/, Part B3. Istanbul 2004 
oncerned, it was decided 
lly constrainted occupied 
minimum in number and 
the interior of this block 
craint. 
1gulated points and of 
nay be observed in Figure 
  
rom Sony DSC-F717. 
VERIFICATION POINT 
NO TRIANGULATED 
à \ 
y ka 
Qo 
35 
We 
A Y 194 
A | 195 
0 196 
197 Z CONSTRAINT 
MAGES 
  
| Block. 
  
(b) 
and digital image (b). 
   
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXX V, Part B3. Istanbul 2004 
POINT 8 
  
Figure 6 — (a) LIDAR cloud of points (the Point 8 is in the 
central area); (b) detail for the Point 8 in the intensity image; (c) 
detail of the Point 8 in the photographic image. 
5. RESULTS 
The results obtained in the processing of triangulation are 
within the precision levels appropriate for photogrammetric 
observations and for coordinates of ground control points. 
Firstly, a global analysis of the adjustment carried out was 
considered utilizing the statistical test of the qui-square, based 
on the a priori (1.0) and a posteriori (0.196674) variance. It 
was verified that the residues obtained in the observations 
conducted are all below a pixel, what corresponds to 25 cm on 
the terrain. Comparing the planimetric coordinates of the 
altimetric constrainted control points obtained from the 
triangulation and the ones proceeding from the laser scanning, it 
is verified in Table 3 an average planimetric result of 0.513 
meters, with standard deviation of 0.258. This shows that 68.8% 
of the points tested are within a planimetric accuracy below 80 
em and 100% of the points tested below 1.0 meter. Table 4 
displays the results obtained in the points of verification. In this 
case, the planimetric discrepancies obtained are smaller, but not 
significant considering the small number of points analyzed and 
standard deviation obtained. Therefore, the conclusion is that 
the planimetric accuracy obtained in the experiment conducted 
is around 75 cm and the altimetric around 80 cm. 
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
The results obtained in this research were encouraging and led 
to the following conclusions: 
- the methodology employed for the utilization of LIDAR data 
and determination of points of altimetric and planimetric 
control for triangulation was considered efficient: 
- low-cost digital cameras may be employed in low-cost 
aerophotogrammetric surveys; 
- the utilization of non-simultaneous aerial surveys with LIDAR 
is promising for future applications in cartographic updating; 
- the utilization of the pixel as a unit in the image system was 
consistent and efficient; 
- the integration of LIDAR data with aerial images obtained 
with small-format digital cameras was perceived as promising 
considering the progressive resolution increase in the area 
sensors of these cameras and the increasing number of regions 
surveyed with LIDAR. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Point | dE(m) | dN(m) | dR(m) dh(m) 
7 0.214 | -0.181 0.280 0.016 
11 0.252 | -0.204 0.324 -0.015 
13 0.201 -0.339 0.394 -0.005 
14 -0.354 | -0.278 0.450 -0.094 
15 -0.236 | -0.120 0.265 0.018 
16 0.484 | -0.726 0.873 0.014 
17 0.251 0.489 0.550 0.014 
18 0.208 0.062 0.217 -0.015 
19 0.004 | -0.157 0.157 0.047 
20 -0:293 | 0.595 0.663 -0.005 
21 0.313 | -0.438 0.538 -0.025 
22 0.093 0.284 0.299 -0.042 
24 -0.185 | -0.104 0.212 0.030 
27 -0.097 | 0.879 0.884 0.030 
28 0.650 0.189 0.677 0.000 
32 -0.141 | 0.293 0.325 0.087 
33 -0.551 0.416 0.690 -0.030 
34 0.259 | -0.883 0.920 0.012 
38 -0.836 | 0.178 0.855 0.001 
39 -0.176 | 0.835 0.853 0.051 
42 -0.331 | 0.092 0.344 0.001 
mean | -0.013 | 0.042 0.513 0.004 
s.d. 0.358 0.462 0.258 0.037 
  
Table 3. Points with Altimetric Constraint. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Point | dE(m) | dN(m) | dR(m) | dh(m) 
8 0.299 0.040 0:302 ] 0.536 
37 9,172 | -0.123 | 0211 120.416 
43 -0.585 | 0.219 0.625 | 0.736 
90 -0.306 | -0.588 | 0.663 | -0.872 
9] -0.136 | -0.052 | 0.146 | -0.436 
mean | -0.111 | -0.101 0.389 | -0.090 
s.d. 0.358 0.301 0.239 | 0.691 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 4. Check Points (Free Points). 
References 
ANDRADE, R.R, 2001. Dedrometric Measures with 
Calibrated Digital Cameras. MSc. Dissertation. Portuguese. 
Curitiba. UFPR, 138p. 
BALTSAVIAS, E.P., 1999. Airborne laser scanning: basic 
relations and formulas. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry & 
Remote Sensing 54 (1999) 199-214p. 
DELARA, R., 2003. Calibration of Non Metric, Small format 
Digital Cameras Using the Pixel as unit in the Image Space. 
Portuguese. Curitiba, UFPR, 46p. 
GEMAEL, C. 1994. Introduction to Adjustment of 
Observations: Geodetic Applications. Portuguese. Curitiba: Ed. 
UFPR, 319p.