Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based photogrammetry that employs structure from motion (SfM) and multi-view stereo (MVS) has been widely used in many disciplines, particularly in topographic surveying. However, several factors can affect the accuracy and precision of these techniques, including the analysis settings of the SfM process. In this study, we evaluated the robustness of SfM accuracy and precision against the non-optimal analysis settings by employing 750 analysis settings of SfM for 15 sets of images taken at five different pitch angles and three distinct ground sample distances. Flights were performed over a 100×100 m² flat surface using the constant-pitch flight design. The results demonstrated the robustness of 20° and 30° pitch angles against non-optimality in SfM settings, producing relatively small root mean square errors for validation points (no larger than 0.056 m). This indicates that using these pitch angles for the flight design helps avoid concern over the SfM settings. Conversely, constant-pitch shooting with a 10° pitch angle was found to be insufficient for accurate estimation of camera intrinsic parameters (focal length f), and shooting with a 40° pitch angle showed a high risk of pose estimation failure, depending on the analysis settings. These findings can be useful for practitioners and researchers to improve their future applications of UAV-based photogrammetry.

1. [1] N. Kochi, S. Isobe, A. Hayashi, K. Kodama, and T. Tanabata, “Introduction of all-around 3D modeling methods for investigation of plants,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.15, No.3, pp. 301-312, 2021. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2021.p0301
2. [2] N. Kochi, T. Tanabata, A. Hayashi, and S. Isobe, “A 3D shape-measuring system for assessing strawberry fruits,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.12, No.3, pp. 395-404, 2018. https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2018.p0395
3. [3] J. Tomaštík, M. Mokroš, S. Saloň, F. Chudý, and D. Tunák, “Accuracy of photogrammetric UAV-based point clouds under conditions of partially-open forest canopy,” Forests, Vol.8, No.5, Article No.151, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8050151
4. [4] D.-W. Kim et al., “Modeling and testing of growth status for Chinese cabbage and white radish with UAV-based RGB imagery,” Remote Sensing, Vol.10, No.4, Article No.563, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10040563
5. [5] S. Coveney and K. Roberts, “Lightweight UAV digital elevation models and orthoimagery for environmental applications: Data accuracy evaluation and potential for river flood risk modelling,” Int. J. of Remote Sensing, Vol.38, Nos.8-10, pp. 3159-3180, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1292074
6. [6] F. Carvajal-Ramírez, F. Agüera-Vega, and P. J. Martínez-Carricondo, “Effects of image orientation and ground control points distribution on unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry projects on a road cut slope,” J. of Applied Remote Sensing, Vol.10, No.3, Article No.034004, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.10.034004
7. [7] D. Godone, P. Allasia, L. Borrelli, and G. Gullà, “UAV and structure from motion approach to monitor the Maierato landslide evolution,” Remote Sensing, Vol.12, No.6, Article No.1039, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12061039
8. [8] B. Kršák et al., “Use of low-cost UAV photogrammetry to analyze the accuracy of a digital elevation model in a case study,” Measurement, Vol.91, pp. 276-287, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.028
9. [9] I. G. Y. Partama et al., “Removal of water-surface reflection effects with a temporal minimum filter for UAV-based shallow-water photogrammetry,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.43, No.12, pp. 2673-2682, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4399
10. [10] A. S. Woodget, P. E. Carbonneau, F. Visser, and I. P. Maddock, “Quantifying submerged fluvial topography using hyperspatial resolution UAS imagery and structure from motion photogrammetry,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.40, No.1, pp. 47-64, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3613
11. [11] P. E. Carbonneau and J. T. Dietrich, “Cost-effective non-metric photogrammetry from consumer-grade sUAS: Implications for direct georeferencing of structure from motion photogrammetry,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.42, No.3, pp. 473-486, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4012
12. [12] M. R. James, G. Antoniazza, S. Robson, and S. N. Lane, “Mitigating systematic error in topographic models for geomorphic change detection: Accuracy, precision and considerations beyond off-nadir imagery,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.45, No.10, pp. 2251-2271, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4878
13. [13] M. R. James and S. Robson, “Mitigating systematic error in topographic models derived from UAV and ground-based image networks,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.39, No.10, pp. 1413-1420, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3609
