Watch in the next chapter of our "Torre dei Sicconi" series the UAV flying and working over the walls of the medieval castle ruin.
Enjoy!
Torre dei Sicconi - Chapter 4 - Drone
Follow us on Youtube:
Showing posts with label drone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drone. Show all posts
Monday, 10 October 2016
Torre dei Sicconi - Chapter 5 - Drone
If we need a detailed view form above or a high resolution DTM/DSM it's time for our drone.
Watch in the next chapter of our "Torre dei Sicconi" series the UAV flying and working over the walls of the medieval castle ruin.
Watch in the next chapter of our "Torre dei Sicconi" series the UAV flying and working over the walls of the medieval castle ruin.
Monday, 8 August 2016
Kinect, a sleeping research branch reacivated
As you probably noticed, one of the topic of ATOR is related with hardware hacking, with the aim to build new archaeological devices from ordinary objects and tools (33).
This concept is close to the one of "reuse" (using an artefact for a purpose which is completely different from the original function), a pretty common phenomenon in archaeology; also in architecture there is something similar, called "spolia" (but maybe our interest in hacking things is just a kind of McGiver syndrome of people grown up in the 80s).
However, this post is about hacking a common game device like Kinect to use its characteristic in archaeological 3D real-time documentation. If you are a regular reader of ATOR, you will know that we already face this challenge, performing a first test (1) with RGBDemo in February 2012, and controlling accuracy and precision of the device in March of the same year (2), after a discussion with some of the researchers of FBK, during the workshop "Low cost 3D: sensori algoriti e applicazioni". Due to the encouraging results achieved in our first experiments, we worked on the hardware in order to modify it for outdoor projects (3), but soon we experimented the limits of this technology when applied in areas with direct sunlight (4) or in documenting small objects (5, 25). Despite this drawbacks in our research, Kinect worked pretty good in indoor excavations (6), helping us in difficult situations (related with the the workplace safety), and for particular purposed, like for infra-red prospections in dark environment (7).
After all these experiences, our final advice about Kinect is that the device has a potential in archaeology, but its real employment in professional work is restricted to peculiar conditions, while in most of the cases the SfM-based techniques are the best option (due to their versatility, which makes them a perfect choice during missions abroad (8), for small finds documentation (9, 10), for underwater and aerial archaeology (11, 12, 13), considering also the speed which characterize SfM and MVSR open source software development (14) and the wide range of possibilities between the different tools (15, 16).
Well, at least this was our opinion until now... Currently we are changing our mind about Kinect, and this is due to our professional engagement in underground archaeology (17) and to our renovate interest in robotics. Let's deal with these two points separately.
Like any other operation in archaeological 3D documentation, the tolerance regarding accuracy and precision is variable and influenced by some factors, and mainly: research purposes, logistics, characteristics of the structures to be documented.
Without considering some important exceptions (e.g prehistoric rock shelter, which are often simple to document with SfM techniques), most of the structures related with underground archaeology (WW1 artificial caves, medieval mines, etc...) are connected with large scale survey projects (where it is important a "big data" approach, raising the tolerance in data acquisition to increase the number of documented structures); with logistically difficult areas (high mountains, glaciers, (18, 19) etc...); with structures often characterized by vast surfaces without important small details, which (when present) can be recorded with a targeted SfM or RTI (21, 22) documentation (e.g. for graffiti, inscriptions (20), manufacture traces, etc...). For this reason, in most of these projects, it is necessary to deal with precision in documenting (keeping checkpoints thanks to other TOF instruments, like total stations) in order to gain a real-time response from the selected device, and, under this point of view, Kinect is often a good solution, considering also that its infrared sensor helps very much in low light conditions (7).
Since 2006, when we joined an aerial archaeological project in Armenia (23), we started to work on "archaeorobotics", trying to develop robotic devices able to help us in the most difficult archaeological missions.
