In computer vision research some work is done to separate
specular reflection components from Lambertian components
(e. g. Coleman and Jain (1982) and Klinker, Shafer and
Kanade (1988)). A few attempts have been made to directly
extract parameters of either one or both of the reflectance
models (e. g. Nayar, Ikeuchi and Kanade (1988) and Ikeuchi
and Sato (1990). The experiments provided in these investi-
gations are usually based on simulations.
Stereo orthophotos
The terms stereo orthophotos or stereo orthoimages we want
to use in a distinct analogy to the term stereo images. From
the two images taken in standard stereo configuration the
two corresponding orthophotos are derived by the same pro-
cedure. The overlapping area in the images yields redun-
dant orthophoto information pixel by pixel. These over-
lapping areas of both orthophotos are what we call the
stereo orthophotos. To avoid confusion it is notable to say,
that this is not in agreement with the understanding of the
term stereo orthophotos as it is used in some textbooks
of photogrammetry!. Originally the idea behind stereo or-
thophotos was to simplify the mapping process. For this a
second copy of an orthophoto was generated, in which the
image points are shifted with parallaxes reflecting the eleva-
tion model.
For updating existing maps Peterle (1989) uses orthophotos,
which are derived from images taken of the same object but
with a time lag of several years. This implies, that the scene
in meantime in general has changed. Even though the map-
ping is of prior interest in this work, there are similarities to
the verification task as we will see later.
Viewing the stereo orthophotos stereoscopically, as proposed
by Finsterwalder (1985) mainly for orthophoto verification,
can be an efficient way to verify the DTM manually. Just in
the case of working at digital photogrammetric workstations
this seems to be more promising than other techniques like
superimposition of wireframe or contour line representations
of the DTM on original stereo imagery. Up to now superim-
position is realized only as an analog technique, applied in
the environment of analytical plotters, which work with the
photographs directly.
Verification
Without doubt the human endowment with the ability to
see, to discern and locate objects, to reconstruct and under-
stand the 3D space is the splendid pre-condition to do the
verification of DTMs using stereo orthophotos. The geomet-
ric model for parallaxes between the orthophotos is just the
expectation that the parallaxe at any point is zero. This is
equivalent with the expectation, that the spatial impression
gained from the stereo orthophotos is a planar object which
corresponds to the plane of the orthoprojection. All spatial
deviations from planarity, i. e. all nonzero parallaxes, in-
dicate inconsistencies between the D'TM and the real world
surface.
With this paper we want to pick up the complex of auto-
matic DTM verification. The way to develop a fully auto-
matic D'TM verification procedure is presumably quite long,
!Sometimes the term stereo orthophotos is used to characterize two
orthophotos which are derived from one image by orthoprojection along
different spatial directions of projection, or which has the same effect,
by shifting all image points of an orthophoto by parallaxes proportional
to the elevation difference of the point over a reference plane (Blachut,
1971, Collins, 1968).
234
because at least some of the human abilities of understanding
images have to be incorporated in the procedure. A strategy
to approach the verification task could be as follows:
(1) Detect intensity differences between the orthophotos.
Supposed the orthophotos are generated in such a way that
intensity values are obtained at identical location, the corre-
spondence between the orthophoto pixels is implicitly given.
In a simplest subtraction method, the intensities of each pixel
of the stereo orthophotos are subtracted from each other.
Significant nonzero values in the difference orthoimage indi-
cate inconsistencies between the orthophotos. By aggrega-
tion of the affected pixels into areas, directly the location of
doubtful areas is indicated. If we assume that the physical
aspects of image formation addressed above are not the rea-
son for these changes, then the differences can be interpreted
as indication for discrepancies between real world geometry
and DTM. More sophisticated methods than the simple sub-
traction are discussed in the next section.
(2) The areas of interest located in the first step may be hints
for objects like trees, houses, or bridges which are not repre-
sented in the DTM. Furthermore structural information like
breaklines or other discontinuities, which are not included in
the measured data or which are smoothed out within surface
interpolation, also might be the reason for the differences.
Such errors and all other geometric errors which have not
been recognized within the data capture or the interpolation
process are candidates for areas of discrepancies. The in-
terpretation involves modelling, reconstruction and location
estimation of the 3D structure or shape of the objects or im-
perfections of the DTM. The next step is to decide if and if
necessary which of the reconstructed information has to be
included or eliminated from the existing DTM. In this clas-
sification constraining rules (e. g. do not represent mobile
objects, trees, etc.) have to be incorporated. It is obvious
that other informations like colour would be helpful if not
even necessary to come to an automation of this interpreta-
tion task.
In this paper we present some work on the localization of
conflicting regions between two orthophotos. The term lo-
calization as used in this context comprises the detection of
discrepancies and, in consequence, the location of regions in
the DTM which do not agree with the real world surfaces.
The idea is to analyse the whole area covered by stereo or-
thophotos and locate the discrepant regions. These areas are
marked and visualized, so that instead of a detailed visual
control of the whole area we only have to carry out inter-
pretation for a certain percentage point (e. g. 5 % or 1 %)
of the total area. In the next section we briefly describe
three different procedures for localizing discrepancies in the
orthophotos and in the third section we will present results
with simulated and real stereo imagery.
2 LOCALIZATION OF
DISCREPANT REGIONS
BETWEEN STEREO
ORTHOPHOTOS
All procedures we describe work on the iconic level of im-
age description, i. e. the intensities of the orthophotos are
used for comparison. In consequence, the problem we have
to solv
betwee
in the
age for
inated,
tested.
cated c
closing
crepan!
DTM i
intensi
terior c
do is t«
individ
sequen:
are fulf
thopho
positio:
functio!
But for
approxi
The pr
ancies ¢
the ster
the ort}
respecti
radiome
The adj
only gla
This m«
dure sig
For moc
the ster
(FE) me
The adj
is true.
C(m, n)
ing of t]
facets wi
contribu
lation o]
individu
joint edg
with mo
face C is
to a cert
models kh
context
from dig
For the t
mation h
ent from