14. [14] M. W. Smith and D. Vericat, “From experimental plots to experimental landscapes: Topography, erosion and deposition in sub-humid badlands from Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.40, No.12, pp. 1656-1671, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3747
15. [15] E. Sanz-Ablanedo, J. H. Chandler, J. R. Rodríguez-Pérez, and C. Ordóñez, “Accuracy of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and SfM photogrammetry survey as a function of the number and location of ground control points used,” Remote Sensing, Vol.10, No.10, Article No.1606, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101606
16. [16] M. Štroner, R. Urban, J. Seidl, T. Reindl, and J. Brouček, “Photogrammetry using UAV-mounted GNSS RTK: Georeferencing strategies without GCPs,” Remote Sensing, Vol.13, No.7, Article No.1336, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13071336
17. [17] M. R. James, S. Robson, and M. W. Smith, “3-D uncertainty-based topographic change detection with structure-from-motion photogrammetry: Precision maps for ground control and directly georeferenced surveys,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.42, No.12, pp. 1769-1788, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4125
18. [18] E. Sanz-Ablanedo, J. H. Chandler, P. Ballesteros-Pérez, and J. R. Rodríguez-Pérez, “Reducing systematic dome errors in digital elevation models through better UAV flight design,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.45, No.9, pp. 2134-2147, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/ESP.4871
19. [19] S. Ahmed, A. El-Shazly, F. Abed, and W. Ahmed, “The influence of flight direction and camera orientation on the quality products of UAV-based SfM-photogrammetry,” Applied Sciences, Vol.12, No.20, Article No.10492, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010492
20. [20] W. Luo et al., “Optimization of UAVs-SfM data collection in aeolian landform morphodynamics: A case study from the Gonghe Basin, China,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.45, No.13, pp. 3293-3312, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4965
21. [21] P. R. Nesbit and C. H. Hugenholtz, “Enhancing UAV-SfM 3D model accuracy in high-relief landscapes by incorporating oblique images,” Remote Sensing, Vol.11, No.3, Article No.239, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11030239
22. [22] DJI Enterprise, “Phantom 4 RTK.” https://www.dji.com/jp/phantom-4-rtk [Accessed September 15, 2023]
23. [23] A. Eltner, P. Baumgart, H.-G. Maas, and D. Faust, “Multi-temporal UAV data for automatic measurement of rill and interrill erosion on loess soil,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.40, No.6, pp. 741-755, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3673
24. [24] S. I. Deliry and U. Avdan, “Accuracy of unmanned aerial systems photogrammetry and structure from motion in surveying and mapping: A review,” J. of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Vol.49, No.8, pp. 1997-2017, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-021-01366-x
25. [25] Aerosense Inc., “Aerobo Marker,” (in Japanese). https://aerosense.co.jp/products/equipment_systems/ [Accessed September 15, 2023]
26. [26] M. Cramer, H.-J. Przybilla, and A. Zurhorst, “UAV cameras: Overview and geometric calibration benchmark,” The Int. Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol.XLII-2/W6, pp. 85-92, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W6-85-2017
27. [27] M. R. James et al., “Guidelines on the use of structure-from-motion photogrammetry in geomorphic research,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol.44, No.10, pp. 2081-2084, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4637
28. [28] S. P. Bemis et al., “Ground-based and UAV-Based photogrammetry: A multi-scale, high-resolution mapping tool for structural geology and paleoseismology,” J. of Structural Geology, Vol.69, Part A, pp. 163-178, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2014.10.007
29. [29] A. Kanno, M. Yuji, Y. Otsu, K. Sugimoto, and M. Takada, “Effect of constant pitch meandering flight method and analysis settings in SfM without GCPs,” Proc. of Japan Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Annual Conf. 2021, pp. 49-52, 2021 (in Japanese).
30. [30] P. Sturm, “Critical motion sequences for monocular self-calibration and uncalibrated Euclidean reconstruction,” Proc. of IEEE Computer Society Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1100-1105, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.1997.609467
31. [31] P. Moreels and P. Perona, “Evaluation of features detectors and descriptors based on 3D objects,” Int. J. of Computer Vision, Vol.73, No.3, pp. 263-284, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-006-9967-1
32. [32] Y. Liu, K. Han, and W. Rasdorf, “Assessment and prediction of impact of flight configuration factors on UAS-based photogrammetric survey accuracy,” Remote Sensing, Vol.14, No.16, Article No.4119, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14164119