The first positive results we reached in this field were related with aerial archaeology and the building of an open hardware UAV (in 2008), even if at the beginning we underestimated the time needed to practice with our new tool (24). Soon our experience increased as we built different drones, based on open and closed solutions (like kk multicopter (26) or Naza dji (27) models). The benefits of this research branch were clear (28, 29) and soon other research institutions, like the CNR-ITAB of Rome (30), the University of Lund (31) and the CNR-ISTI of Pisa (32), asked us to give lessons about this topic.
Another field of archaeorobotics we explored is the one related with CNC machines and especially with 3D Printers. For this topic a precious help came from the society Kentstrapper and Leonardo Zampi (aka +Exekias 87), who helped us in 3D printing the cast of the Taung Child (34, 35). Since RepRap project started (in 2005), 3D printers evolved very fast. Of course our interest regarding these machines is mainly oriented to Cultural Heritage, and this is also the reason why we built a Fa)(a 3D form scratch (36), but results with this kind of instruments can be very impressive, especially considering the wide range of scientific applications (37, 38, 39, 40, 41), even if sometimes you have to deal with difficult boolean operations (42).
However, none of the robotic projects we developed till now needed Kinect, being based on UAV, to 3D document archaeological sites, or on CNC machines, to fast replicate archaeological artefacts. Our renovate interest in Kinect for archeorobotics is due to our new challenge in developing a ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle), in order to assist us in our underwater archaeological missions. Indeed, in the last months, we started a collaboration with the WitLab, the FabLab of Rovereto (Trentino - Italy), to develop a new Open Hardware ROV, especially designed for archaeological aims. One of the main topic in developing such an instrument is that the new robot will be oriented not only to 3D documentation, but also to the exploration of unknown areas. For such reason SfM and MVS software are no more enough, but we had to start again in testing Open Source SLAM (Simultaneous Localization And Mapping) algorithms, due to the fact that we need to register in 3D the submerged landscape (Mapping), but also to recover the path the "ArcheoROV" did (Localization) to reach new hidden archaeological evidences (for a better planning of human operations).
The importance of SLAM algorithms in exploring devices is the main reason why we started again to experiment Kinect. Indeed, despite Kinect cannot be used as an on-board optical device in our ArcheoROV (due to the infrared camera), this tool is the perfect system to check SLAM software.
If, you ever started in working on robotics, probably sooner or later you stepped into ROS (Robot Operating System), an Open Source (BSD License) collection of software frameworks for robots. Of course SLAM is a very important task for any robotic vehicle, and the ROS package RTAB-Map is a perfect solution to implement this capability into any autonomous or remotely operated machine, like our ArcheoROV. For this reason, before starting experiments in more sophisticated (and complicated) systems, we checked RTAB-Map performance with an old Kinect, and here is the video of the result:
As you can see, the performance of real-time 3D is pretty responsive, respect our old experiments with the Open Source software RGBDemo (also considering that the Kinect used in this video is the first version, and it is now pretty obsolete) and, most important, the localization function within SLAM algorithm works very good. As I wrote at the beginning of the post, our current impression is that this combination of hardware (Kinect) and software (ROS) can be a good solution for underground environment documentation, while the software can be the right choice for archaeological exploring robotic devices.
I hope that this long post will be useful, if you have any feedback, please just write your comment below. Have a nice day!
PS:
we will present the ArcheoROV at the ArcheoFOSS (43) of Cagliari (Sardinia - Italy), this year. Also our partner of WitLab will be with us!
