the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Surveillance Camera-Based Deep Learning Framework for High-Resolution Ground Hydrometeor Phase Observation
Abstract. Urban surveillance cameras offer a valuable resource for high spatiotemporal resolution observations of ground hydrometeor phase (GHP), with significant implications for sectors such as transportation, agriculture, and meteorology. However, distinguishing between common GHPs—rain, snow, and graupel—present considerable challenges due to their visual similarities in surveillance videos. This study addresses these challenges by analyzing both daytime and nighttime videos, leveraging meteorological, optical, and imaging principles to identify distinguishing features for each GHP. Considering both computational accuracy and efficiency, a new deep learning framework is proposed. It leverages transfer learning with a pre-trained MobileNet V2 for spatial feature extraction and incorporates a Gated Recurrent Unit network to model temporal dependencies between video frames. Using the newly developed 94-hour Hydrometeor Phase Surveillance Video (HSV) dataset, the proposed model is trained and evaluated alongside 24 comparative algorithms. Results show that our proposed method achieves an accuracy of 0.9677 on the HSV dataset, outperforming all other relevant algorithms. Furthermore, in real-world experiments, the proposed model achieves an accuracy of 0.9301, as validated against manually corrected Two-Dimensional Video Disdrometer measurements. It remains robust against variations in camera parameters, maintaining consistent performance in both daytime and nighttime conditions, and demonstrates wind resistance with satisfactory results when wind speeds are below 5 m/s. These findings highlight the model's suitability for large-scale, practical deployment in urban environments. Overall, this study demonstrates the feasibility of using low-cost surveillance cameras to build an efficient GHP monitoring network, potentially enhancing urban precipitation observation capabilities in a cost-effective manner.
- Preprint
(3052 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-176', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Mar 2025
Review of manuscript “Surveillance Camera-Based Deep Learning Framework for High-Resolution Ground Hydrometeor Phase Observation” submitted to AMT
General Comments
The manuscript describes a method, based on the analysis of surveillance camera observations, to estimate surface precipitation type conditions. Overall the topic is well suited to AMT and the methodology seems also adequate for the purpose of the study. However, I think there are substantial clarifications and some corrections to be made to further consider this manuscript for publication.
First the text should clarify that the focus is the precipitation type falling at ground level, i.e. close to the surface. In some parts seems that ground level conditions, i.e. snow on ground, is also considered.
Second, authors should check carefully the terminology used, particularly considering that the journal is specialized in meteorological observational techniques. A precise terminology is essential to avoid confusions. For example, regarding the 3 hydrometeors considered in the analysis (for example in Fig. 3), rain, snow and graupel, I’m wondering if graupel is really considered or they mean a mixture of snow and rain, as other studies which simplify the wide variety of hydrometeor types considering only 3 precipitation phase types: liquid, solid and mixed. I include below some references to studies mentioning graupel, which in general, is far less frequent than mixed (solid and liquid) phase types (of course other studies in the literature can also be considered).
Finally, a number of formal corrections, language checking, etc. should also be performed in some parts. I indicate below some items as a reference but I don’t intend to be exhaustive here.
For all the above I think major reviews are necessary to improve the current manuscript.
Specific Comments
- Page 1, title, line 10-11 and elsewhere. When first used please clarify the meaning of GHP, refered to near surface precipitation type, not to ground conditions.
- Page 1, line 28. Suggest: Hydrometeors -> Precipitating hydrometeors
- Page 2, line 37. Suggest: rainfall phase -> liquid precipitation / solid snowfall -> solid precipitation
- Page 2, line 38. Please reconsider: interchange -> alternate?
- Page 3, last line and elsewhere. Suggest looking for an alternative term to ‘generalized visual data’
- Page 4, first paragraph: ‘is primarily attractive to professional meteorological researchers’. I think the AMT journal audience could be defined generally as ‘professional meteorological researchers’ so I would rewrite this paragraph accordingly. I think in this journal the term ‘hydrometeor’ should be preferred if you consider only precipitation phase partitioning. If you want to include precipitating hydrometeors and other phenomena such as haze or fog then perhaps you can use ‘weather conditions’.
- Page 4, section 2.1. Authors should clarify if “indirect measurements’ are intended to provide precipitating hydrometeor types or ground conditions: for example it is not the same to distinguish if there’s snow on the ground or if it’s snowing.
- Page 5, line 130. Haze is not a precipitating hydrometeor.
- Page 5, line 133. Suggest: weather -> weather conditions
- Page 6, line 162. Suggest: includes -> may include
- Page 8, Table 1. The term ‘sandy’ does it mean that you recognize ‘ground’, ‘bare soil’ or it means really ‘sandy’ (as in the case of a beach).
