The differences in the 2 reports are as follows:
Computed Images GCP's Manual Tie Points, the figures look different as the second report has the GCP's for more accurate analysis and the points were tied down with GPS points.
Geolocation Details-
The first quality report, the Absolute Geolocation Variance has 276 images labeled to be inaccurate. The Second report only had 244 so it showed improvement with the GCP's.
The Relative Geolocation Variance on the first report showed 78.79 and the second one with GCP's showed 78.57. This is only a minor improvement.
This is an image of the study area and the GCP locations.
The following map is the map with GPS and no GCPs.
As you see in the two maps, the different devices are showing a different location of the spot in question. The second map with the GCPs. shows that none of the devices are right on the exact spot of the location. If the map was bigger you could see the difference. I was unable to get a zoomed in view of this. The one I do have is very pixelated but I think the idea is clear in the below image.
Zoomed in view of GPS devices and the GCP.
Final Critique:
The Pix4D software is very unique, it has a lot to offer to someone trying to get very accurate results. The most helpful is the Quality Report, it shows you if the images you have are going to give you what you want out of them. It tells you many details about the images and how well they lined up with key points etc. This software has come a long way and I am sure will go further. This software's manual was very helpful, it made things much easier to understand, if you do not understand or know what something is then you can simply look under quick links or on the search bar. I found it very easy to use and I did enjoy learning how to use it.
No comments:
Post a Comment