Webography
ATOR:
(1) Kinect, real-time 3D; (2) Kinect accuracy and precision with RGBDemo; (3) Kinect 3D outdoor: hacking the hardware; (4) Kinect 3D outdoor: first test; (5) Kinect 3D limits: documenting small objects; Kinect 3D indoor: excavation test (6); Kinect - Infrared prospections (7); Aramus 2014: 2D and 3D documentation of archaeological excavation (8); 3D for archaeological finds (9); Taung Project: 3D with SfM & IBM (10); Extreme SfM: underwater archaeology (11); From drone-aerial pictures to DEM and ORTHOPHOTO: the case of Caldonazzo's castle (12); Documentation of a bas-relief on a cliff : the workflow (13); CMVS/PMVS2 40% faster (14); OpenMVG VS PPT (15); MicMac and PPT: two FLOSS solutions for 3D data (16); SfM for Underground Documentation (17); Archaeology as a profession (18); Glacial Archaeology: About the challange to work in extreme conditions (19); WW1: High Alpine Survey Data - Work in Progress (20); Arc-Team tries Large Scale Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) (21); WebRTIViewer (22); UAVP (Universal Aerial Video Platform) (23); UAVP indoor flight (24); 3D documentation of small archaeological finds (25); Building an Xcopter (26); Arc-Team's UAVP: testing the NAZA dji (27); Xcopter drone and SFM techniques (28); ArcheOS and UAVP for archaeological remote sensing (29); Open Source Remote Sensing Platform (30); Remote sensing with UAV in archeology (lessons at Lund University) (31); Aerial archaeology with FLOS Hardware and Software (32); A DIY endoscope for emergencies during excavation fieldwork (33); 3D PRINTING THE PAST: SOME ISSUES (34); The Taung Child is now touchable, thanks to 3d printing (35); 3D printing for Cultural Heritage (36); Space archaeology (37); 3D PRINTING GOOGLE MAPS IS NOW EASY (38); When Veterinary Medicine and 3D printing meet each other (39); Three more animals are saved with the aid of Blender and 3D printing (40); Augmented Reality at Cultways (41); Boolean operations - the powerful Cork! (42); ArcheoFOSS 2016 in cagliari! (43)
Kentstrapper website: http://kentstrapper.com/
Fa)(a 3D website: http://www.falla3d.com/
WitLab website: http://www.witlab.io/
ROS website: http://www.ros.org/
RTAB-Map website: http://introlab.github.io/rtabmap/
However, this post is about hacking a common game device like Kinect to use its characteristic in archaeological 3D real-time documentation. If you are a regular reader of ATOR, you will know that we already face this challenge, performing a first test (1) with RGBDemo in February 2012, and controlling accuracy and precision of the device in March of the same year (2), after a discussion with some of the researchers of FBK, during the workshop "Low cost 3D: sensori algoriti e applicazioni". Due to the encouraging results achieved in our first experiments, we worked on the hardware in order to modify it for outdoor projects (3), but soon we experimented the limits of this technology when applied in areas with direct sunlight (4) or in documenting small objects (5, 25). Despite this drawbacks in our research, Kinect worked pretty good in indoor excavations (6), helping us in difficult situations (related with the the workplace safety), and for particular purposed, like for infra-red prospections in dark environment (7).
After all these experiences, our final advice about Kinect is that the device has a potential in archaeology, but its real employment in professional work is restricted to peculiar conditions, while in most of the cases the SfM-based techniques are the best option (due to their versatility, which makes them a perfect choice during missions abroad (8), for small finds documentation (9, 10), for underwater and aerial archaeology (11, 12, 13), considering also the speed which characterize SfM and MVSR open source software development (14) and the wide range of possibilities between the different tools (15, 16).
Well, at least this was our opinion until now... Currently we are changing our mind about Kinect, and this is due to our professional engagement in underground archaeology (17) and to our renovate interest in robotics. Let's deal with these two points separately.
Underground archaeology
 |
| Documenting an underground semisubmerged structure in Firuzabad (Iran) |
Like any other operation in archaeological 3D documentation, the tolerance regarding accuracy and precision is variable and influenced by some factors, and mainly: research purposes, logistics, characteristics of the structures to be documented.
