187 
Figure 9. DEM’s Difference in Gray Scale and Test Area 
3 W 
~st 
SJ 
it it £1 £6 JS 35 3? 31 yi 31 S3 35 js 
}i a 3\ .10 js 3i 33 s* « st ft os u 
uo»j? it jo ,iot jh j? 3? si js oa jj st 
}JJ0£7 .1I1J7 ,143.158.132 J«5J« il Si Si .34 
5301JJ .15l.m0i00H.m51 00 oa JC4 09 5* 
UMJ5il.lJ0.lH.154 JlSJll J1ÎJ4 JOfJili« 31 
J49 341 20Î J33 327 JOO060 04? J37 J41J 30 J00 38 
00 .44 .1O9.18OO*7O2IO0*J9i J79J4JJII.II201 
31 39 .HS01I.1S307JO12OJIOUOJ4JJ1JW J7 
50 £8 030 097 096 01507* 009 JOS J17 35 .44 J3 
Jl .4! 03S021OU 0430400UOSS31 05 Jl Ji 
5 09 .108031 039 0*6099 091 JJ J4 09 J9 B 
1 J4 001 OJ3006041 0J7JJ3JÎ1J4 J 0 
JÎ 05 55 041 050015012J»»34 3« 0 0 3 
£ £ .44 J? 009 .119 074 30 52 0 £ 0 £ 
S i 03 JJ JS JO OO 03 Of £ £ OB 
04 01 09 03 JO J5 .O 08 J« 0 00 0 
.43 04 34 55 00 02 .41 Jl 05 3 3 0 3 
.43 07 33 J7 J2 .1035» .41 Ji 3 J J j* 
.49 .45 .77 J3 0 05 0 215« Jl Jl 0« JO Jl Olf] 
.48 OS 3? OH.1'3JS .40 02 OS JS JS 01 09 
J4 
3? 
J7 
J5 
55 
51 
JS 
JO 
Ji 
34 
35 
J0JO6 
57 
JO 
Jl 
.19 .1» J2 
J 7 XiaJS 
.45 54 JS JS J4 
|ii 
» 
.154 
.1183« 
52 
.4 5 
J6 
.47 
51 
.45 
J4 
50 
JJ 
J 
Jl 
.1 J J3 
34~1tJ| 
Jl 50 52 J8 J2 
JL 
Ji 
U 
JO 
.44 
00 
00 
oo 
JS 
.13 
£ 
Jl 
Î .4 .H 
JS J4 J4 .47 Jl 
V 
ÎI 
g 
“31 
% 
loa 
59 
J5 
Ji 
54 
Jl 
J 
Jl 
5 
0 i i* 
MP 
09 Jl 02 51 J3 
V s7 
Ji 
JJ 
It 
*JI 
.iT 
03 
.48 
03 
J3 
J9 
53 
05 
£ 
£ 
Jl 
5 Mi I 
■W 8 0 
OC J3 JS J3 JJ 
53 
57 
JJ 
Ji 
.4 9 
09 
Jl 
J? 
0? 
33 
.41 
.49 
00 
£ 
£ 
JI 
.11 ÆU 
j flb 5 
JS JJ Ji J3 01 
jo 
.44 
JS 
J? 
.4 4 
.45 
.48 
Ji 
0? 
JS 
J8 
.43 
JS 
3 
£ 
J 
i Æÿfc. 
JW J 6 
08 JS Ji 08 .19 
J3 
03 
J» 
05 
2 ♦ 
Ji 
.42 
57 
5? 
03 
JJ 
J2 
Jl 
0 
£ 
Jl 
jgigj 
JO^&O? 
53 07 JÎ JJ .12 
3 
J 
05 
01 
S 
.11 
.42 
oa 
J7 
J4 
Ji 
JS 
0 
5 
J 
.15 
a 3i ji 
3« 08 JJ 0,feJ 
£ 
3 
JS 
.14 
i 
5 
JJ 
05 
J4 
08 
J5 
.4 
£ 
.1 
i 
.1? 
«r-njl: 
02 J2 J4 
.4 2 .42 00 .jB'3 
s 
.1! 
J ? 
.»3 
Ji 
JS 
JO 
OS 
04 
3 
£ 
.4 
i 
£ 
.41 
01 
ijpTp- 
i JO 0! 
05 JO lijmk 
JO 
JS 
.4 7 
5) 
59 
.44 
JJ 
J7 
JS 
3 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
01 
.13 
3 '"■£ 3 
4« 33 04 
js 
04 
06 
JS 
.49 
55 
.49 
59 
.»6 
J » 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
.1» 
0» 
JS Jl ot 
09 07 084 
.17 
03 
JO 
JS 
JS 
.41 
.45 
.45 
JJ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
.17 
.10 .13 .10 
3 0« .40: 
.19 
3 
3 
01 
»5 
5i 
.41 
.47 
09 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
S 
£ 
J9 
j) 03 ja 
J 4* >1 
£ 
3 
J 
3 
i 
0J 
04 
01 
JO 
a 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
0 £ 0 
5 J9 Jl 
£ 
Ji 
02 
Ji 
1 
J2 
Jl 
00 
JS 
JS 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
£ 
0 £ i 
Jl 01 i« 1 
£ 
03 
02 
5 
J 
04 
J2 
06 
09 
JS 
£ 
0 
£ 
£ 
0 
£ 
i £ JO 
J9 03 05 
£ 
.1i 
5 
£ 
0 
JO 
JJ 
"«I 
J 
h 
J2 
£ 
£ 
J 
.1 
.12 i J 
54 « «5 
£ 
0 
J 
i -“JJ 
OS 
J4 
J4 
07 
3 
JO 
J5 
£ 
i 
.4 
JI 
Jl .19 05 
5» 5« .48 
ST?3%'i J 4« 
.13 
J 
.4 
01 
58 
Ji 
ja 
JS 
JS 
JS 
04 
04 
03 
J* 
pJO .47 52 
J. .4 J 4 
JS i 
00 
Ji 
1 
07 
5« 
50 
.41 
os 
.4 7 
JO 
JJ 
08 
Jl 
Oi' 
ijO ,4i .48 
0* JJ 05 
J4 JJ r .i|| 
^os 
.15 
Jl 
Ji 
Jl 
JO 
0 
J 
JJ 
Oi 
04 
.41 
.44 
’.44 51 Ji 
04 05 J7 
Jl 
‘ 07 
.41 
Ji 
0» 
JS 
JS 
Ji 
Jl 
JO 
JO 
J4 
J3 
J7 
.41 
.41 
.46 
5S 52 JJ 
01 JJ 0 
S oVÎlifc^». 
Figure 10. Height Differences Superimposed on Test Area of Right Image 
5. CONCLUSIONS 
A greater number of GCP’s more uniformely distributed on the image and a more similar radiometric surface 
aspects could produce better results with both the two software. Nevertheless those obtained are good enough.