Comparison of 3D Coral Photogrammetry and Coral Video Transect for Coral Lifeform Analysis Using Low-cost Underwater Action Camera
AJSTD 37(1)


Coral Photogrammetry (CP)
Coral Video Transect (CVT)
Low-cost underwater camera


This research analysed the use of 3D Coral Photogrammetry (CP) and Coral Video Transect (CVT) images collected from SCUBA divers using a low-cost underwater action camera to examine the coral lifeform. A comparison was made between data sets obtained using both methods on nine transects with different coral lifeform compositions and percentage cover within an area of 4 × 7 m. The comparison of the statistical analysis for CPCe revealed that there were no significant differences (p < 0.05) between CP and CVT photos where dead corals (p = 0.006), sand (p = 0.011), and unknown (p = 0.002) are present. Additionally, the coral value (p = 0.131) between CP and CVT was not significant. CP was capable of producing prominent branching, massive, and plate coral morphology results. This suggests that survey methods using low-cost action cameras for 3D Coral Photogrammetry would yield appropriate results in terms of coral lifeform detection. Hypothetically, by improving camera quality, it will yield a higher accuracy of 3D coral images that are suitable for use in scientific research and management. Other benefits of using CP include the possibilities for future studies with 3D coral surveys using remotely operated vehicles, less field time, and 3D coral seabed information.


Aber JS, Marzolff I, Ries JB. 2010. Small-format aerial photography: principles, techniques and geoscience applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Burns JHR, Delparte D, Gates RD, Takabayashi M. 2015. Utilizing underwater three-dimensional modeling to enhance ecological and biological studies of coral reefs. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci. XL5/W5:61–66. doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W5-61-2015.

Chark LH, Siang HY, Bachok Z, Wagiman S, Ibrahim K, Said A, Chan AA. 2012. A guide to collecting digital videos for coral reef surveys and monitoring purposes. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Marine Park Malaysia.

Cocito S, Sgorbini S, Peirano A, Valle M. 2003. 3-D reconstruction of biological objects using underwater video technique and image processing. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 297(1):57–70. doi:10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00369-1.

Ferrari R, Figueira WF, Pratchett MS, Boube T, Adam A, Kobelkowsky-Vidrio T, Byrne M. 2017. 3-D photogrammetry quantifies growth and external erosion of individual coral colonies and skeletons. Sci Rep. 7(1):1–9. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16408-z.

Hill J, Wilkinson C. 2004. Methods for ecological monitoring of coral reefs: a resource for managers. Townsville: Australian Institute of Marine Science.

House JE, Brambilla V, Bidaut LM, Christie AP, Pizarro O, Madin JS, Dornelas M. 2018. Moving to 3D: relationships between coral planar area, surface area and volume. PeerJ. 6:e4280. doi:10.7717/peerj.4280.

Kohler K, Gill S. 2006. Coral Point Count with Excel extensions (CPCe): a Visual Basic program for the determination of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology. Comput Geosci. 32(9):1259–1269. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.009.

Raoult V, David PA, Dupont SF, Mathewson CP, O’neill SJ, Powell NN, Williamson JE. 2016. GoProsTM as an underwater photogrammetry tool for citizen science. PeerJ. 4:e1960. doi:10.7717/peerj.1960.

Reef Check Malaysia. 2017. Status of coral reefs in Malaysia, 2016. Kuala Lumpur: Reef Check Malaysia.

Shahbudin S, Fikri Akmal K, Faris S, Normawaty MN, Mukai Y. 2017. Current status of coral reefs in Tioman Island, Peninsular Malaysia. Turk J Zool. 41:294–305. doi:10.3906/zoo-1511-42.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2020 The Author(s)


Download data is not yet available.