Differences between revisions 2 and 46 (spanning 44 versions)

Spacecraft Zenith Variations

Aim and Objectives

Purpose of Test 11: To evaluate SPC's ability to represent a simplified 'boulder' which has a constant 20 degree slope.

Objective for Test 11 S, T & U, Spacecraft Zenith Variations

To investigate the effect of varying the combination of spacecraft zenith (emission angle) contained in the image suite;
To investigate the effect of the number of images and viewing conditions.

Methodology

The 'boulder' was simulated by generating a simple axi-symmetric, flat-topped cone (peak) with a constant 20 degree slope. Multiple peaks and (simplified) craters are randomly placed in an otherwise flat landscape of width approx. 22.5m.

Truth map: REGION.MAP

Bigmaps

The following TAG1 bigmaps were tiled/iterated and evaluated:

Starting topography defined from: START1.MAP at pixel/line location 49, 49 (= REGION.MAP at p/l 1125, 1125).

Step	GSD	Overlap Ratio	Q Size	Width	Center
START.MAP	20cm	-	49	20m	REGION.MAP p/l 1125, 1125 (center)
10cm-Tiling	10cm	1.3	130	20m	START1.MAP, p/l 49, 49
5cm-Tiling	5cm	1.3	250	20m	START1.MAP, p/l 49, 49
5cm-Iterations	5cm	-	-	20m	START1.MAP, p/l 49, 49
Evaluation Map	1cm	-	200	4m	REGION.MAP, p/l 996, 1005

Tiling/Iteration Parameters

Auto-Elimination Parameters:	0, 60, .25, .25, 0, 3
Reset albedo/slopes	NO
Determine Central Vector	YES
Differential Stereo	YES
Shadows	YES

Tiling seed files: t11-10.seed , t11-05.seed

Iteration seed file : Piteate2StSh-woAYY

Data

Data was generated by ??.
Image resolutions: 2cm/pixel.

Viewing Conditions

Name	Sun	S/C Az	S/C Zenith	Total Number of Images
Test11S	45, 0, -45	every 45	0, 30, 60	80
Test11T	45, 0, -45	every 45	0, 20, 40, 60	112
Test11U	45, 0, -45	every 45	0, 15, 30, 45, 60	144

Note that a larger image suite was planned and produced than was utilized during test. The images for a number of planned viewing conditions were eliminated due to image quality related to the viewing conditions being unfit for SPC. For further details are contained here:

Test11STU Unsuitable Viewing Conditions.

Test11S Viewing Conditions

Test11T Viewing Conditions

Test11U Viewing Conditions

Results

Results with Overlaps:

Test Over11STU Comparative Results

Test Over11S Results

Test Over11T Results

Test Over11U Results

Results without Overlaps:

Test11S Results

Test11T Results

Test11U Results

Discussion

Minima

From an inspection of the minimum formal uncertainty, CompMapVec RMS and CompareOBJ RMS (both the minimum value and the number of iterations at which the minimum occurs), for tests S, T and U, the following is apparent.

Within-measure range of minima
Formal Uncertainty	1.511 +/- 0.087 cm
CompMapVec RMS	0.875 +/- 0.325 cm
CompareOBJ RMS	0.938 +/- 0.097 cm
CompareOBJ with Optimal Trans & Rot	0.435 +/- 0.072 cm

All minima were below the image resolution (2cm).
Formal uncertainties display a negative trend which appears to still be decreasing after 50 iterations.
The RMSs reached minima within the first 30 iterations and then diverged. No asymptotic behavior is apparent, the RMSs appear to worsen as testing continues to 50 iterations and beyond, although RMSs remain below the image resolution in all cases except TestS's CompMapVec RMS.
Test U consistently achieves the minimum RMS values in the least number of iterations: 5 to 15 iterations sooner than Test T; and 15 to 20 iterations sooner than Test S (excluding Test S CompMapVec RMS which never improved with iteration).
Test S consistently gives the largest RMS but the smallest formal uncertainty.
Compare OBJ RMSs with and without optimal translation and rotation vary across tests by less than 0.2cm, with optimal translation and rotation giving consistently better results in fewer iterations (5 to 10 iterations sooner in every test).

Performance

All RMSs were lower than the image resolution (2cm) after the 5 cm tiling. All formal uncertainties were lower than the image resolution after 40 iterations. No tests appeared to 'fail', each of the solutions would be deemed acceptable.

