Optik 124 (2013) 5357–5362

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Optik
journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/ijleo

An improved building boundary extraction algorithm based on fusion of optical

imagery and LIDAR data
Yong Li a,∗ , Huayi Wu b , Ru An a , Hanwei Xu a , Qisheng He a , Jia Xu a
a
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping, and Remote Sensing, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article presents a new method of automatic boundary extraction using LIDAR-optical fusion suited
Received 12 September 2012 to handle diverse building shapes. This method makes full use of the complementary advantages of LIDAR
Accepted 20 March 2013 data and optical imagery. Different building features are extracted from the two data sources and fused to
form the final complete building boundaries. First, the points of each roof patch are detected from LIDAR
point cloud. This process consists of four steps: filtering, building detection, wall point removal and roof
Keywords:
patch detection. Second, initial building edges are extracted from optical imagery using an improved
LIDAR
Canny detector constrained by edge location information derived from the LIDAR point cloud as edge
Optical image
Fusion
buffer areas. Finally, the roof patch and initial edges are integrated by mathematical morphology to form
Boundary extraction the final complete building boundaries. All processes have no constraints or rules on building shapes. This
Building method is fully data-driven and suitable for any building shape. LIDAR data and aerial images of complex
Mathematical morphology geographical environments are used to test the method. These experimental results demonstrate that
our method can automatically extract accurate boundaries for buildings with complex shapes, and also
is highly robust in complex environments.
© 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction it is difficult to judge whether the hypotheses are in conformity

Accurate building boundaries are important for diverse applica-
tions such as real estate, city planning, and disaster management.
The automatic extraction of building boundaries is challenging due
to building shape variability and surrounding environmental com-
plexity. High-resolution optical imagery contains rich spectral and
textural information and is easily affected by many factors such as
contrast, illumination and occlusion. The airborne Light Detection
and Ranging (LIDAR) can rapidly acquire dense and precise height
data of large-scale areas by emitting and receiving laser pulses. The
height changes are more suitable for locating building boundaries
more than the spectral and texture changes. However, the hori-
zontal accuracy of boundaries extracted from LIDAR data is poor
because of laser pulse discontinuousness.
Hence a number of methods have been developed to make use
of LIDAR point clouds to extract building boundaries and solve
the horizontal accuracy problem arising from laser footprint dis-
continuousness. These approaches are broadly divided into three
categories. The first category is simplifying and generalizing the
coarse edges derived from raw data based on some building shape
hypotheses such as parallel or perpendicular edges [1–7]. However
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 13655192670.
E-mail address: liyong@hhu.edu.cn (Y. Li).
with reality. The second category obtains complete building bound-
aries by grouping the extracted features such as corner points,
line segments and roof planes [8–16]. The feature grouping pro-
cess follows complex rules which are crucial for the success and
robustness of this method. This category of methods performs
well mainly on the regular buildings composed of straight lines
[17,18]. The third category uses model primitives to determine
building boundaries by fitting input data to the adopted mod-
els [19,20]. The adopted model primitives are often some regular
shape or a designed model dataset. It is difficult to accurately repre-
sent various irregular building shapes using the predefined model
primitives.
Considering the complementary advantages of LIDAR data and
high-resolution imagery, the fusion of two data sources is regarded
as a promising strategy to extract high quality building bound-
aries [8,9,12–15,20–25]. However, it is challenging to extract the
correct features from optical image or LIDAR data of complex land-
scapes. Additionally, there is no general solution for fusing different
features for automatic building boundary extraction of various
building shapes such as curved, wavy, zigzag and other irregular
shapes. Most existing fusion methods can only handle simple build-
ing shapes like polygons.
In order to automatically extract building boundaries from com-
plex geographic environments, a new method of building boundary
extraction by LIDAR-optical fusion is proposed in this paper. This

