Comparing remotely sensed Pictometry® Web-based height estimates with in situ clinometer and laser range finder height estimates

Daniel R. Unger; I-Kuai Hung; David L. Kulhavy

doi:10.1117/1.JRS.8.083590

17 July 2014 Comparing remotely sensed Pictometry® Web-based height estimates with in situ clinometer and laser range finder height estimates

Daniel R. Unger, I-Kuai Hung, David L. Kulhavy

Author Affiliations +

Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 083590 (July 2014). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.8.083590

Abstract

Heights of 30 light poles were measured with a telescopic height pole. Clinometer and laser range finder in situ estimated light pole height was compared to Pictometry® estimated light pole height using hyperspatial 4-in. (10.2-cm) multispectral imagery within a Web-based interface. Average percent agreement between light pole height and clinometer and laser range finder estimated that light pole height ranged from 3.97% to 3.79% for clinometer and laser range finder estimated light pole height, respectively. Average percent agreement between light pole height and Pictometry® estimated light pole height at image magnification factors of 100%, 125%, 150%, 200%, and 300% magnification ranged from 1.77% to 2.39%. Root-mean-square error (RMSE) between light pole height and clinometer and laser range finder estimated that light pole height ranged from 0.22 to 0.20 m for clinometer and laser range finder estimated light pole height, respectively. RMSE between light pole height and Pictometry® estimated light pole height ranged from 0.10 to 0.14 m. An analysis of variance between absolute errors of light pole height estimate by different techniques indicated that Pictometry® was significantly more accurate than both clinometer and laser range finder light pole height estimates.

Citation Download Citation

Daniel R. Unger, I-Kuai Hung, and David L. Kulhavy "Comparing remotely sensed Pictometry® Web-based height estimates with in situ clinometer and laser range finder height estimates," Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 8(1), 083590 (17 July 2014). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.8.083590

Published: 17 July 2014

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available