Search

ALS-derived raster visualization techniques have become common in recent years, opening up new possibilities for subtle landform detection in earth sciences and archaeology, but they have also introduced confusion for users. As a consequence, the choice between these visualization techniques is still mostly supported by empirical knowledge. Some attempts have been made to compare these techniques, but there is still a lack of analytical data. This work proposes a new method, based on gradient modelling and spatial statistics, to analytically assess the efficacy of these visualization techniques. A selected panel of outstanding visualization techniques was assessed first by a classic non-analytical approach, and secondly by the proposed new analytical approach. The comparison of results showed that the latter provided more detailed and objective data, not always consistent with previous empirical knowledge. These data allowed us to characterize with precision the terrain for which each visualization technique performs best. A combination of visualization techniques based on DEM manipulation (Slope and Local Relief Model) appeared to be the best choice for normal terrain morphometry, occasionally supported by illumination techniques such as Sky-View Factor or Negative Openness as a function of terrain characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ALS-derived raster visualization techniques have become common in recent years, opening up new possibilities for subtle landform detection in earth sciences and archaeology, but they have also introduced confusion for users. As a consequence, the choice between these visualization techniques is still mostly supported by empirical knowledge. Some attempts have been made to compare these techniques, but there is still a lack of analytical data. This work proposes a new method, based on gradient modelling and spatial statistics, to analytically assess the efficacy of these visualization techniques. A selected panel of outstanding visualization techniques was assessed first by a classic non-analytical approach, and secondly by the proposed new analytical approach. The comparison of results showed that the latter provided more detailed and objective data, not always consistent with previous empirical knowledge. These data allowed us to characterize with precision the terrain for which each visualization technique performs best. A combination of visualization techniques based on DEM manipulation (Slope and Local Relief Model) appeared to be the best choice for normal terrain morphometry, occasionally supported by illumination techniques such as Sky-View Factor or Negative Openness as a function of terrain characteristics.