0030-4026/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2013.03.045
5358 Y. Li et al. / Optik 124 (2013) 5357–5362
LIDAR Point
Aerial Image
Cloud
1 Filtering 2 Gaussion Smoothing
Edge Information
Building Detection Gradient Calculating
Deriving
Edge Buffer Area Non-maximal Suppression
Wall Point Removal
Creating in Edge Buffer Area
Initial Edges Detection by
Roof Patch Detection
Edge Tracking
3 Integrating of Roof Patches and Initial Edges by Closing Operation
Complete Boundary Extraction by Mathematical Morphology
Fig. 1. Work flow of boundary extraction adaptive for complex building shape.
method is fully data-driven, and self-adaptive for diverse build-
ing shapes. This paper is organized as follows. The work flow and
detailed procedure of the proposed method is explained in Section
2. Experiments are described and discussed in Section 3. Finally,
the conclusions are given in Section 4.
2. Methodology
The work flow of this method is shown in Fig. 1. First, the points
of each roof patch are derived from the LIDAR point cloud. This con-
sists of four steps, namely filtering, building detection, wall point
removal and roof patch detection as seen in frame 1 of Fig. 1. Sec-
ond, the initial edges are extracted from image using the improved
Canny detector which is cued by the edge location information from
the LIDAR point cloud in the form of edge buffer areas as seen in
frame 2 of Fig. 1. Finally, the roof patch and initial edges are inte-
grated by mathematical morphology to form the final complete
boundary as seen in frame 3 of Fig. 1.
2.1. Extracting roof patches from LIDAR data
LIDAR point cloud is divided into ground points and non-ground
points, which process is called filtering. Then building points are
separated from the non-ground points. Many algorithms are avail-
able for filtering. This research utilizes the method of filtering based
on the morphological gradient proposed by Li and Wu [26]. The
non-ground points derived by filtering include buildings, vehicles,
vegetation and so on. There are often other objects that are attached
to buildings, for example, vegetation and low objects. Here three
steps are taken to detect building points. First, low object points are
removed if the difference between the object height and the adja-
cent ground height is less than a predefined threshold, e.g. 2 meters.
Second, a morphological opening operation is carried out, which
breaks away the non-building portions that are attached to build-
ings. Third, the connected regions are detected by a region growing
technique, and those regions that are larger than a certain threshold
are regarded as buildings.
The wall points need to be removed because they may influence
the subsequent extraction of roof patches and the determination of
building edge points. A building point is judged as wall point if there
are a much higher point, a much lower point and few points that
have the same approximate height in that point’s neighborhood.
That means a wall point is not only a low jump point but also a
high jump point, and is an isolated point at the same time.
Each roof patch can be extracted from the building points
after removing the wall points. The point sets with gradual height
changes are detected by the region growing technology, and the
Edge point
Peripheral point
Peripheral point with the height
of the neighboring edge point
Fig. 2. Edge location information derived from LIDAR data.
point set whose size is larger than a certain threshold is determined
as a building roof patch, which avoids the influence of roof details
such as antennas, chimneys, etc.
2.2. Extracting initial edges from aerial images
The Canny edge detector [27] is widely used in digital image
processing. It works in four stages: First, the image is smoothed
by Gaussian convolution. Second, a 2-D first derivative operator is
applied to the smoothed image to calculate the gradient magni-
tude and direction. Third, the process of non-maximal suppression
(NMS) is imposed on the gradient image. Finally, an edge tracking
process is applied controlled by two thresholds.
Non-maximal suppression and edge tracking are mainly respon-
sible for the success of the Canny edge detector. But if the two
steps are carried out using only images, the determination of edges
is random, and easily influenced by false edge information such
as shadows. In addition, some building edges may be missed as
shown in Fig. 7. So the first two steps, namely Gaussian smoothing
and gradient calculation, are implemented on the aerial image. The
non-maximal suppression and edge tracking processes are imple-
mented by combining LIDAR points and images in the following
steps.
In order to reduce the randomness of edge extraction in images,
the edge location information derived from LIDAR data are used
to specify the working areas of the non-maximal suppression and
edge tracking processes. Since roof patches have been extracted as
previously elaborated in Section 2.1, the edge points of each roof
