tanbul 2004 
o the flying 
t 
sensor are 
10mogenous 
ditions, the 
ition. This 
feier (1978) 
is as a result 
The change 
le factor for 
of interior 
lirect sensor 
ation of the 
1easured by 
stem during 
rect sensor 
determined 
'onventional 
he relation 
ired directly 
"IMU body 
comparison 
ters with the 
k. The IMU 
n. The IMU 
north while 
1 are related 
je taken into 
lentation to 
  
1g sensor 
N 
rientation is 
“Integrated 
test field in 
1as 51 well 
1/EUREF89 
the OEEPE 
in test field 
1:5.000 and 
for system 
   
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B1. Istanbul 2004 
  
calibration. The actual test flights were flown in the scale 
1:5000 over test field. The calibration flight and test flight were 
carried out with photogrammetric camera, Ashtech GPS 
receiver and the Applanix POS/AV 510 system (see for detail 
Nilsen, 2002). The flight pattern of calibration flight and test 
flight can be seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3. 
  
    
    
7 X 100045 * 
oo A foh 
rp [ 
PIS 
100049 
   
    
100045 
A 
/ wit 
of Fou y A 35 "UK. 100043 
2 £ # d E = 
* # bà * 
/ = \ ji 
  
  
  
Figure 2. Flight axes of calibration flight, 1:5.000+1:10.000 
  
       
   
  
    
100408 m d 
/ Sed 2 
VA 7. x 
iopizi/" 
W f 
/ 1 opo 40 
[oor 100144 
Z 
| 
  
  
  
  
Figure 5. FI1gNt axes OI LESL Ingnt, 1:5.0UU 
The system calibration parameters were computed with 
different approaches, to investigate the effect of system 
calibration on direct sensor orientation. The bundle block 
adjustments with calibration flights in the two different scales 
(1:5.000 and 1:10.000) have been made in the UTM system and 
the orthogonal tangential system for each approach. The 
approaches followed in bundle block adjustment can be 
described as below: 
a) GPS supported bundle block adjustment, 
b) GPS supported bundle block adjustment, with self 
calibration by additional parameters, 
c) GPS supported bundle block adjustment, using 
corrected interior orientation parameters with self 
calibration by additional parameters. 
At first, the interior orientation. parameters from camera 
calibration certificate f=153.344 mm were used for bundle 
block adjustment. The correction for focal length Af = 0.039 
mm and the principal points Ax, = -0,024 mm, Ay, = 0. Mes mm 
were computed in second approach with self calibration by 
additional parameters in UTM system. In tangential system, 
computed correction are different for focal length Af — 0.039 
mm and the principal points Ax, = -0,024 mm, Ay, = 0.001 mm. 
This difference can be explained the scaling effect of UTM 
system. The corrected interior orientation parameters have been 
used in third approach. The results of these adjustments using 
the Hannover program system BLUH can be seen in Table 1. 
  
RMS of control 
  
   
    
   
  
  
   
   
   
    
    
  
  
    
   
   
    
  
  
  
Approach Cont. points [cm] 
points m X Y Z 
GPS sup. bun. bl. adj. in 
UTM 20 1202] 82 65 | 258 
GPS sup. bun. bl. adj. in 
(LAN. 20 8931.30 2.6 | 10.4 
  
GPS sup. bun. bl. adj. in 
UTM with self cal. par. 20 6,58 | 1.5 2.5 3.0 
GPS sup. bun. bl. adj. in 
TAN. with self cal. par. 20 
GPS sup. bun. bl. adj. in 
UTM with self cal. par. 
and cor. f, Xo, Yo. 
GPS sup. bun. bl. adj. in 
TAN. with self cal. par. 
and cor. f, Xo. yo 
  
6.45 1.4 2.7 2.8 
  
20 S97 1. 2.0 2.3 3.2 
  
t2 
Uo 
> 
In 
U. 
ON 
20 5.67 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
   
    
   
   
    
   
  
   
  
  
  
Table 1. Results of reference bundle block adjustment 
The influence of actual interior orientation parameters can be 
seen by comparing the results of the first and third approaches 
in Table 1. The boresight misalignments are determined by 
comparing the GPS/IMU derived exterior orientation 
parameters with the exterior orientation parameters from 
reference bundle block adjustments for each approach. The 
GPS/IMU derived attitudes and positions of test flight were 
improved by the different sets of boresight misalignment. The 
improved GPS/IMU derived attitudes were converted into the 
photogrammetric definition of rotations. 
The object coordinates of measured image point and check 
points were intersected based on GPS/IMU derived exterior 
orientation parameters improved by boresight misalignment. 
The object coordinates of check points computed by 
intersection and compared with the given reference coordinates. 
The results of combined intersection using different system 
calibration parameters can be seen in Table 2