Without considering some important exceptions (e.g prehistoric rock shelter, which are often simple to document with SfM techniques), most of the structures related with underground archaeology (WW1 artificial caves, medieval mines, etc...) are connected with large scale survey projects (where it is important a "big data" approach, raising the tolerance in data acquisition to increase the number of documented structures); with logistically difficult areas (high mountains, glaciers, (18, 19) etc...); with structures often characterized by vast surfaces without important small details, which (when present) can be recorded with a targeted SfM or RTI (21, 22) documentation (e.g. for graffiti, inscriptions (20), manufacture traces, etc...). For this reason, in most of these projects, it is necessary to deal with precision in documenting (keeping checkpoints thanks to other TOF instruments, like total stations) in order to gain a real-time response from the selected device, and, under this point of view, Kinect is often a good solution, considering also that its infrared sensor helps very much in low light conditions (7).
 |
| Documenting WW1 caves in Southtirol (Italy) |
Archeorobotics
 |
| Arc-Team's UAV during an aerial archaeology project in Storo (Trentino - Italy) |
Since 2006, when we joined an aerial archaeological project in Armenia (23), we started to work on "archaeorobotics", trying to develop robotic devices able to help us in the most difficult archaeological missions.
The first positive results we reached in this field were related with aerial archaeology and the building of an open hardware UAV (in 2008), even if at the beginning we underestimated the time needed to practice with our new tool (24). Soon our experience increased as we built different drones, based on open and closed solutions (like kk multicopter (26) or Naza dji (27) models). The benefits of this research branch were clear (28, 29) and soon other research institutions, like the CNR-ITAB of Rome (30), the University of Lund (31) and the CNR-ISTI of Pisa (32), asked us to give lessons about this topic.
Another field of archaeorobotics we explored is the one related with CNC machines and especially with 3D Printers. For this topic a precious help came from the society Kentstrapper and Leonardo Zampi (aka +Exekias 87), who helped us in 3D printing the cast of the Taung Child (34, 35). Since RepRap project started (in 2005), 3D printers evolved very fast. Of course our interest regarding these machines is mainly oriented to Cultural Heritage, and this is also the reason why we built a Fa)(a 3D form scratch (36), but results with this kind of instruments can be very impressive, especially considering the wide range of scientific applications (37, 38, 39, 40, 41), even if sometimes you have to deal with difficult boolean operations (42).
However, none of the robotic projects we developed till now needed Kinect, being based on UAV, to 3D document archaeological sites, or on CNC machines, to fast replicate archaeological artefacts. Our renovate interest in Kinect for archeorobotics is due to our new challenge in developing a ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle), in order to assist us in our underwater archaeological missions. Indeed, in the last months, we started a collaboration with the WitLab, the FabLab of Rovereto (Trentino - Italy), to develop a new Open Hardware ROV, especially designed for archaeological aims. One of the main topic in developing such an instrument is that the new robot will be oriented not only to 3D documentation, but also to the exploration of unknown areas. For such reason SfM and MVS software are no more enough, but we had to start again in testing Open Source SLAM (Simultaneous Localization And Mapping) algorithms, due to the fact that we need to register in 3D the submerged landscape (Mapping), but also to recover the path the "ArcheoROV" did (Localization) to reach new hidden archaeological evidences (for a better planning of human operations).
 |
| Testing the ArcheoROV at night |
Testing Open Source SLAM solutions
The importance of SLAM algorithms in exploring devices is the main reason why we started again to experiment Kinect. Indeed, despite Kinect cannot be used as an on-board optical device in our ArcheoROV (due to the infrared camera), this tool is the perfect system to check SLAM software.
If, you ever started in working on robotics, probably sooner or later you stepped into ROS (Robot Operating System), an Open Source (BSD License) collection of software frameworks for robots. Of course SLAM is a very important task for any robotic vehicle, and the ROS package RTAB-Map is a perfect solution to implement this capability into any autonomous or remotely operated machine, like our ArcheoROV. For this reason, before starting experiments in more sophisticated (and complicated) systems, we checked RTAB-Map performance with an old Kinect, and here is the video of the result:
As you can see, the performance of real-time 3D is pretty responsive, respect our old experiments with the Open Source software RGBDemo (also considering that the Kinect used in this video is the first version, and it is now pretty obsolete) and, most important, the localization function within SLAM algorithm works very good. As I wrote at the beginning of the post, our current impression is that this combination of hardware (Kinect) and software (ROS) can be a good solution for underground environment documentation, while the software can be the right choice for archaeological exploring robotic devices.
