What is the difference between satellite images, drone images, and digital photographs?

The main difference is in the swath and resolution.

Usually satellite image swath is greater than that of drone or digital photograph.

The next difference comes in spatial resolution Janaki Sandamali

Janaki Sandamali - All are images captured remotely. Only difference lies in the type of payload/sensor used to capture the images. Now a days it is possible to mount SAR and thermal payloads in terrestrial cameras as well as drones. These payloads are already available in satellite platforms. I agree with Rajarshi Saha that the resolution will be high in images captured using terrestrial cameras and drones, since they are taken from a close range.

Tapas Ranjan Martha Rajarshi Saha Thank you for replying. Does it mean that the RGB bands in both photographs and satellite images were equivalent?

Dear Janaki Sandamali ,

Satellite imagery vs aerial photography

Simply put, satellite images generally cover a much wider area and therefore have larger scale scientific applications. Aerial images, which are taken at a lower altitude and thus cover a smaller amount of area, are more suited to smaller scale applications like advertising and marketing.

https://www.jrresolutions.com/our-blog/2020/8/17/aerial-vs-satellite-images-whats-the-difference#:~:text=Simply%20put%2C%20satellite%20images%20generally,applications%20like%20advertising%20and%20marketing.

Regards,

Shafagat

Satellites operate at a distance of more than 60,000 feet with much wider angle shots

and resulting less detail than aerial photos.

Technically there are no differences, as they are based on "pixels".

Janaki Sandamali regarding your second question RGB bands in both photographs and satellite images were equivalent?

it depends upon the sensor band range and also which band you are converting to RGB as FCC

Shafagat is quite correct - satellite imagery is used for larger scale work due to its broad coverage of the Earth’s surface, but lacks the resolution of aerial imagery or digital photography. In the good old days we used panchromatic aerial photography (black and white photos). Then colour came in, but in fact black and white still was preferable in that a colour image was ‘too noisy’. The colour actually confused things and in most cases black and white images were better at picking out fine detail such as fluted moraine, floodplain detail, old field systems. Mind you, the angle of the sun could be of great advantage - a low angle casts shadowsthat help identify fine land surface detail. However a dusting of snow could do the same with satellite images. Do remember that satellite imagery often uses different spectra, eg. infra red, to highlight particular factors. Scale, resolution, light waveband must be taken into account when choosing which imagery to use.

George Strachan

I assume you refer to visual spectrum and NIR images like photography. Drone photography uses regular cameras with a full array of pixels ordered in rows and columns. Satellite photography uses one linear array of pixels called push-broom and has a different geometry as compared to full array frames.

the important thing to me is with UAV images you can get high resolution images and you can control your spatial resolution images

The difference between satellite Images, Aerial photographs and UAV acquired Images can be explained in the form of their;

1. Spatial Resolution

2. Temporal Resolution

3. Radiometric Resolution

4. Spectral Resolution

Aminigbo Leonard Michael Onyinyechi Hayder Dibs John Hatzopoulos George J. Strachan Rajarshi Saha Gioacchino de Candia Shafagat Mahmudova Kuldeep Sharma

Thank you very much for your answers.

Then I have another question,

Can we use UAV, RGB bands for remote sensing analysis?

Yes, we can. Though, we have to consider the geometry of the satellite images (push-broom images) and the geometry of the drone images (frame images). Another thing to consider is that the satellite images use separate spectral sensors (or filters) for each spectral band. Therefore, the drone images use Bayer's filter to separate the RGB bands. Satellite images due to many kilometers of orbital height have minimal relief displacement. On the other hand, drone images have considerable relief displacement, which can be rectified using proper software to create an orthophoto of the region. Therefore, for small regions, we can achieve accurate results with drone images at ultrahigh resolution. For large regions, satellite images must be used in conjunction with drone images limited to sampling areas.

John Hatzopoulos Thank You very much, Sir,

Could you please describe image capturing in UAV and image sensing in satellites?