Tilt

Tilting of the evaluation area is apparent in all tests. The direction of the tilt is consistent across tests. After 40 iterations:

the surface immediately West of the peak is approximately 1cm below truth;
the surface immediately East of the peak approximately 1cm above truth;
the surface immediately North of the peak is approximately equal with truth;
the surface immediately South of the peak is approximately 2cm above truth.

Conclusion

Although differences in performance were apparent across the spacecraft zenith variations, each test gave an acceptable solution. It would therefore appear that the combination of spacecraft zenith conditions is not a critical consideration in planning the image suite, as long as the basic good practice for obtaining a good SPC image suite is followed.

-  ⇤ ← Revision 2 as of 2015-11-24 17:50:22 → 
  Size: 1244
  Editor: DianeLambert
  Comment:
+   ← Revision 46 as of 2015-11-25 16:16:24 → ⇥
  Size: 5756
  Editor: DianeLambert
  Comment:
-Deletions are marked like this.
+Additions are marked like this.
 Line 5:
-'''Purpose of test:''' .
+'''Purpose of Test 11:''' To evaluate SPC's ability to represent a simplified 'boulder' which has a constant 20 degree slope.
 Line 7:
-'''Additional Objectives''' 
 * .
+'''Objective for Test 11 S, T & U, Spacecraft Zenith Variations''' 
 * To investigate the effect of varying the combination of spacecraft zenith (emission angle) contained in the image suite;
 * To investigate the effect of the number of images and viewing conditions.
-Line 12:
+Line 13:
-'''Data'''
 * Data was generated by .
 * Location and parameters for evaluation area.  
 * Image Suite: Image resolutions: 50cm, 20cm, 10cm, 5cm.
  * emission
    * .
  * incidence
    * .
    * .
+The 'boulder' was simulated by generating a simple axi-symmetric, flat-topped cone (peak) with a constant 20 degree slope. Multiple peaks and (simplified) craters are randomly placed in an otherwise flat landscape of width approx. 22.5m.
-Line 22:
+Line 15:
-|| Name || Sun || S/C Az || S/C Zenith ||
|| Test11S || 45, 0, -45 || every 45 || 0, 30, 60 || ||
|| Test11T || 45, 0, -45 || every 45 || 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 || ||
|| Test11U || 45, 0, -45 || every 45 || 0, 14, 30, 45, 60, 75 || ||


Spacecraft:

{{attachment:SC_perfectF2_POLARS.jpg||width=300}}

Sun:

{{attachment:SUN_perfectF2_POLARS.jpg||width=300}}
+'''Truth map:''' REGION.MAP
-Line 40:
+Line 21:
-Starting topography defined from: ?
+Starting topography defined from: START1.MAP at pixel/line location 49, 49 (= REGION.MAP at p/l 1125, 1125).
-Line 42:
+Line 23:
-||Step||GSD||Overlap Ratio||Q Size||Width||
||35cm-Tiling||
||18cm-Tiling||
||9cm-Tiling||
||5cm-Tiling||
+||Step||GSD||Overlap Ratio||Q Size||Width||Center||
||START.MAP||20cm||-||49||20m||REGION.MAP p/l 1125, 1125 (center)||
||10cm-Tiling||10cm||1.3||130||20m||START1.MAP, p/l 49, 49||
||5cm-Tiling||5cm||1.3||250||20m||START1.MAP, p/l 49, 49||
||5cm-Iterations||5cm||-||-||20m||START1.MAP, p/l 49, 49||
||Evaluation Map||1cm||-||200||4m||REGION.MAP, p/l 996, 1005||
-Line 48:
+Line 30:
+'''Tiling/Iteration Parameters'''
-Line 49:
+Line 32:
-'''Iteration Parameters'''
+||Auto-Elimination Parameters:||0, 60, .25, .25, 0, 3||
||Reset albedo/slopes||NO||
||Determine Central Vector||YES||
||Differential Stereo||YES||
||Shadows||YES||
-Line 51:
+Line 38:
-Reset albedo/slopes: ?YES
+'''Tiling seed files:'''
[[Test Over11STU t11-10.seed|t11-10.seed]] ,
[[Test Over11STU t11-05.seed|t11-05.seed]]
-Line 53:
+Line 42:
-Calculate Central Vector: ?YES
+'''Iteration seed file :'''
[[Test Over11STU Piterate2StSh-withoutayy.seed|Piteate2StSh-woAYY]]
-Line 55:
+Line 45:
-Differential Stereo: ?YES
+'''Data'''
 * Data was generated by ??.  
 * Image resolutions: 2cm/pixel.
-Line 57:
+Line 49:
-Shadows: ?NO
+'''Viewing Conditions'''
|| Name || Sun || S/C Az || S/C Zenith || Total Number of Images ||
|| Test11S || 45, 0, -45 || every 45 || 0, 30, 60 || 80 ||
|| Test11T || 45, 0, -45 || every 45 || 0, 20, 40, 60 || 112 ||
|| Test11U || 45, 0, -45 || every 45 || 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 || 144 ||

