Comparison of multichannel signal deconvolution algorithms in airborne LiDAR bathymetry based on wavelet transform
Abstract Airborne LiDAR bathymetry offers low cost and high mobility, making it an ideal option for shallow-water measurements. However, due to differences in the measurement environment and the laser emission channel, the received waveform is difficult to extract using a single algorithm. The choic...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/b6f4c9dea95c40909b646277ca872964 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Airborne LiDAR bathymetry offers low cost and high mobility, making it an ideal option for shallow-water measurements. However, due to differences in the measurement environment and the laser emission channel, the received waveform is difficult to extract using a single algorithm. The choice of a suitable waveform processing method is thus of extreme importance to guarantee the accuracy of the bathymetric retrieval. In this study, we use a wavelet-denoising method to denoise the received waveform and subsequently test four algorithms for denoised-waveform processing, namely, the Richardson–Lucy deconvolution (RLD), blind deconvolution (BD), Wiener filter deconvolution (WFD), and constrained least-squares filter deconvolution (RFD). The simulation and measured multichannel databases are used to evaluate the algorithms, with focus on improving their performance after data-denoising and their capability of extracting water depth. Results show that applying wavelet denoising before deconvolution improves the extraction accuracy. The four algorithms perform better for the shallow-water orthogonal polarization channel (PMT2) than for the shallow horizontal row polarization channel (PMT1). Of the four algorithms, RLD provides the best signal-detection rate, and RFD is the most robust; BD has low computational efficiency, and WFD performs poorly in deep water (< 25 m). |
|---|