Why not photogrammetry? seems that what Yellowscan reports ("photogrammetry just does not work") is not true as scientist around the world are demonstrating the opposite. The photogrammetric data you show has been acquired and processed with sub-optimal parameters and much better results ca . Why not photogrammetry when it costs much less and it performs as good?
Hello Stefano. Sorry for this sentence that we have corrected on our website to better explain ourselves: www.yellowscan.fr/applications/forestry. Let us emphasize here. We beleive that each technology has its benefits and its limits. We do not deny the relevance of photogrammetry for tree species identifcation, but it is less accurate than the LiDAR for inside-canopy information and DTM under vegetation. That is why it cannot provide a reliable tree height measurment. Let us know if you want to receive our white paper about point density under vegetation.
Thanks for the adjustment in the sentence, I think is more realistic what you are describing now. Photogrammetry is proving much better in estimating tree height, volume, etc. than what many thought and that is certainly limiting the use of UAV laser scanners. I believe that lasers will become an attractive option in the future but for the moment photogrammetry totally outperforms UAV laser scanning for operational use.