Note that a larger image suite was planned and produced than was utilized during test. The images for a number of planned viewing conditions were eliminated due to image quality related to the viewing conditions being unfit for SPC. For further details are contained here: 

[[Test11STU Unsuitable Viewing Conditions]].

'''Test11S Viewing Conditions'''

{{attachment:Over11S_EE0057_sc_plot_resized.png}}
{{attachment:Over11S_EE0057_sun_plot_resized.png}}

'''Test11T Viewing Conditions'''

{{attachment:Over11T_EE0057_sc_plot_resized.png}}
{{attachment:Over11T_EE0057_sun_plot_resized.png}}

'''Test11U Viewing Conditions'''

{{attachment:Over11U_EE0057_sc_plot_resized.png}}
{{attachment:Over11U_EE0057_sun_plot_resized.png}}
-Line 61:
+Line 77:
-[[Test11STU Comparative Results]]
+'''Results with Overlaps:'''

[[Test Over11STU Comparative Results]]

[[Test Over11S Results]]

[[Test Over11T Results]]

[[Test Over11U Results]]

'''Results without Overlaps:'''
-Line 71:
+Line 97:
+'''Minima'''

From an inspection of the minimum formal uncertainty, CompMapVec RMS and CompareOBJ RMS (both the minimum value and the number of iterations at which the minimum occurs), for tests S, T and U, the following is apparent.

||||Within-measure range of minima||
||Formal Uncertainty||1.511 +/- 0.087 cm||
||CompMapVec RMS||0.875 +/- 0.325 cm||
||CompareOBJ RMS||0.938 +/- 0.097 cm||
||CompareOBJ with Optimal Trans & Rot||0.435 +/- 0.072 cm||

 * All minima were below the image resolution (2cm).
 * Formal uncertainties display a negative trend which appears to still be decreasing after 50 iterations.
 * The RMSs reached minima within the first 30 iterations and then diverged. No asymptotic behavior is apparent, the RMSs appear to worsen as testing continues to 50 iterations and beyond, although RMSs remain below the image resolution in all cases except TestS's CompMapVec RMS.
 * Test U consistently achieves the minimum RMS values in the least number of iterations: 5 to 15 iterations sooner than Test T; and 15 to 20 iterations sooner than Test S (excluding Test S CompMapVec RMS which never improved with iteration).
 * Test S consistently gives the largest RMS but the smallest formal uncertainty.
 * Compare OBJ RMSs with and without optimal translation and rotation vary across tests by less than 0.2cm, with optimal translation and rotation giving consistently better results in fewer iterations (5 to 10 iterations sooner in every test).

'''Performance'''

All RMSs were lower than the image resolution (2cm) after the 5 cm tiling. All formal uncertainties were lower than the image resolution after 40 iterations. No tests appeared to 'fail', each of the solutions would be deemed acceptable.

'''Tilt'''

Tilting of the evaluation area is apparent in all tests. The direction of the tilt is consistent across tests. After 40 iterations:
 * the surface immediately West of the peak is approximately 1cm below truth;
 * the surface immediately East of the peak approximately 1cm above truth;
 * the surface immediately North of the peak is approximately equal with truth;
 * the surface immediately South of the peak is approximately 2cm above truth.

== Conclusion ==

Although differences in performance were apparent across the spacecraft zenith variations, each test gave an acceptable solution. It would therefore appear that the combination of spacecraft zenith conditions is not a critical consideration in planning the image suite, as long as the basic good practice for obtaining a good SPC image suite is followed.