It all depends on your terrain and your image. The problem is radial deformation: When you make an aerial photo, your 3D terrain gets projected on a 2D surface. This is ok in the center of your photograph, as the light reflected from the terrain is perpendicular to both the photograph and the terrain. The problem occurs toward the edges, since the points that have higher elevation get projected outward relative to the points with lower elevation, which get projected inward. For example, imagine looking at a tall industrial chimney from a hill. The base of the chimney seems where it should be, on the ground. The top of the chimney, if you imagine this as a 2D photo, lies on the fields far beyond the base. The same thing happens to the terrain.
So, the radial deformation depends on the altitude of the camera (lower the altitude, higher the deformation), differences in terrain elevations (higher the differences, higher the deformation) and view angle of the camera (wider the angle, higher the deformation toward the edges).
So, ideally, if your terrain was flat as a pancake, or if the photograph was taken from infinite distance, ortorectifying would do exactly the same as warping. The difference between the both procedures is that ortorectification takes into account the radial deformation and corrects it (so, you will need a DEM of the area you want to ortorectify, camera flight altitude and camera lens parameters), while warping just does a rubber sheet warp based on a limited amount of reference points.
It all depends on your image and your application: if you have a satellite photo, than you get quite close to having your camera at an infinite altitude above the terrain, so the warping routine actually does a pretty good job. However, if you have an aerial photograph taken from an airplane, the radial deformation really kicks in and you can pretty much forget warping if you want to have any precision in your final image. Still, if your terrain is really flat, you might get a fairly decent result. It may also work if you need your image only for presentation purposes and you're not really concerned about precision.
You can read more about the topic in practically any book on basic remote sensing. I apologize if the terminology I used in this explanation is incorrect, since I've studied the subject in another language.
Regards,
Tomaz.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- bine@kibla.org Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere Tomaz Skrbinsek is the fact that none of it has tried to contact us ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Viktoras Didziulis [mailto:firekv@hotmail.com] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 7:51 AM > To: gislist@geocomm.com > Subject: GISList: orthorectifying vs. triangulated warping > > Actualy is there really a big difference in an outcomming result using a > "real" orthorectifying routine and image warping with triangulation > algorithm having dense grid of refference points ? > > Viktoras > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > > > To unsubscribe, write to gislist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com > ________________________________________________________________________ > GeoCommunity GeoBids - less than $1 per day! > Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids > http://www.geobids.com > > Setup a GeoCommunity Account and have access to > the GISDataDepot DRG & DOQQ Catalog > http://www.geocomm.com/login.php
To unsubscribe, write to gislist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com ________________________________________________________________________ GeoCommunity GeoBids - less than $1 per day! Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids http://www.geobids.com
Setup a GeoCommunity Account and have access to the GISDataDepot DRG & DOQQ Catalog http://www.geocomm.com/login.php
|