The following is a good representation of corn rows in LiDAR data. Corn rows appear for a number of reasons and can be seen in a single scan or in overlapped areas of two adjoining scans. The corn rows in a single scan can be caused by the back and forth scanning of the system. The manufactures say that any given point needs to be within a certain distance of the actual location on the ground. Well this means that that point measurement can be below the actual elevation on the ground or above the actual elevation of the ground. This makes the distance between the points greater creating the appearance of corn rows. Since the error of a LiDAR sensor is greatest at the edge of scan these corn rows are most apparent at the edges of scans. The presents of corns rows is compounded when you have overlapping flight lines because of the inherent error of the scanner or measurement of any given point, the back and forth scan pattern and difference between the elevation measurements between the two scans. This differences will usually be a result of bad calibration. A lot of processing techniques have been developed to remove corn rows but almost always you can see some existences of corn rows in raw LiDAR ( unclassified strips ). The manufactures of LiDAR systems have improved on this issue and continue to make their systems better. The only time I have seen no existence of corn rows is from a system that generates scans in a single direction but I am confident that at some point the technology will improve to the point that we don’t have to talk about corn rows as a result of system function. If you have any insight on the latest systems or systems that address this issue effectively please let me know or leave a comment.
James Wilder Young
Jamie Young has worked in the LiDAR industry for 24 Years. I am currently Executive Vice President of Technology at Pointerra, 3D Data Solved
-
Join 179 other subscribers
Search Topics
Reference Sites
LiDAR Blogs
Profession Blogs
LIDAR Forums
Categories
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- April 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- November 2018
- August 2018
- June 2018
- September 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- September 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
Thanks… Great information and explanation. Corn rows will continue to be found due to the standards of 80% accuracy where if all the 3rd party used a simple las datasets tool and first (dsm) and last return (dem) the problems would been noted and adjusted. The users of published data are the ones that have to find high end software products that cost over one thousand dollars to correct them. One solution was to go back to the DSM and Las dataset to id the problem tiles and then manually correct the example high vegation to noise. Another option was to create a slop analysis to ID areas of high slop variance which noise was the largest section. A vendor offered the mean x 3 to off set outliers. Perhaps our physics people will kindly refer to their text boookfind related programs or references to fix the gaps between ground vegetation open space and height of the sensor / platform. In short to QC have your distributor provide raw dem / dsm to qc their work before end of contract.