Next Article in Journal
Flood Inundation Mapping by Combining GNSS-R Signals with Topographical Information
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Impact of Digital Elevation Models on Sentinel-1 Backscatter and Coherence Observations
Open AccessArticle

Comparison of Filters for Archaeology-Specific Ground Extraction from Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds

1
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Institute of Classics, University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 3/II, 8010 Graz, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(18), 3025; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12183025
Received: 20 July 2020 / Revised: 11 September 2020 / Accepted: 15 September 2020 / Published: 16 September 2020
Identifying bare-earth or ground returns within point cloud data is a crucially important process for archaeologists who use airborne LiDAR data, yet there has thus far been very little comparative assessment of the available archaeology-specific methods and their usefulness for archaeological applications. This article aims to provide an archaeology-specific comparison of filters for ground extraction from airborne LiDAR point clouds. The qualitative and quantitative comparison of the data from four archaeological sites from Austria, Slovenia, and Spain should also be relevant to other disciplines that use visualized airborne LiDAR data. We have compared nine filters implemented in free or low-cost off-the-shelf software, six of which are evaluated in this way for the first time. The results of the qualitative and quantitative comparison are not directly analogous, and no filter is outstanding compared to the others. However, the results are directly transferable to real-world problem-solving: Which filter works best for a given combination of data density, landscape type, and type of archaeological features? In general, progressive TIN (software: lasground_new) and a hybrid (software: Global Mapper) commercial filter are consistently among the best, followed by an open source slope-based one (software: Whitebox GAT). The ability of the free multiscale curvature classification filter (software: MCC-LIDAR) to remove vegetation is also commendable. Notably, our findings show that filters based on an older generation of algorithms consistently outperform newer filtering techniques. This is a reminder of the indirect path from publishing an algorithm to filter implementation in software. View Full-Text
Keywords: airborne LiDAR; ground extraction; filters; algorithms; archaeology airborne LiDAR; ground extraction; filters; algorithms; archaeology
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Štular, B.; Lozić, E. Comparison of Filters for Archaeology-Specific Ground Extraction from Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12183025

AMA Style

Štular B, Lozić E. Comparison of Filters for Archaeology-Specific Ground Extraction from Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(18):3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12183025

Chicago/Turabian Style

Štular, Benjamin; Lozić, Edisa. 2020. "Comparison of Filters for Archaeology-Specific Ground Extraction from Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds" Remote Sens. 12, no. 18: 3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12183025

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop