clouds without GCPs. FACA uses Agisoft Metashape Pro and the Python standard library. The GPLv3 licensed FACA source code focuses on extendability, modifiability, and readability. FACA works interchangeably from the command line or a custom graphical user interface. We distribute the software with both usage and installation instructions. Three multi-temporal test datasets are available. We demonstrate the utility and versatility of FACA v1 with a multi-year and -region dataset acquired along Germany's Baltic Sea coast. FACA is in continuous open development.
- Preprint
(7099 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-209', Becky Collins, 21 Feb 2025
reply
General Comments
The paper provides an enhanced methodology for aligning UAV SfM photogrammetry derived point cloud data based on co-alignment techniques. The paper highlights many of the available methods for aligning UAV collected photogrammetry data to generate point clouds that can be used for change detection purposes across multi-temporal datasets. The presented technique represents an improvement in the implementation of co-alignment and provides a robust discussion of its implementation in two different field examples.
Specific Comments
The introduction of structure from motion would benefit from a couple of additional sentences of detail to provide more background on the technique and to give context for the subsequent work.
I think the introduction should contain quantitative critique of the existing methods. There is very little comparison between Direct and Indirect methods for georeferencing or the difference between the accuracy of a point cloud generated from GCP aligned data and that making use of a co-aligned or indirect method of alignment. For a newcomer to the field who may be reading this, it might be helpful for you to define the differences in accuracy between different existing techniques to highlight expected error. This could be done effectively with a simple table of typical errors of the various techniques.
Line 219 you mention supplementing the UAV collected data with manually taken images – would be good to know the reasoning for this and what decision making was taken in the field to decide when and where to do this.
Tables 2 and 3 could be combined together into one. Table 2 as it currently stands seems superfluous.
Section 3.3 you discuss the use of C2C distance for comparison of stable areas but earlier you highlighted the problem of C2C distance often being a function of point density. Some additional justification for that choice would be valuable here. Section 3.4 you present the use of the M3C2 method to compare distance to the first field campaign. Again, explanation of why this choice was made vs the already established C2C method would be valuable.
Frequent use of very high precision in quoting numbers of points and seconds of analysis. Consider whether this is needed as it can mask the magnitude of the differences between techniques. Perhaps consider quoting points to the nearest hundred or thousand and times to the nearest minute.
Table 11 it is clear that the filtering of original chunk and the exporting of the point clouds represent only a very small proportion of the overall time. Excluding them from this table would allow more focus to be given to the components that have a significant impact on the processing time.
The discussion section contains a number of very long paragraphs that could be broken down into smaller sections to better elucidate the points. Breaking the discussion more clearly into sections that discuss the erosion recorded and the accuracy/evaluation of the FACA method would be clearer, especially as this is a paper presenting a methodology and not a paper describing the erosion processes.
There could also be some attention paid to the concision of the discussion – for example, line 370-371 contain a short sentence telling of the uncertainty of tracing cliff tops and the next sentence then attributes variation in coastal retreat to these uncertainties. However this could be achieved by rewriting to something like – “The variation between yearly coastal retreat values for different co-alignment parameterizations is most likely attributable to uncertainties related to the process of hand tracing the cliff top as a measure of coastal erosion.”
More detail related to the statement made at line 367 regarding movement of the RTK base station is required. What were the indicators that led you to that conclusion?
Captions of figures 5 and 6 need additional information to make it clearer what they represent.
Technical Corrections
None identified.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-209-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
102 | 16 | 7 | 125 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 102
- PDF: 16
- XML: 7
- Total: 125
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1