Author Affiliations
1 College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China;2 Key Laboratory of Digital Earth Science, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Spatial distribution of noise. (a) Point clouds data nearby TLS; (b) vertical profile along one direction
Fig. 2. Intensity map of point cloud. (a) All point clouds; (b) point clouds after points with intensity less than 2σ removed
Fig. 3. Flow chart of point cloud denoising algorithm
Fig. 4. Denoising results for all point clouds. (a) Data 1, original data; (b)data 1, Cloud compare; (c) data 1, statistical filter & radius filter; (d) data 1, proposed method; (e) data 2, original data; (f) data 2, Cloud compare; (g) data 2, statistical filter & radius filter; (f) data 2, proposed method
Fig. 5. Denoising results for edges of partial buildings and partial electric wires from data 1. (a) Original data; (b) Cloud compare; (c) statistical filter & radius filter; (d) proposed method
Fig. 6. Denoising results for edges of partial buildings and partial electric wires from data 2. (a) Original data; (b) Cloud compare; (c) statistical filter & radius filter; (d) proposed method
Testdata | Proposed method | Statistical filter & radius filter | Cloudcompare |
---|
Minimumsegmentation angle | Intensitycriticalvalue /dB | Rangecriticalvalue /m | T1 | T2 | Number ofneighboringpoints | Multiple ofstandarddeviations | Searchradius /m | R /m |
---|
| | φ /(°) | θ /(°) | 1 | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1186 | 460 | 10d | 0.1 | 40 | 3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.08 | 0.4 | 1162 | 538 | 10d | 0.1 | 40 | 3 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
|
Table 1. Parameters for proposed method and Cloud compare software
Data | Horizontaldirection /(°) | KN /% | K /%R | K /% |
---|
Proposedmethod | Statisticalfilter &radiusfilter | Cloudcompare | Proposedmethod | Statisticalfilter &radiusfilter | Cloudcompare | Proposedmethod | Statisticalfilter &radiusfilter | Cloudcompare |
---|
1 | 72-73 | 90.4 | 55.8 | 52.3 | 98.7 | 59.6 | 62.3 | 95.6 | 58.4 | 60.3 | 146-147 | 92.3 | 57.3 | 59.8 | 95.5 | 66.8 | 69.7 | 94.4 | 63.8 | 65.8 | 271-272 | 94.9 | 65.2 | 50.1 | 96.5 | 65.1 | 65.1 | 95.3 | 61.1 | 61.6 | 332-333 | 93.3 | 56.3 | 55.7 | 96.3 | 59.6 | 60.3 | 94.4 | 57.6 | 57.0 | Average | 92.7 | 58.7 | 54.5 | 96.8 | 62.78 | 64.4 | 94.9 | 60.2 | 61.2 | 2 | 40-42 | 93.9 | 62.9 | 73.8 | 96.0 | 66.4 | 81.3 | 95.1 | 63.2 | 78.3 | 159-161 | 93.5 | 64.9 | 67.6 | 96.3 | 66.7 | 80.2 | 95.4 | 66.1 | 77.6 | 215-217 | 91.7 | 67.5 | 61.7 | 98.7 | 62.1 | 75.2 | 97.2 | 60.7 | 71.4 | 323 - 325 | 92.5 | 58.2 | 60.9 | 98.7 | 73.8 | 75.6 | 96.9 | 71.1 | 69.3 | Average | 92.9 | 61.1 | 66.0 | 97.4 | 67.2 | 78.1 | 96.2 | 65.3 | 74.2 |
|
Table 2. Denoising accuracy of proposed method, statistical filter & radius filter and Cloud compare
Data | Operation efficiency | Ratio of number of denoised points to original points /% |
---|
Proposedmethod /min | Statistical filter &radius filter /min | Cloudcompare /min | Proposedmethod | Statistical filter &radius filter | Cloudcompare |
---|
1 | 1.5 | 1.2 | >30 | 97.4 | 61.3 | 72.2 | 2 | 2.4 | 2.0 | >30 | 97.5 | 62.7 | 70.6 |
|
Table 3. Operation efficiency and ratio of number of denoised points to original points of proposed method, statistical filter & radius filter and Cloud compare