Comparing RGB-D sensors for close range outdoor agricultural phenotyping

Sensors (Switzerland)

Volumn 18, Issue 12, 2018, Pages

  Vit, Adar ^a   Shani, Guy ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

Empirical analysis; INTEL D 435; INTEL SR300; Microsoft kinect; ORBBEC ASTRA S; Phenotyping; RGB D sensors; Sensors in agriculture

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION;

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; INTEL D-435; INTEL SR300; MICROSOFT KINECT; ORBBEC ASTRA S; PHENOTYPING; RGB-D SENSORS;

AGRICULTURE;

AGRICULTURE; ALGORITHM; CROP; PHENOTYPE; PROCEDURES;

AGRICULTURE; ALGORITHMS; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; PHENOTYPE;

EID: 85058663012     PISSN: 14248220     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/s18124413     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Tilman, D.; Balzer, C.; Hill, J.; Befort, B.L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 20260–20264. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Araus, J.L.; Cairns, J.E. Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 52–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Mutka, A.M.; Bart, R.S. Image-based phenotyping of plant disease symptoms. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 5, 734. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Busemeyer, L.; Mentrup, D.; Möller, K.; Wunder, E.; Alheit, K.; Hahn, V.; Maurer, H.P.; Reif, J.C.; Würschum, T.; Müller, J.; et al. BreedVision—A multi-sensor platform for non-destructive field-based phenotyping in plant breeding. Sensors 2013, 13, 2830–2847. [CrossRef]
5. Fahlgren, N.; Gehan, M.A.; Baxter, I. Lights, camera, action: high-throughput plant phenotyping is ready for a close-up. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 24, 93–99. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. An, N.; Palmer, C.M.; Baker, R.L.; Markelz, R.C.; Ta, J.; Covington, M.F.; Maloof, J.N.; Welch, S.M.; Weinig, C. Plant high-throughput phenotyping using photogrammetry and imaging techniques to measure leaf length and rosette area. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 127, 376–394. [CrossRef]
7. Giancola, S.; Valenti, M.; Sala, R. A Survey on 3D Cameras: Metrological Comparison of Time-of-Flight, Structured-Light and Active Stereoscopy Technologies; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
8. Sarbolandi, H.; Lefloch, D.; Kolb, A. Kinect range sensing: Structured-light versus Time-of-Flight Kinect. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 2015, 139, 1–20. [CrossRef]
9. Stehr, N.J. Drones: The newest technology for precision agriculture. Nat. Sci. Educ. 2015, 44, 89–91. [CrossRef]
10. Pederi, Y.; Cheporniuk, H. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and new technological methods of monitoring and crop protection in precision agriculture. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Actual Problems of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Developments (APUAVD), Kiev, Ukraine, 7 December 2015; pp. 298–301.
11. Han, J.; Shao, L.; Xu, D.; Shotton, J. Enhanced computer vision with microsoft kinect sensor: A review. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2013, 43, 1318–1334.
12. Chéné, Y.; Rousseau, D.; Lucidarme, P.; Bertheloot, J.; Caffier, V.; Morel, P.; Belin, É.; Chapeau-Blondeau, F. On the use of depth camera for 3D phenotyping of entire plants. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2012, 82, 122–127. [CrossRef]
13. Xia, C.; Wang, L.; Chung, B.K.; Lee, J.M. In situ 3D segmentation of individual plant leaves using a RGB-D camera for agricultural automation. Sensors 2015, 15, 20463–20479. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Wang, W.; Li, C. Size estimation of sweet onions using consumer-grade RGB-depth sensor. J. Food Eng. 2014, 142, 153–162. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, Z.; Walsh, K.B.; Verma, B. On-Tree Mango Fruit Size Estimation Using RGB-D Images. Sensors 2017, 17, 2738. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Hui, F.; Zhu, J.; Hu, P.; Meng, L.; Zhu, B.; Guo, Y.; Li, B.; Ma, Y. Image-based dynamic quantification and high-accuracy 3D evaluation of canopy structure of plant populations. Ann. Bot. 2018, 121, 1079–1088. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Azzari, G.; Goulden, M.L.; Rusu, R.B. Rapid characterization of vegetation structure with a Microsoft Kinect sensor. Sensors 2013, 13, 2384–2398. [CrossRef]
18. Jiang, Y.; Li, C.; Paterson, A.H.; Sun, S.; Xu, R.; Robertson, J. Quantitative Analysis of Cotton Canopy Size in Field Conditions Using a Consumer-Grade RGB-D Camera. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 8, 2233. [CrossRef]
19. Sa, I.; Lehnert, C.; English, A.; McCool, C.; Dayoub, F.; Upcroft, B.; Perez, T. Peduncle detection of sweet pepper for autonomous crop harvesting—Combined Color and 3-D Information. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2017, 2, 765–772. [CrossRef]