patch can be located by neighborhood analysis. That is, if a point
outside the roof patch lies in the neighborhood of a point inside roof
patch, the inside point is marked as an edge point, and the outside
point is marked as a peripheral point. Considering the height dis-
placement of perspective projection, the height of the neighboring
edge point of each peripheral point is recorded as shown in Fig. 2.
For each roof patch, the edge buffer areas are created by the edge
points and the peripheral points with the height of the neighboring
edge points. Since LIDAR and image data have been aligned relative
to a common reference frame by the photogrammetric technique
[28], those points are first back-projected to the image plane as
shown in Fig. 3(a). Considering the discontinuousness of LIDAR
laser pulses, the real location of building edges must lie between
the two kinds of points as the overlay of two buffer areas in Fig. 3(a)
show. So buffer area1 is created around the edge points as Fig. 3(b),
and buffer area2 is created around the peripheral points as Fig. 3(c).
The width of the buffer areas is the average point spacing. As shown
in Fig. 3(d), the two kinds of buffer areas are integrated to form the
 Y. Li et al. / Optik 124 (2013) 5357–5362
Fig. 3. Edge buffer area creation.
terminal buffer area which is composed of three portions. The over-
lay area, i.e. buffer area3, contains true building edges. The lack of
buffer area2 may happen because of the LIDAR data hollow caused
by oblique laser scan angle, aboveground object obstruction, object
reflecting instability, etc. So non-maximal suppression is carried
out in buffer area1, then the edge tracking process starts from buffer
area3 and then extended in buffer area1.
2.3. Forming complete boundaries by fusing roof patch and initial
edges
Although the extraction of initial edges is constrained by the
edge buffer areas, it is still difficult to extract continuous and com-
plete edges solely from images. There are some broken lines and
noise existing in the initial edges due to the complex spectral
and texture characteristics of high-resolution images. LIDAR point
clouds implicitly provide a closed edge around roof patch. So the
initial edges extracted from images can be fused with the roof patch
extracted from the LIDAR data to form the final complete bound-
aries as Fig. 4.
First, the initial edges near the roof patch are selected as features
for fusion. The distance of the real building edges and roof patch is
generally less than the average point spacing of LIDAR point clouds.
As Fig. 4(a), lines 1–4 are the initial edges extracted from image. The
distances of lines 1, 3, 4 and the roof patch are less than the average
point spacing, so they are selected for fusion as Fig. 4(b).
Second, a morphological closing operation, including a combi-
nation of dilation and erosion operations, is applied to the roof
patch and the initial edges selected. The shadow areas in Fig. 4(c)
and (d) illustrate respectively the results of the dilation and erosion
operations. The two kinds of features derived from two different
data sources are naturally integrated to a single entity.
Finally, the complete boundary is determined by the mathemat-
ical morphology boundary extraction method [29] following the
formula:
ˇ(A) = A − (AB) (1)
where A = the entity derived by the morphological closing operation
integrating roof patch and initial edges as shown by the shadow
area in Fig. 4(e)
B = structuring element with the size of 3 × 3 pixels
A  B = A is eroded with structuring element B, whose result is
shown as the polygon of dashed lines in Fig. 4(e)
ˇ(A) = the final complete building boundary as Fig. 4(f)
5359
2
1 3 4 1 3 4
(a) (b)
1 3 4 1 3 4
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Points on roof patch
Initial edges
Morphological operation
Erosion operation for edge extraction
by mathematical morphology
Fig. 4. Complete boundary extraction by fusion roof patch and initial edges.
Comparing Fig. 4(a) and (f), it can be seen that different features
are well fused forming a complete building boundary. On one hand,
the broken initial edges extracted from image are selected and con-
nected using the roof patch information. On the other hand, the final
boundary is improved in comparison to the boundary derived solely
from points of the roof patch. Moreover, this whole procedure is
fully data-driven.
3. Experimental results and discussion
In order to test the performance of the method proposed in this
paper, LIDAR-Optical data from a real geographical environment
was used in experiments. The data covers part of the downtown
area of the City of Toronto Ontario, Canada, as shown in Fig. 5. The
LIDAR data were acquired by an Optech ALTM 3100 system. The
average density of the point clouds is 0.8 point/m2 . Fig. 5(b) is the
digital surface model (DSM) generated from LIDAR data. The aerial
image resolution is 1 m, which is shown as Fig. 5(a). These two
kinds of data have been aligned relative to a common reference
frame with the method in [28]. Fig. 5(c) is the LIDAR point cloud
shown in the color of their corresponding pixels. As can be seen in
Fig. 5, the test area contains numerous buildings of complex shapes,
with complex surrounding environments. The aerial image shows
the detailed building outlines, as well as the complex spectral and
texture characteristics such as contrast, illumination and shadow,
while the DSM derived from LIDAR data shows the jagged edges
caused by the discontinuousness of laser pulse. The test data are
ideal to evaluate the building boundary extraction method adaptive
for diverse building shapes.
5360 Y. Li et al. / Optik 124 (2013) 5357–5362
Fig. 5. Test data. (a) Aerial image; (b) DSM generated from LIDAR data; (c) the LIDAR
point cloud in the color of their corresponding pixels.
The LIDAR point cloud was divided into ground points and non-
ground points after filtering as shown in Fig. 6(a). Building points
were detected from the non-ground points by adopting the three
steps mentioned in Section 2.1 as Fig. 6(b). Fig. 6(c) shows the
building points after removing wall points, from which each roof
patch can be extracted according to height continuousness. Fig. 6(d)
shows the detected edge points and peripheral points of each roof
patch, which indicate the approximate location of real edges.
During the extraction of initial edges from the aerial image,
the improved Canny detector is employed as introduced in Section
2.2. After Gaussian smoothing and gradient calculation are imple-
mented, the non-maximal suppression and edge tracking processes
are applied to the edge buffer areas created by projecting the edge
points and peripheral points onto image space, as shown in Fig. 7(a).
Fig. 7(b) illustrates the initial edges as extracted by the improved
Canny detector. In order to make a comparison, Fig. 7(c) shows the
result of the traditional Canny detector on the whole image, and
Fig. 6. Processing in the LIDAR data. (a) The result of filtering (white: ground points;
green: aboveground points); (b) the result of building detection (red: building
points); (c) building points after removing wall points (purple: wall points); (d) edge
points and peripheral points of each roof patch (orange: edge points; blue: periph-
eral points). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 7. Extraction of initial edges from image. (a) Edge buffer areas; (b) edges
extracted by the improved Canny detector; (c) edges extracted by the traditional
Canny detector; (d) edges extracted by the traditional Canny detector appearing in
the buffer areas.
Fig. 7(d) shows the edges appearing in the buffer areas. It is obvi-
ous that the traditional Canny detector misses many building edges
because of the influence of the surrounding spectrum and texture.
The purpose of the non-maximal suppression is to make sure of
only one response along the gradient direction, ensuring that the
real edges are indeed along the buffer area and lie in the overlay area
of buffer areas. So using the edge buffer areas as cues, the improved
Canny detector can extract edges more efficiently as Fig. 7.
The roof patch and initial edges are fused to form the final
complete boundary by mathematical morphology as described in
Section 2.3. The overlay of roof patches and initial edges is shown
in Fig. 8(a). It can be seen that there are some hollows in the roof
patches because the density of the point cloud does not match
the image resolution, a common occurrence in practical applica-
tions. The initial edges are still fragmentary although using the
improved Canny detector yielded better results than the tradi-
tional Canny detector. As shown in Fig. 8(b), each roof patch and its
surrounding initial edges are integrated to an entity through a mor-
phological closing operation. Then the final complete boundaries
are determined by the boundary extraction method of mathemati-
cal morphology as Fig. 8(c). The final boundaries are closed and one
pixel in width, which can be used for large scaled cartography or
three dimensional modeling with the height of roof patch points.
In order to make quantitative assessment of boundary accuracy,
26 pairs of check points were selected from the LIDAR point cloud
and aerial image respectively as shown in Fig. 9. Those check points
lie on building corners which are easily distinguished. Because the
final boundaries are compensated by the initial edges extracted
from image, the check points from the LIDAR point cloud probably
did not lie on the final boundaries after projection. Therefore the
pixels of the final boundaries determined by the check points from
the LIDAR point cloud, i.e. the pixel of the final boundary nearest
to the projected check point of LIDAR, are used to compare with
the corresponding check points of image. The Root Mean Square
Error (RMSE) at x and y directions achieved 0.55 pixels as shown
 Y. Li et al. / Optik 124 (2013) 5357–5362 5361

