rural, forested cover, urban terrain glacial cover, mountainous 
flat and rolling terrain terrain 
M > 1:6,000 4 
1:6,000 « M « 1:15,000 7 
M « 1:15,000 5 
  
Table 1: Tested image pairs, classified depending on image scale and ground cover/terrain type 
  
  
  
  
project image scale description 
Homburg 1:1,000,1:1,800 scale factor difference 1.8 
Istanbul 1:4,000 overlap 40 96 
Burghausen 1:15,000 rotation difference 40 deg 
Schelingen 1:6,000 dangerous cylinder 
Spacelab 1:820,000 spaceborne imagery 
Felsendom 1:300 close range imagery 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 2: Tested image pairs - special cases 
flat, rolling terrain urban terrain mountainous terrain 
M > 1:6,000 0.24 0.35 
1:6,000 < M < 1:15,000 0.26 0.38 
M < 1:15,000 0.44 
  
Table 3: o, [pixel] as depending on image scale M and terrain type 
pixel size [um] number of image pairs 6, [pixel] 
small (mostly 15um) 18 0.40 
large (mostly 30 um) 29 0.26 
  
Table 4: 6, as depending on the pixel size 
end overlap number of image pairs 6, [pixel] 
approximately 60 % 32 0.37 
approximately 80 % 15 
  
Table 5: 6, as depending on the end overlap 
number of conjugate points number of image pairs 6, [pixel] 
« 80 0.45 
80 - 160 0.29 
» 160 0.18 
  
Table 6: o, as depending on the number of conjugate pairs 
848 
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXI, Part B3. Vienna 1996