20. Sodhi, P.; Vijayarangan, S.; Wettergreen, D. In-field segmentation and identification of plant structures using 3D imaging. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–28 September 2017; pp. 5180–5187.
21. Kapach, K.; Barnea, E.; Mairon, R.; Edan, Y.; Ben-Shahar, O. Computer vision for fruit harvesting robots—State of the art and challenges ahead. Int. J. Comput. Vis. Robot. 2012, 3, 4–34. [CrossRef]
22. Gongal, A.; Amatya, S.; Karkee, M.; Zhang, Q.; Lewis, K. Sensors and systems for fruit detection and localization: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 116, 8–19. [CrossRef]
23. Rose, J.C.; Paulus, S.; Kuhlmann, H. Accuracy analysis of a multi-view stereo approach for phenotyping of tomato plants at the organ level. Sensors 2015, 15, 9651–9665. [CrossRef]
24. Pound, M.P.; Atkinson, J.A.; Wells, D.M.; Pridmore, T.P.; French, A.P. Deep learning for multi-task plant phenotyping. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW), Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 2055–2063.
25. Sabattini, L.; Levratti, A.; Venturi, F.; Amplo, E.; Fantuzzi, C.; Secchi, C. Experimental comparison of 3D vision sensors for mobile robot localization for industrial application: Stereo-camera and RGB-D sensor. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Control Automation Robotics & Vision (ICARCV), Guangzhou, China, 5–7 December 2012; pp. 823–828.
26. Beltran, D.; Basañez, L. A Comparison between Active and Passive 3D Vision Sensors: BumblebeeXB3 and Microsoft Kinect. In ROBOT2013: First Iberian Robotics Conference; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 725–734.
27. Samir, M.; Golkar, E.; Rahni, A.A.A. Comparison between the Kinect™ V1 and Kinect™ V2 for respiratory motion tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Signal and Image Processing Applications (ICSIPA), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19–21 October 2015; pp. 150–155.
28. Amon, C.; Fuhrmann, F.; Graf, F. Evaluation of the spatial resolution accuracy of the face tracking system for kinect for windows v1 and v2. In Proceedings of the 6th Congress of the Alps Adria Acoustics Association, Taipei, Taiwan, 20–24 November 2016; pp. 16–17.
29. Wasenmüller, O.; Stricker, D. Comparison of kinect v1 and v2 depth images in terms of accuracy and precision. In Asian Conference on Computer Vision; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 34–45.
30. Diaz, M.G.; Tombari, F.; Rodriguez-Gonzalvez, P.; Gonzalez-Aguilera, D. Analysis and evaluation between the first and the second generation of RGB-D sensors. IEEE Sens. J. 2015, 15, 6507–6516. [CrossRef]
31. Guidi, G.; Gonizzi, S.; Micoli, L. 3D capturing performances of low-cost range sensors for mass-market applications. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2016, 33–40. [CrossRef]
32. Kazmi, W.; Foix, S.; Alenyà, G.; Andersen, H.J. Indoor and outdoor depth imaging of leaves with time-of-flight and stereo vision sensors: Analysis and comparison. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2014, 88, 128–146. [CrossRef]
33. Carfagni, M.; Furferi, R.; Governi, L.; Servi, M.; Uccheddu, F.; Volpe, Y. On the performance of the Intel SR300 depth camera: metrological and critical characterization. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 17, 4508–4519. [CrossRef]
34. Gutierrez-Martinez, J.M.; Castillo-Martinez, A.; Medina-Merodio, J.A.; Aguado-Delgado, J.; Martinez-Herraiz, J.J. Smartphones as a Light Measurement Tool: Case of Study. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 616. [CrossRef]
35. He, K.; Gkioxari, G.; Dollár, P.; Girshick, R. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 2980–2988.
36. Golbach, F.; Kootstra, G.; Damjanovic, S.; Otten, G.; van de Zedde, R. Validation of plant part measurements using a 3D reconstruction method suitable for high-throughput seedling phenotyping. Mach. Vis. Appl. 2016, 27, 663–680. [CrossRef]
37. Gupta, S.; Girshick, R.; Arbeláez, P.; Malik, J. Learning rich features from RGB-D images for object detection and segmentation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, Zurich, Switzerland, 6–12 September 2014; pp. 345–360.
38. Jin, J.; Zakhor, A. Point Cloud Based Approach to Stem Width Extraction of Sorghum. Electron. Imaging 2017, 2017, 148–155. [CrossRef]
39. Ren, S.; He, K.; Girshick, R.; Sun, J. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2017, 39, 1137–1149. [CrossRef]
40. Steinhage, V.; Schöler, F.; Balfer, J. A Model-Based Approach to High Performance Phenotyping. In EnviroInfo; Shaker Verlag: Herzogenrath, Germany, 2012; pp. 303–310.
41. Nguyen, C.V.; Fripp, J.; Lovell, D.R.; Furbank, R.; Kuffner, P.; Daily, H.; Sirault, X. 3D scanning system for automatic high-resolution plant phenotyping. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA), Gold Coast, Australia, 30 November–2 December 2016; pp. 1–8.