viations between the manual measurements and the matchings are marked
with "+".
The relation between win-
dow size and standard de-
viation of the parallax
for the sub set Rock(44).
No geometric parameters
are used. The optimum
number of observations
was 615 pixels. corre-
sponding to the optimum
window size 25X25 pixels.
The estimated variance
components _were 65, 36
and 15 um for the me-
thod, the noise and the
height dependent compo-
nents, respectively
The relation between win-
dow size and standard de-
viation of the parallax
for the sub set High(12).
No geometric parameters
are used. The optimum
number of observations
was 917 pixels. corre-
sponding to the optimum
window size 30X30 pixels.
The estimated variance
components yere 19, 160
and 30 um for the me-
thod, the noise and the
height dependent compo-
nents, respectively
The relation between win-
dow size and standard de-
viation of the parallax
for the sub set Rock(30).
Affine geometric parame-
ters are used. The opti-
mum number of observa-
tions was 837 pixels.
corresponding to the
optimum window size 29X29
pixels. The estimated
variance componepts were
58, 17 and.^ um - for the
method, the noise and the
height dependent compo-
nents, respectively
lum)
The curves result from the variance component regressions.
15
T
30 40 50
212714 20
Window Size
(pixels)
g
(um)
A
" +
+ +
1 1 I i 1 T Wu
0 12 34.420 30 40 50
Window Size
(pixels)
a
(um)
+
+
T T T T "T T^
0 12 16 20 30 40 50
Window Sıze
(pıxels)
It seems as it is possible to find an window size with minimum r.m.s.
with a satisfying accuracy, but the results will of course be restric-