I hope that this long post will be useful, if you have any feedback, please just write your comment below. Have a nice day!
PS:
we will present the ArcheoROV at the ArcheoFOSS (43) of Cagliari (Sardinia - Italy), this year. Also our partner of WitLab will be with us!
Webography
ATOR:
(1) Kinect, real-time 3D; (2) Kinect accuracy and precision with RGBDemo; (3) Kinect 3D outdoor: hacking the hardware; (4) Kinect 3D outdoor: first test; (5) Kinect 3D limits: documenting small objects; Kinect 3D indoor: excavation test (6); Kinect - Infrared prospections (7); Aramus 2014: 2D and 3D documentation of archaeological excavation (8); 3D for archaeological finds (9); Taung Project: 3D with SfM & IBM (10); Extreme SfM: underwater archaeology (11); From drone-aerial pictures to DEM and ORTHOPHOTO: the case of Caldonazzo's castle (12); Documentation of a bas-relief on a cliff : the workflow (13); CMVS/PMVS2 40% faster (14); OpenMVG VS PPT (15); MicMac and PPT: two FLOSS solutions for 3D data (16); SfM for Underground Documentation (17); Archaeology as a profession (18); Glacial Archaeology: About the challange to work in extreme conditions (19); WW1: High Alpine Survey Data - Work in Progress (20); Arc-Team tries Large Scale Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) (21); WebRTIViewer (22); UAVP (Universal Aerial Video Platform) (23); UAVP indoor flight (24); 3D documentation of small archaeological finds (25); Building an Xcopter (26); Arc-Team's UAVP: testing the NAZA dji (27); Xcopter drone and SFM techniques (28); ArcheOS and UAVP for archaeological remote sensing (29); Open Source Remote Sensing Platform (30); Remote sensing with UAV in archeology (lessons at Lund University) (31); Aerial archaeology with FLOS Hardware and Software (32); A DIY endoscope for emergencies during excavation fieldwork (33); 3D PRINTING THE PAST: SOME ISSUES (34); The Taung Child is now touchable, thanks to 3d printing (35); 3D printing for Cultural Heritage (36); Space archaeology (37); 3D PRINTING GOOGLE MAPS IS NOW EASY (38); When Veterinary Medicine and 3D printing meet each other (39); Three more animals are saved with the aid of Blender and 3D printing (40); Augmented Reality at Cultways (41); Boolean operations - the powerful Cork! (42); ArcheoFOSS 2016 in cagliari! (43)
Kentstrapper website: http://kentstrapper.com/
Fa)(a 3D website: http://www.falla3d.com/
WitLab website: http://www.witlab.io/
ROS website: http://www.ros.org/
RTAB-Map website: http://introlab.github.io/rtabmap/
Monday, 27 July 2015
Documentation of a bas-relief on a cliff : the workflow
This summer, between May and June, we worked for a joint mission, led by the University of Innsbruck (Institut für Alte Geschichte und Altorientalistik) and the Cultural Heritage, Handcrafts and Tourism Organization of Iran. The project was held in Firuzabad, in the Pars Province of Iran. We will write more details about this work in the next post. By now I just want to use some material we collected to illustrate the work-flow in data acquiring during an archaeological documentation of a bas-relief on a cliff.
The video below shows the overall process.
