Author Affiliations
1Shanghai Institute of Technical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai200083, China2CAS Key Laboratory of Infrared System Detection and Imaging Technology, Shanghai Institute of Technical Physics,Shanghai00083,China3University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing100049,Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the optical structure system
Fig. 2. UAV bi-directional whiskbroom scanning system
Fig. 3. Wingspan direction point spatial resolution in -30°whiskbroom scanning
Fig. 4. Positioning simulation results of six angles
Fig. 5. Simulation results of positioning error from 0 to 90 degrees (a) latitude orientation error, (b) longitude orientation error
Fig. 6. Visual vector rigorous image correction model
Fig. 7. No control point geometric correction process
Fig. 8. Extraction of virtual control points
Fig. 9. Diagram of positioning error results
Fig. 10. Geometric correction results of visual vector method
Fig. 11. Infrared mosaic and temperature inversion diagram (a) the result of the study area after Mosaic, (b) correction result after Mosaic,(c) map to Google earth result,(d) infrared temperature inversion diagram
Fig. 12. The 8 control points in the result image and Google earth
Fig. 13. Comparison of distance relative errors of control point pairs
Fig. 14. Comparison of angular relative errors of control point pairs
Fig. 15. Relative errors of different swing-angle pairs
序号 | 项目 | 参数 |
---|
1 | 焦距 | 41 mm | 2 | 角分辨率 | 0.4 mrad | 3 | 面阵规模 | 640480 | 4 | 摆扫一行拍摄张数 | 6 |
|
Table 1. whiskbroom scanning thermal infrared camera parameters
误差变量 | 标准差 |
---|
经度/(°) | 0.00001 | 纬度/(°) | 0.00001 | 高度/m | 1 | 横滚角/(°) | 0.001 | 俯仰角/(°) | 0.001 | 偏航角/(°) | 0.001 | IMU与传感器坐标轴误差/(°) | 0.0001 |
|
Table 2. POS simulation experimental data
角度/(°) | 经度实测值 /(°) | 经度标准差 /(°) | 纬度实测值 /(°) | 纬度标准差 /(°) | 综合标准差/m |
---|
30 | 120.959344 | 0.000091 | 30.545302 | 0.000092 | 14.23 | 18 | 120.959255 | 0.000068 | 30.545011 | 0.000071 | 10.81 | 6 | 120.959177 | 0.000033 | 30.545011 | 0.000042 | 5.87 | -6 | 120.959111 | 0.000037 | 30.544433 | 0.000045 | 6.41 | -18 | 120.959033 | 0.000072 | 30.544144 | 0.000077 | 11.59 | -30 | 120.958966 | 0.000088 | 30.543902 | 0.000093 | 14.08 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of errors of six swing sweeps
摆扫角度/(°) | 经度方向中误差/m | 纬度方向中误差/m | 联合中误差/m |
---|
29.5957 | 8.24 | 9.89 | 12.873 | 17.7925 | 6.84 | 7.36 | 10.048 | 5.9379 | 5.92 | 6.21 | 8.580 | -5.9460 | 6.24 | 6.82 | 9.244 | -17.7798 | 7.96 | 8.09 | 11.349 | -29.5961 | 8.17 | 8.74 | 11.964 | -29.6422 | 8.41 | 10.09 | 13.135 | -17.7875 | 8.04 | 8.13 | 11.433 | -5.9058 | 7.75 | 8.52 | 11.517 | 5.9414 | 6.82 | 7.81 | 10.368 | 17.7509 | 8.13 | 8.83 | 12.003 | 29.6149 | 8.33 | 8.86 | 12.161 | 平均 | 7.571 | 8.280 | 11.223 |
|
Table 4. positioning error results of swing scan images