2004 International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B7. Istanbul 2004 
were 
h the 
es are 
The 
ion to 
MT 
rt 
es 
E) 
MT 
m hr " 
TR 
UN 
  
Figure 4. Captured laser data for test area 
     
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
     
Furthermore the glacier should be imaged when a special f 
. . ~ . ÿ 
phenomena is reached (e.g. maximum extent of ablation). For 
757 
E 4 | 
D 
“the 
The 
1 by a 
been 
. The 
pench 
nsure 
id the 
ount, 
d the 
show Figure 6. Shaded relief model based on laser data Figure 7. Shaded relief model based on image matching 
an be 
Sams Difference Offset [m] O(omeo [m] 
| both 
relief Laser - Matching - 0,44 +0,31 
DEM | : Laser — GPS-control - 0,13 +0,14 
4 Height 
| grid | ,. Differences Matching - GPS-control +0,31 / 
Jt is | 2003-2002 
à Wie | I da Table 5. Evaluation of height differences in none ice covered 
E dest T" area 
CN ; So 4.2 Assessment of both methods for glacier monitoring 
"ated. | . I-1.0 
Stant -0.5 A general and comprehensive comparison between 
| -0.25 photogrammetry and laser scanning is already given by 
iPS | 0.0 Baltsavias (1999). In the meantime laser scanning technology 
used 0.25 has improved and the presented investigation is focussed on 
pages | 0.5 high quality DEM for glacier monitoring. There are some 
laser 1.0 particularities which have to be considered in alpine regions: 
ents, | 5. 
ferent | A mM Weather conditions: 
Dents Figure 8. Colour coded height differences In glacier areas we are faced to difficult weather conditions. 
ve N Cloud coverage and wind conditions are changing rapidly. i 
geoic