=» =. 
- (D 
Helén Burman 
  
5.1 Result 
Table 1 Result from matching test area 1. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of Mean discrepanc : ; 
Ee inn in elevation Panes droll dpiteh dheadinz 
adjustment [mm] [mrad] [mrad] [mrad] 
Intensity- = 1.65 -2.74 0.98 
gradient +/- 0.04 | +/- 0.04 +/- 0.25 
Height- 
gradient 7 T i P 
Height- Strip 1: 5.7 
difference Strip 2: -4.9 2.02 
Strip 3: -4.6 +/- 0.01 3 m 
Strip 4: 0.9 
All Strip 1: 7.1 
Strip 2: -6.0 1.96 -2.72 -0.77 
Strip 3: -5.1 +/- 0.01 +/- 0.03 +/- 0.19 
Strip 4: 0.4 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 5 Test area 1, intensity data. 
The heading solution after matching only intensities than after matching all data. This difference is though very small 
(less than 15 millimetres on ground). The difference between solutions differs less than 1/10 of a pixel (0.20/10 = 0.02 
meter). 
Table 2 Result from matching test area 2. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type oft Mean discrepancy | aar d. apiteh | dheading 
observation in elevation after 
: [mrad] [mrad] [mrad] 
adjustment [mm] 
Intensity- 4 4.05 -6.00 N 
gradient +/- 0.13 | +/-0.11 
Height- a 4 i 
gradient 
Height- Strip 1: 1.5 5.18 * Le 
difference Strip 2: -3.2 +/- 0.02 
All Strip 1: 1.5 4.34 -5.13 i 
Strip 2: -32 +/- 0.01 +/- 0.03 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 6 Test area 2, elevation data. 
The worst discrepancy between solutions is about 1/3 pixel (0.20/3 = 0.067 meter). Profiles of the building before and 
after correction for orientation errors are visualised in figure 6. 
  
  
Before corrections 
  
After corrections 
  
Figure 7 Profiles of the building in test area 2 (two laser strips in opposite directions) before and after correction of 
orientation errors. 
  
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXIII, Part B3. Amsterdam 2000. 131