CIPA 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey 
669 
Figure 10. View of the object (above), model from the laser 
scanner (middle) and photogrammetric model (below). 
Yet it seems that, apart from removing noise, an editing process 
might not always be practicable. Unlike regularly shaped archi 
tectural objects, for instance, in archaeological documentation 
local object morphology is often far from being ‘obvious’ with 
out stereoscopic viewing. On the other hand, stereoscopic ob 
servation of a dense point cloud, superimposed on a photogram 
metric stereo model, is clearly an extremely demanding task. 
Figure 11. Details of orthoimages from the photogrammetric 
model (left) and from the laser scanner (right). , 
Thus, it appears that regarding 3D modeling with laser spanning 
for orthorectification, photogrammetry may still have to play a 
complementary role in both detecting and correcting erroneous 
or missing parts and also in describing discontinuities through 
breaklines and points (Bitelli et al., 2002). 
5. CONCLUSION 
The authors’ experience indicates that, with ordinary non-metric 
cameras carried by simple ‘unstable’ platforms, rigorous photo 
grammetric procedures allow the generation of high quality end 
products, even for the demanding surfaces often encountered in 
archaeological mapping. Regarding 3D modeling, photogram 
metry, when carefully performed, allows faithful surface repre 
sentation. Its tiresome and time-consuming aspects can be signi 
ficantly avoided, in many cases, through laser scanning. Certain 
current limitations of the latter, however, indicate that even in 
3D modeling photogrammetry still has a significant role to play. 
Acknowledgements 
The authors wish to thank the Department of Restoration of An 
cient Monuments of the Greek Ministry of Culture, and the ar 
chaeologist Mrs. O. Voyatzoglou in particular, for their kind 
permission to present this material. We are also indebted to the 
HCB Company and Dr. V. Pagounis for the laser scanning data. 
REFERENCES 
Baratin, L., Bitelli, G., Unguendoli, M., Zanutta, A., 2000. Di 
gital orthophoto as a tool for the restoration of monuments. Int. 
Arch. Phot. Rem. & Sens., 33(5), pp. 62-69. 
Balletti, C., Guerra, F., 2002. Laser applications for 3D survey 
of cultural heritage. Int. Arch. Phot. Rem. & Sens., 34(5), pp. 
302-308. 
Bitelli G., Capra A., Zanutta A., 2002. Digital photogrammetry 
and laser scanning in surveying the “Nymphaea” in Pompeii. 
CIPA Int. Workshop on Scanning for Cultural Heritage, Corfu, 
pp.115-120. 
Boccardo P., Comoglio G., 2000. New methodologies for archi 
tectural photogrammetric survey. Int. Arch. Phot. & Rem. Sens., 
33(5), pp. 70-75. 
Böhler, W., Heinz, G., Marbs, A., 2001. The potential of non- 
contact close range laser scanners for cultural heritage record 
ing. Proc. XVIII CIPA Int. Symposium, Potsdam, pp. 430-436. 
Karras, G., Mavromati, D., Madani, M., Mavrellis, G., Lympe- 
ropoulos, E., Kambourakis, A., Gesafidis, S., 1999. Digital or 
thophotography in archaeology with low-altitude non-metric i- 
mages. Int. Arch. Phot. & Rem. Sens., 32(5W11), pp. 8-11. 
Karras, G., Mavromati, D., 2001. Simple calibration techniques 
for non-metric cameras. XVIII CIPA Int. Symposium, Potsdam, 
pp. 39-46. 
Knyaz, V., Zheltov, S., 2000. Approach to accurate photoreali 
stic model generation for complex 3D objects. Int. Arch. Phot. & 
Rem. Sens., 33(5), pp. 428-433 
Mavromati, D., Petsa, E., Karras, G., 2002. Theoretical and pra 
ctical aspects of archaeological orthoimaging. Int. Arch. Phot. 
Rem. & Sens., 34(B5), pp. 413-418. 
Monti C., Brumana R., Fregonese L., Savi C., Achille C., 2002. 
3D models generation from laser canner data to support digital 
orthophoto 3D. Int. Arch. Phot. Rem. & Sens., 34(5), pp. 423- 
428.