Table 1
The errors of check points.

Check 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
point
x 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
y 0 0 0 0 −1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Check 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMSE
point
x 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.55
y 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.39

in Table 1, which is a high boundary extraction accuracy when

considering the accuracy of raw data.

4. Conclusions

Building boundaries are a kind of important geospatial infor-

Fig. 8. Extraction of the final complete boundaries by fusing roof patch and ini-
tial edges. (a) The overlay of the roof patch and initial edges (gray: roof patches;
black: initial edges); (b) integrating of patches and edges by morphological closing
operation; (c) the final complete boundaries.
mation. Automatic extraction of accurate building boundaries is a
challenging task due to building shape variability and surrounding
environment complexity. In order to deal with various buildings
of complex shapes, this paper presents a new method for auto-
matic boundary extraction by LIDAR-optical fusion. The following
statements can be concluded:
This method makes full use of the complementary advantages
of LIDAR data and optical images. Different building features are
extracted respectively from the two data sources and fused to form
the final complete building boundaries.
The whole procedure does not impose any constraint on build-
ing shape. This method is fully data-driven, and self-adaptive for
diverse building shapes.
The initial edges are extracted from an image using the
improved Canny detector constrained by the edge location infor-
mation derived from a LIDAR point cloud in the form of edge buffer
areas, for more efficiently edge extraction.
An innovative general strategy based on mathematical morphol-
ogy to fuse the features from different data source to get complete
building boundaries with high detailed information was presented.
The final boundaries are closed and one pixel in width, which
can then be used for large scaled cartography or three dimensional
modeling with the height information of LIDAR data.
There are still some problems to be studied in future. The
final boundaries are the set of neighboring pixels, with much data
redundancy. So the boundaries need further simplification. In addi-
tion, roof surface changing also need representation using suitable
method for detailed 3D modeling.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (41101374; 41021061; 41271361; 41101308)
and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(2011B06614).

