Next Article in Journal
Energy-Efficient Cognitive Radio Sensor Networks: Parametric and Convex Transformations
Next Article in Special Issue
Theoretical Analysis of Interferometer Wave Front Tilt and Fringe Radiant Flux on a Rectangular Photodetector
Previous Article in Journal
Temperature-Compensated Clock Skew Adjustment
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comprehensive Review of Semiconductor Ultraviolet Photodetectors: From Thin Film to One-Dimensional Nanostructures
Sensors 2013, 13(8), 11007-11031; doi:10.3390/s130811007
Article

A Comparative Analysis between Active and Passive Techniques for Underwater 3D Reconstruction of Close-Range Objects

* ,
,
 and
Received: 9 July 2013; in revised form: 2 August 2013 / Accepted: 2 August 2013 / Published: 20 August 2013
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Photodetectors)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1218 KB, uploaded 21 June 2014]   |   Browse Figures
Abstract: In some application fields, such as underwater archaeology or marine biology, there is the need to collect three-dimensional, close-range data from objects that cannot be removed from their site. In particular, 3D imaging techniques are widely employed for close-range acquisitions in underwater environment. In this work we have compared in water two 3D imaging techniques based on active and passive approaches, respectively, and whole-field acquisition. The comparison is performed under poor visibility conditions, produced in the laboratory by suspending different quantities of clay in a water tank. For a fair comparison, a stereo configuration has been adopted for both the techniques, using the same setup, working distance, calibration, and objects. At the moment, the proposed setup is not suitable for real world applications, but it allowed us to conduct a preliminary analysis on the performances of the two techniques and to understand their capability to acquire 3D points in presence of turbidity. The performances have been evaluated in terms of accuracy and density of the acquired 3D points. Our results can be used as a reference for further comparisons in the analysis of other 3D techniques and algorithms.
Keywords: 3D reconstruction; underwater imaging; active and passive 3D techniques 3D reconstruction; underwater imaging; active and passive 3D techniques
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Export to BibTeX |
EndNote


MDPI and ACS Style

Bianco, G.; Gallo, A.; Bruno, F.; Muzzupappa, M. A Comparative Analysis between Active and Passive Techniques for Underwater 3D Reconstruction of Close-Range Objects. Sensors 2013, 13, 11007-11031.

AMA Style

Bianco G, Gallo A, Bruno F, Muzzupappa M. A Comparative Analysis between Active and Passive Techniques for Underwater 3D Reconstruction of Close-Range Objects. Sensors. 2013; 13(8):11007-11031.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bianco, Gianfranco; Gallo, Alessandro; Bruno, Fabio; Muzzupappa, Maurizio. 2013. "A Comparative Analysis between Active and Passive Techniques for Underwater 3D Reconstruction of Close-Range Objects." Sensors 13, no. 8: 11007-11031.


Sensors EISSN 1424-8220 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert