bul 2004 
'alue, we 
required; 
accepted 
ie. the 
ipression 
r, middle 
gements, 
shown in 
ed in the 
wal error, 
s shown, 
(meaning 
S. 12 and 
of knife- 
the four 
  
shoulder 
the four 
  
mpared to 
ethods (in 
  
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B5. Istanbul 2004 
UN valué Sofh ht of knife-edge model dies compated to 
metal digs for the four impression taking methods [in mim] 
Metal die Plain. SH SS : 
  
Figure 9.a Height of dies 
Average values of height of shoulder model dies compared to 
those of metal dies for the four impression taking methods (in 
mm) 
    
   
Avetage values of height ildet model dies compared Ge 
Nut] dies Tor the four impression taking methods {in mm} : 
Metal die 
Figure 9.b Height of dies 
Average values of overall width of knife-edge model dies 
compared to those of metal dies for the four impression taking 
methods (in mm) 
Average PEE Ove 
; of metal dies forthe 
EEE 
Figure 10.a Overall width 
Average values of overall width of shoulder model dies 
compared to those of metal dies for the four impression taking 
methods (in mm) 
ST ; ;Plain 
  
Figure 10.b Overall width 
Average values of shoulder width of model dies for the four 
impression taking methods (in mm) 
PATE Vera EI width of shoulder model dics compared to 
thete of metal thes fou the fou impression taking methods fn ma) 
  
Figure 11. Shoulder width 
Average total error for the four impression taking methods with 
knife-edge model dies 
Average total error fort Ere ng methods 
 withknife-edge modal dies 
Plain EC : Plicafol foll = 
  
Figure 12. Knife-edge total error 
Average total error for the four impression taking methods with 
shoulder model dies