You can see the initial preparation phase (1), during which we placed the Ground Control Point (GCP) to perform normal 2D vertical photo-mapping and to rectify and georeference the 3D point-cloud. Than (2) we collected pictures with three different flights of our DIY drone, in order to use them with different open source SfM/MVSR software (PPT, openMVG and MicMac), to reach the best possible result: a couple of flights with parallel camera, to have a good superimposition of the whole bas-relief, and a higher acquisition to cover the upper details. In the meantime (3) another operator (+Rupert Gietl) was collecting pictures from the ground, to register also the lower perspective. Later (4), I prepared the total station and collected the GCP, thanks to some fixed points we placed the day befor (0) with our GPS. Finally +Rupert Gietl took the last (very close) details photos, using a ladder.
The entire process lasted more or less four hours, but we needed some more time the day before to place the fixed GCP down in the valley (in international Geographic Coordinates System). A good part of the work involved just the logistics or the approach to the site, and has been slowed by the transportation of the necessary equipment (ladder, total station and drone) through a couple of passages where it was necessary to climb some rocks.
It is interesting to note that it would not have been possible to accomplish this mission with a commercial drone, due to the embargo rules (which are currently under revision), while with a DIY hexacopter it has been simple to disassemble the components which were not allowed (like the FPV system ore the GPS controlled flight).
I hope this post was useful, have a nice day!
The entire process lasted more or less four hours, but we needed some more time the day before to place the fixed GCP down in the valley (in international Geographic Coordinates System). A good part of the work involved just the logistics or the approach to the site, and has been slowed by the transportation of the necessary equipment (ladder, total station and drone) through a couple of passages where it was necessary to climb some rocks.
It is interesting to note that it would not have been possible to accomplish this mission with a commercial drone, due to the embargo rules (which are currently under revision), while with a DIY hexacopter it has been simple to disassemble the components which were not allowed (like the FPV system ore the GPS controlled flight).
I hope this post was useful, have a nice day!
Monday, 20 October 2014
Aerial images and videos of the WW1 trenches along the border between Austria and Italy
Hi all,
in the first days of October 2014, after a rainy summer, we have been engaged in taking aerial pictures and videos of the WW1 trenches in the border between Austria and Italy (villages of Kartitsch, Sexten/Sesto Pusteria and Comelico Superiore). The work was insert into a survey project financed by INTERREG funds. The trenches and military structures in the area of the project were mapped using a GPS (Trimble 5700); the most important and better preserved buildings were documented using different software (PPT, MicMac and OpenMVG) and particular hardware (aerial drone).
Thanks to Walter Gilli, our "flight instructor and drone developer", we have a new hexacopter that you can see in the picture below.
The main components are:
- a DJI NAZA-M V2 as flight controller
- a Spektrum DX8 as radio control
- a Sony Nex-7 as camera (24.3 megapixels)
- a StratoSnapper2 for the remote control of the camera (radio/IR)
- an Alexmos Gimsbal controller (2 axis) to stabilize the camera mount
- all mounted on a handmade frame
The video below shows the hexacopter flying in windy conditions. The high quality of the components makes this hexacopter a perfect instrument even in extreme situation.
The video below shows the a flight in optimal condition: a cloudy day without wind. The gimbal stabilizes the camera even during movements, ensuring a high quality result.
Thursday, 25 July 2013
WW1 - Documentation Project: New Data Aquisition Season
Finally, after a rainy spring, we are going to start a new campaign of data acquisitio
The main innovation of this year will be the usage of our aerial drone (Naza DJI) in order to have an additional point of view in this mountainous and uneven terrain.
In addition to our traditional approach (GPS-survey, terrestrial structure from motion, geolocalized images and archeological description) we want to implemet data from aerial survey in order to create models of lager areas.
We hope to get through the summer without any crash :-) so that we could share our experience with you next autumn.
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
Remote sensing with UAV in archeology (lessons at Lund University)
Since 2011, Arc-Team is teaching during the course "digital archeology" at Lund University, introducing the class to the use of Free and Open Source Software (FLOSS) in archeology (with ArcheOS). The course is held by Nicolò Dell'unto (Department of Archaeology and Ancient History).
This year we had the opportunity to give a lesson regarding the use of UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), and more precisely quadcopters, in remote sensing projects. Our airfield was the Swedish village of Uppåkra, where the University is undertaking an excavation.
Here you can see a coupe of video recorded in slow motion by our friends Carolina Larson and Stefan Lindgren of the Humanities Lab. Thanks to the slow motion, it is possible to observe the flight stability ...
... and the ability to maintain the position of the last drone we built (more details here).
The use of drones in the field of archeology has also attracted interest from the local press: the magazine of the University (LUM) published an article on the topic:
 |
| Radio-controlled helicopter maps archaeological sites from above |
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
ArcheOS and UAVP for archaeological remote sensing
Hi all,
Finally I uploaded the presentation we did in the CAA Southampton 2012. Until our website is down (for maintenance), you can see it here. Inside you can find more details about the aerial archaeology project we mentioned in the post Xcopter drone and SfM techniques.
Here you can see the first slide, in the new Arc-Team theme I did playing with beamer, LaTeX :).
As you see the license is the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0), which we are planning to adopt soon also for ATOR to facilitate content sharing.
2016-03-31 Update
Thanks to self-archiving I can now add the bibliography related with this post:
ResearchGate: Articl
Academia: Article
I hope it will be useful, even if no more up to date it can be a starting point to work in Aerial Archeology with Open Software and Hardware.
2016-03-31 Update
Thanks to self-archiving I can now add the bibliography related with this post:
ResearchGate: Articl
Academia: Article
I hope it will be useful, even if no more up to date it can be a starting point to work in Aerial Archeology with Open Software and Hardware.
Monday, 26 March 2012
CAA 2012, Southampton
This year the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) conference will be hosted by the Archaeological Computing Research Group in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Southampton on 26-30 March 2012. Unfortunately we will have no time to stay the whole week in Southampton, but we will participate to the session regarding "Novel Technologies For Supporting Archaeological Fieldwork" which will take place Wednesday, March 28. Our presentation ("Free and Open Source platform for remote sensing and 3D data acquisition") will focus on the combination of open source UAV (especially the UAVP drone) and ArcheOS. We will show as well some results about our last project of aerial archaeology in North Italy.
I hope it will be an interesting experience (just to write some report about it). For more information about the congress, here is the official website: http://caaconference.org/.
Soon we will post the presentation, and some more details about our last research in UAV field.
2016-03-31 Update
Thanks to self-archiving I can now add the bibliography related with this post:
ResearchGate: Article - Presentation
Academia: Article - Presentation
I hope it will be useful, even if no more up to date it can be a starting point to work in Aerial Archeology with Open Software and Hardware.
Friday, 29 July 2011
UAVP (Universal Aerial Video Platform)
In 2006, during the Aramus Excavations and Field School, we had the possibility to partecipate in a subproject regarding the remote sensing of Aramus hill. The project was leaded by Ing. Klaus Kerkow with the help of Christine Hanisch. Luckily on that occasion there was the support of Armenian Ministery of Defence and of the Armenian Air Force, which provided an helicopter (as you can see in the picture), but, of course, this was an extraordinary situation.
Since that year we tried to find a system to get remote sensing informations without the need of expensive or difficoult solutions (like helicopters or ultralight aircrafts). In 2008 we started a preliminary research which ended with the construction of an UAVP (Universal Aerial Video Platform), an open source UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). In the video below you can see the first flying test of our prototype (thanks to Wolfgang Mahringer, the main developer of UAVP project, who helped us in building our drone).
 |
| The helicopter provided by Armenian Air Force |
Since that year we tried to find a system to get remote sensing informations without the need of expensive or difficoult solutions (like helicopters or ultralight aircrafts). In 2008 we started a preliminary research which ended with the construction of an UAVP (Universal Aerial Video Platform), an open source UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). In the video below you can see the first flying test of our prototype (thanks to Wolfgang Mahringer, the main developer of UAVP project, who helped us in building our drone).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
