At a quick glance I couldn't see any reference to the flying height (cue : 200 members to point it out to me). The resolutions stated are therefore a bit meaningless although as they do not seem very high then the height is presumably quite high.
What it produces over a large area is similar to what an SUA ;produces over a small area. The SUA accuracies are somewhat better due to the low flying height.
chris mills, post: 379293, member: 6244 wrote: At a quick glance I couldn't see any reference to the flying height (cue : 200 members to point it out to me). The resolutions stated are therefore a bit meaningless although as they do not seem very high then the height is presumably quite high.
What it produces over a large area is similar to what an SUA ;produces over a small area. The SUA accuracies are somewhat better due to the low flying height.
I think that he is indeed extrapolating what a typical UAS flight would produce, but over a larger area. The combination of GPS/Photogrammetry AND SfM is what he seems to feel is the innovation. I don't know enough about the nuts and bolts to say, however. He is the professor.
He only claims an absolute accuracy in the decimeter range, but that is pretty good for a Cessna, an off the shelf DSLR and an GPS receiver, I think.
They seem to have quite a bit of junk in the river out by Tuntutuliak.
Tim Reed, post: 379325, member: 420 wrote: They seem to have quite a bit of junk in the river out by Tuntutuliak.
That is quite the wave!