- Page 9, line 226: shrapnel particles refer to graupel particles? This term was not used before, unlike graupel.
- Page 11, beginning of last paragraph. ‘Figure 6’ refers to Figure 5? Please check.
- Page 13. Please provide reference(s) for terminal velocity formulas used for different hydrometeors.
- Page 14, line 342. The rainfall rate values given (in mm/h) were recorded over which time periods, hourly? Note that it is not the same 195 mm/h during 10 min than during 1 h.
- Page 15, Table 2. Please indicate in the table the units used of the values listed. Are they events of different time duration?
- Page 18, Table 6. Please indicate the meaning of values in bold, best scores?
- Page 22, Table 8. Which score is used in the table? Please indicate explicitly in the table title.
- Page 26, Table 9 and 10. Please indicate meaning of bold and underscored values.
Technical Comments
- Page 1, line 29 (and elsewhere). Please check citation style, shouldn’t it be Pruppacher et al. (1998) (when there are more than two authors et al. should be used)?
- Page 3, lines 74-75: duplicate: ‘during daytime and nightime’
- Page 3, line 86: as follows: Following -> as follows. Following
- Page 4, line 111. Typo: labeled -> label
- Page 5, line 127. Please rephrase: have the disadvantage of needing to be quicker
- Page 7, and elsewhere: Table.1 -> Table 1
- Page 8, Table 1. Please rewrite the references: (Zhao et al. 2011) -> Zhao et al. (2011), etc.
- Page 8, line 221 (and page 9, line 234). Suggest: graupel -> graupel particles
- Page 9, line 235. Correct : rain -> rain drops
- Page 9, line 240. Please check meaning and correct : rain -> raindrop trajectories
- Page 13, after equation 4 (and elsewhere after other equations). Where -> where [in lower case]
- Page 16, line 387. Correct: follows -> listed in Table 3.
- Page 18, line 419 (and also Fig. 10 caption). Suggest: a violin plot … quantifies -> violin plots … quantify
- Page 21-22, Fig. 12. X-axis labels hard to read.
- Page 23, line 504. Do you mean: As analyzed in Section 3?
- Page 25, please check the size of the delta symbol.
- Page 28, line 628. Typo: please add blank space after ‘footage’
References
Kondo, M., Sato, Y., Katsuyama, Y., & Inatsu, M. (2024). Development of an evaluation method for precipitation particle types by using disdrometer data. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 41(12), 1229-1246.
Reeves, H. D., Tripp, D. D., Baldwin, M. E., & Rosenow, A. A. (2023). Statistical evaluation of different surface precipitation-type algorithms and its implications for NWP prediction and operational decision-making. Weather and Forecasting, 38(12), 2575-2589.
Saini, L., Das, S., & Murukesh, N. (2025). Case studies of different types of precipitation at Ny-Ålesund, Arctic. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 3086.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-176-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-176', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Mar 2025
This paper uses a camera system to detect hydrometeor types such as RN, SN, and GR. Uses ML techniques but not clear how it is trained using observed input parameters. Camera systems can provide yes or no question on RN, SN, or FG detection (see Gultepe et al 2009AMS Bull, AMS Monographs on Solid precipitation 2017; AMS Bull Ice fog (2014). But doesnt provide any other info on particle shape, size, and cncentration. Looking at the only visible images cant resolve the particle discrimination issue. Visually helps what is on the ground if Visibility lows but many times this cant be true because during precip Vis goes down. This is well know that Vis doesnt provide precip type or amount unless you know the particle type. In reality, all your analysis is based on visibility of light reflected/scatterered due to hydrometeors.
It is clear that we can detect precip for yes or no with help of a Temp probe. Therefore, i feel this manuscript needs to be reduced significantly focusing on the clear objectives. Otherwise, this kind of work can lead to very limited applications.
There are several issues in the paper:
1. captions are not clear enough to provide detailed info on figs.
2. Velociry means what?
3. what 2 diff graupel types have very large diffs?
4. Issues with blowing snow and fog are not discussed (Gultepe et al Pure and Appl Geop 2018 Aviation Meteorology) and not provided.
5. about 90% success in the results to me is too high, it can be ok for yes or no for precip but not the type discrimination.
6. did you provide a field campaign prediction analysis for particle detection?
7. Finally, definition of direct and indirect is not clear to me. Direct to me if you can measure parameters using insitu sensors. indirect means you get the results based on secondary products.... This needs to be improved.
8. Haze related text needs to be improved, abd cant be a hydrometeor type!!! if it is not wet particle.
Overall conclusions need to be itemized with quatitative results. I feel this paper needs major revisions and reduced significantly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-176-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
121 | 22 | 7 | 150 | 6 | 4 |
- HTML: 121
- PDF: 22
- XML: 7
- Total: 150
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1