Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Comparison between UAV and Terrestrial Photogrammetry
| Particulars | UAV Photogrammetry | Terrestrial Photogrammetry |
|---|---|---|
| Data acquisition | Manual/Automatic/Assisted | Manual |
| Image resolution | High | High |
| Ground coverage | m2 – km2 | m2 |
| Visibility | Highly positioned elements, rooftops, walls, limited when it comes to hidden objects. | Walls up to the rooftop, allows photographing hidden objects, no visibility of rooftops. |
| Flexibility | Weather – dependent, cannot fly to close to the objects around, problematic with too much greenery. | Applicable in hazardous areas, works in cloudy, drizzly weather. |
| Price and operating cost | Moderate | Low – moderate |
| Geo-registration possibility | High quality | Medium quality |