Try these links for drone images:

Try this link for satellite images:

They both have the same physical principles. The geographical coverage and observing time are among the most important differences.

Please checkout our book for more details:

Best wishes,

Jasem

Complex mapping in difficult areas can be helped by using the 'vertical exaggeration' (e.g. x3) setting for the topographic imagery in Google Earth. Subtle trends, such as shallow dips in bedding and contacts, unconformities, channels, facies changes etc, leap out of the page!

Trev Jaunay Mount For feeding automated feature extraction geomorphology pipelines, I frequently use the Relief Visualization Toolbox (RVT) at https://www.zrc-sazu.si/en/rvt

Michael John Patrick An excellent contribution: RVT

Trev Jaunay Mount I just love RVT, and find new uses for it all the time. A mountaineer/extreme skier friend of mine asked if I could extract 'couliers' from a DTM, filtered the slopes to determine the local talus, angle of repose, sued that to extract the fans, used elevation to locate the top of the fans, then sequenced some RVT operations to get contiguous areas to the top of the incised cliff areas. Once you get one working, the rest in the region pop out. The Powder River example in my previous post ( "A mile wide an an inch deep" ) picked up channel braiding that was less than six inches relief - I first thought I was getting artifacts in some areas, but it was picking up the subtle ruts from the farmers' tillage patterns. Well worth the time experimenting with until you get a 'feel' for the various functions.

Astonishing and extremely useful for detailed geological mapping to identify subtle trends; especially in the deserts, peneplanes, and degraded landscapes of Australia. The detailed 'Heritage' map is of country as in the Arkaba image which has been expanded vertically to emphasise flow bands in an intrusive breccia; otherwise almost invisible.

Trev Jaunay Mount Beautiful cartography there, is that your work? Do you have some corner coordinates for that geologic feature map, it would be interesting to use RVT using the Australian Lidar survey data ( most seems at 5m, which is considerably better than the elevation data under google Earth ): https://www.land.vic.gov.au/maps-and-spatial/imagery/elevation-data

Michael, we are really onto something here. The map is but a small extract from my regional map (hand drafted) of the Arkaba Breccia Intrusion; this work and that on other areas such as the Thompson Gap Diapir have been described as 'some of the most detailed' for the Flinders Ranges. See coordinates on the maps. No better maps for your purposes. Rather than send bits and pieces, you should first read through the following Report Book; being sure to enlarge the various map pdfs that are highly compressed for publication. With your feedback I can then send focused material (trev.mount@gmail.com). See, quote: "PhD thesis of Trev J Mount (1975), on "Diapirs and diapirism in the Adelaide Geosyncline" (Flinders Ranges) now is published online by the Department of Energy & Mining (DEM; Geological Survey of South Australia) as Report Book 2021/00006.

It can be downloaded from DEM's SARIG system at no cost (541 MB):

Or straight to the download:

https://mer-web.s3.amazonaws.com/2042659/Adelaide Geosyncline diapirs.pdf

The earlier 'Arkaba flow bands' image is of the low hills around the yellow marker. And see the breccia contact (red) with tilted grey shales just to the right, east, of the marker.

Challenge: can RVT resolve details of the flow banding in the intrusive breccia, and trace its contact with the grey host-rock shales? Is the banding parallel to the average contact surface? Is the banding that of a single plug, like a salt dome, or is it made of multiple thin dykes?

:-)

Michael. Update: the 'Chace Range' map (first image sent) features an intrusive apophysis off the main dyke (see pull-apart of the opposing walls, as for continental drift. Not breached as for a diatreme etc. The dyke can be found on the G Earth image, above, just below the word '. . . breccias'. Red line marks the edge of the intrusion. And note how massive host blocks have moved apart (follow the coloured marker horizons), synchronous with breccia emplacement! Another good place to test your methods?

Attached; the entire Arkaba map . . .

And the "Thompson Gap" intrusion; a simple, narrow, breccia dyke along a valley (soft breccias eroded) in rugged country of contrasting lithologies.