2.2 The Accuracy of the Operator in Orienting 
the Imaainary Camera(or theodolite ) and the 
Metric Camera in the Field. 
The accuracy of measuring the spac 
co-ordinates(8X$,8Ys and 8Ds)of the metric 
camera , imaginary camera and/or theodolite 
stations should be nearly the same, and that is 
because we used the same stations and the same 
co-ordinate system , while the accuracy from 
setting the orientation parameters(w, 9 , k ) in 
the field for the metric camera depends mainly 
on the type of camera . 
In artificial cameras or theodolites , we can 
achieve accuracy in setting the orientation 
parameters Sw , 50 and Sk between 0".0 in the 
imaginary cameras to 1".0 or less in the 
theodolite which cannot be achieved by using 
metric cameras . 
2. The Pointing Errors of th rator 
There is no need for a comparator to measure 
the fictitious image co-ordinates , and 
consequently there are no pointing errors for 
the artificial photographs . In the metric 
photographs the pointing accuracy of a 
photogrammetric operator is a function of many 
parameters such as the model scale , the 
operator experience and the model's 
photographic contrast . The pointing accuracy 
can be estimated from the repeated 
measurements of different points S 
-2.4 _ Aspects of Results 
As a result , we can exnect that the accuracy 
obtained theoretically by using (APPT) method 
is better than that obtained by using (MPPT) 
method . 
3. EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON 
Three different cameras (Zeiss (Jena) UMK , 
Wild P32 and Galileo Santoni metric cameras ) 
were used in the comparison between the MPPT 
and APPT methods . A non - metric camera was 
also used (Nikon FM 35 mm ) , as well as a Wild 
T2 one second theodolite . 
1 Field Work 
Four photographs were taken with each of the 
    
    
   
  
   
     
    
   
  
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
    
   
   
    
    
  
  
   
    
    
   
   
  
   
      
   
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
   
  
     
  
   
  
    
    
three metric cameras and the non - metric 
camera . For each camera two of the 
photographs were taken from the left camera 
station (S1) and two from the right camera 
station (S2).The base distance (B,) was 
28.508m and the elevation difference between 
the two stations (By) was 0.232 m . 
The spatial positions of (9) control points 
(which were not lying in one plane ) were 
surveyed on the same co-ordinate system of the 
camera stations, using a Wild T2 theodolite . 
3.2 Laboratory Work 
The image co-ordinates of the non - metric 
photography and the nine control points on each 
metric photograph were measured on a Hilger 
and Watts stereocomparator The ground 
co-ordinates of (24) control points were 
computed(using a bundle solution). 
By applying the perspective transformation and 
using the points (4,5,6 and 7 ) , the image 
co-ordinates on the non - metric photograph 
were transformed to metric image co-ordinates 
The artificial image co-ordinates of the control 
points 4,5,6 and 7 were calculated from the 
space co-ordinates . 
By applying the perspective transformation the 
image co-ordinates on the non - metric 
photograph were transformed to image 
co-ordinates on the artificial photograph . 
The mean standard deviation values (&Xm , SYm , 
&Dm and SRm ) of the space co-ordinates of a 
total of 18 targets (control points ) computed 
from the APPT , MPPT ( Zeiss (Jena) UMK , Wild 
P32 and Galileo Santoni ) and the Direct linear 
Transformation (DLT) method , are listed in 
Table 1 . The standard deviation values ( SX , SY 
, §D) were calculated by using the emprical 
accuracy indicator (Gruen,1978). 
4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS, CONCLUDING 
REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
(1)In the APPT method there is no need for 
development and processing of the artificial 
image . Also there is no need for a comparator 
to measure the imaginary camera image 
co-ordinates which are obtained from the 
observed control points . 
(2)In the APPT method there is no limitations on 
the depth of field and the format size .