References

Fig. 9. Selecting check points for quantitative assessment. (a) The distribution of
check points in LIDAR data (white: ground points; red: building points; green: non-
building points; purple: wall points; yellow cross: check points); (b) the local zoom
out of Fig. 9(a); (c) the distribution of check points in image (blue cross: check
points); (d) the final complete boundaries. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
[1] H.G. Maas, G. Vosselman, Two algorithms for extracting building models from
raw laser altimetry data, ISPRS J. Photogram. Rem. Sens. 54 (1999) 153–163.
[2] R.J. Ma, DEM generation and building detection from Lidar data, Photogramm.
Eng. Remote Sens. 71 (2005) 847–854.
[3] Z. Keqi, Y. Jianhua, C. Shu-Ching, Automatic construction of building foot-
prints from airborne LIDAR data, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 44 (2006)
2523–2533.
[4] A. Sampath, J. Shan, Building boundary tracing and regularization from airborne
lidar point clouds, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 73 (2007) 805–812.
[5] S.R. Lach, J.P. Kerekes, Robust extraction of exterior building boundaries from
topographic lidar data, in: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium, IGARSS, 2008, pp. 85–88.
[6] H. Neidhart, M. Sester, Extraction of building ground plans from LIDAR data,
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 37 (2008) 405–410.
5362 Y. Li et al. / Optik 124 (2013) 5357–5362
[7] Y. Jwa, G. Sohn, V. Tao, W. Cho, An implicit geometric regularization of 3D
building shape using airborne LIDAR data, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens
Spatial Inf. Sci. 37 (2008) 69–75.
[8] L. Chen, T. Teo, Y. Shao, Y. Lai, J. Rau, Fusion of LIDAR data and optical imagery
for building modeling, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 35
(2004) 732–737.
[9] L. Chen, T. Teo, C. Hsieh, J. Rau, Reconstruction of building models with curvi-
linear boundaries from laser scanner and aerial imagery, Adv. Image Video
Technol. (2006) 24–33.
[10] J.Y. Rau, L.C. Chen, Robust reconstruction of building models from three-
dimensional line segments, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 69 (2003)
181–188.
[11] B.B. Madhavan, C. Wang, H. Tanahashi, H. Hirayu, Y. Niwa, K. Yamamoto, K.
Tachibana, T. Sasagawa, A computer vision based approach for 3D building
modelling of airborne laser scanner DSM data, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.
30 (2006) 54–77.
[12] G. Sohn, I. Dowman, Data fusion of high-resolution satellite imagery and LiDAR
data for automatic building extraction, ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sens. 62
(2007) 43–63.
[13] A.F. Elaksher, Fusion of hyperspectral images and lidar-based dems for coastal
mapping, Opt. Lasers Eng. 46 (2008) 493–498.
[14] J.J. Jaw, C.C. Cheng, Building roof reconstruction by fusion laser range data and
aerial images, International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial
Inf. Sci. 37 (2008) 707–712.
[15] F. Rottensteiner, Automatic generation of high-quality building models from
lidar data, IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 23 (2003) 42–50.
[16] M. Peternell, T. Steiner, Reconstruction of piecewise planar objects from point
clouds, Comput.-Aid. Des. 36 (2004) 333–342.
[17] L.C. Chen, T.A. Teo, C.Y. Kuo, J.Y. Rau, Shaping polyhedral buildings by the fusion
of vector maps and lidar point clouds, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 74
(2008) 1147–1157.
[18] G. Sohn, X.F. Huang, V. Tao, Using a binary space partitioning tree for recons-
tructing polyhedral building models from airborne lidar data, Photogram. Eng.
Remote Sens. 74 (2008) 1425–1438.
[19] G. Vosselman, P. Kessels, B. Gorte, The utilisation of airborne laser scanning for
mapping, Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinform. 6 (2005) 177–186.
[20] H. Jinhui, Y. Suya, U. Neumann, Integrating LiDAR, aerial image and ground
images for complete urban building modeling, in: The Third International
Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization, and Transmission, 2006, pp.
184–191.
[21] G.Q. Zhou, C. Song, J. Simmers, P. Cheng, Urban 3D GIS from LiDAR and digital
aerial images, Comput. Geosci. 30 (2004) 345–353.
[22] C. Brenner, Building reconstruction from images and laser scanning, Int. J. Appl.
Earth Observ. Geoinfor. 6 (2005) 187–198.
[23] H.J. You, S.Q. Zhang, 3D building reconstruction from aerial CCD image and
sparse laser sample data, Opt. Lasers Eng. 44 (2006) 555–566.
[24] A. Habib, J. Kersting, T. McCaffrey, A. Jarvis, Integration of LIDAR and airborne
imagery for realistic visualization of 3D urban environments, Int. Arch. Pho-
togramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 37 (2008) 617–623.
[25] L. Cheng, J. Gong, X. Chen, P. Han, Building boundary extraction from high res-
olution imagery and LIDAR data, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial
Inf. Sci. 37 (2008) 693–698.
[26] Y. Li, H. Wu, DEM extraction from LIDAR data by morphological gradient, in:
the Fifth International Joint Conference on INC, IMS and IDC, NCM, IEEE, 2009,
pp. 1301–1306.
[27] J. Canny, A computational approach to edge detection, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Mac. Intel. 8 (1986) 679–698.
[28] H. Wu, Y. Li, J. Li, J. Gong, A two-step displacement correction algorithm for reg-
istration of lidar point clouds and aerial images without orientation parameters,
Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 76 (2010) 1135–1145.
[29] R. Gonzalez, R. Woods, S. Eddins, Digital Image Processing Using MATLAB, Pren-
tice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004.