It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Given the rise and wide adoption of Structure from Motion (SfM) and Multi View Stereo (MVS) in underwater archaeology, this paper investigates the optimal option for surveying ground control point networks. Such networks are the essential framework for coregistration of photogrammetric 3D models acquired in different epochs, and consecutive archaeological related study and analysis. Above the water, on land, coordinates of ground control points are determined with geodetic methods and are considered often definitive. Other survey works are then derived from by using those coordinates as fixed (being ground control points coordinates considered of much higher precision). For this reason, equipment of proven precision is used with methods that not only compute the most correct values (according to the least squares principle) but also provide numerical measures of their precisions and reliability. Under the water, there are two options for surveying such control networks: trilateration and photogrammetry, with the former being the choice of the majority of archaeological expeditions so far. It has been adopted because of ease of implementation and under the assumption that it is more reliable and precise than photogrammetry.
This work aims at investigating the precision of network establishment by both methodologies by comparing them in a typical underwater archaeological site. Photogrammetric data were acquired and analysed, while the trilateration data were simulated under certain assumptions. Direct comparison of standard deviation values of both methodologies reveals a clear advantage of photogrammetry in the vertical (Z) axis and three times better results in horizontal precision.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Civil Engineering and Geomatics Department, Cyprus University of Technology (CUT), 3036 Limassol, Cyprus; Civil Engineering and Geomatics Department, Cyprus University of Technology (CUT), 3036 Limassol, Cyprus
2 COMEX SA – Innovation Department, COMEX, 36 bd de l'Océan - CS 80143 - 13275 Marseille, France; COMEX SA – Innovation Department, COMEX, 36 bd de l'Océan - CS 80143 - 13275 Marseille, France; 3D Optical Metrology unit, Bruno Kessler Foundation (FBK), 38123 Trento, Italy
3 Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, ENSAM, Université De Toulon, LIS UMR 7020, Domaine Universitaire de Saint-Jérôme, Bâtiment Polytech, Avenue Escadrille Normandie-Niemen, 13397, Marseille, France; Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, ENSAM, Université De Toulon, LIS UMR 7020, Domaine Universitaire de Saint-Jérôme, Bâtiment Polytech, Avenue Escadrille Normandie-Niemen, 13397, Marseille, France; Institute of Theoretical Physics, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland