Figure 1
6. Presentation of the Results
Four distinct methods of presentation were
employed and described below. Contours were
not considered appropriate as the topography
of the components would have inevitably led to
confusion in some areas, particularly on folds
and other discontinuities.
6.1 Line-drawings
Conventional line-drawing plans of the
component were produced by the stereoplotter
using the X-Y control plane as a datum (see
Figure 2). The plans were produced at full
size using a five-times enlargement between the
stereoplotter and its plotting table.
6.2 Profiles
Profiles of the wooden component were overlaid
on the line drawing adjacent to their indicated
positions. The profiles were produced by
transmitting the X and Z drives to the plotting
table, rather than the X and Y drives.
6.3 Numerical Sections
The stereoplotter also had the facility for
digital output and this was utilized to
produce numerical sections in the Y-3 plane.
The positions of the sections were also
indicated on the line drawing. The numerical
70
coordinate list-
cards.
data were presented both as a
ing and as a deck of computer
One of the sections was plotted using a
coordinatograph and included on the line-
drawing solely for demonstration purposes.
6.4 Digital Data
The digital data from the computer reduction
of the stereocomparator measurements were also
included as part of the presentation.
Firstly, the grid datum coordinates of the
points marked by the manufacturer needed to be
included. It was essential that there were
enough points known relative to both the
University's grid system and the manufacturer's
own datum so that a transformation could be
determined accurately.
A set of fully annotated prints was included
in the presentation for control and marked
point identification.
7. Conclusions
7.1 Results
The computer program gave an indication of the
precision of each stereomodel in the form of
a standard error of plan position and depth
with respect to the University's control.
