CIPA 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey
669
Figure 10. View of the object (above), model from the laser
scanner (middle) and photogrammetric model (below).
Yet it seems that, apart from removing noise, an editing process
might not always be practicable. Unlike regularly shaped archi
tectural objects, for instance, in archaeological documentation
local object morphology is often far from being ‘obvious’ with
out stereoscopic viewing. On the other hand, stereoscopic ob
servation of a dense point cloud, superimposed on a photogram
metric stereo model, is clearly an extremely demanding task.
Figure 11. Details of orthoimages from the photogrammetric
model (left) and from the laser scanner (right). ,
Thus, it appears that regarding 3D modeling with laser spanning
for orthorectification, photogrammetry may still have to play a
complementary role in both detecting and correcting erroneous
or missing parts and also in describing discontinuities through
breaklines and points (Bitelli et al., 2002).
5. CONCLUSION
The authors’ experience indicates that, with ordinary non-metric
cameras carried by simple ‘unstable’ platforms, rigorous photo
grammetric procedures allow the generation of high quality end
products, even for the demanding surfaces often encountered in
archaeological mapping. Regarding 3D modeling, photogram
metry, when carefully performed, allows faithful surface repre
sentation. Its tiresome and time-consuming aspects can be signi
ficantly avoided, in many cases, through laser scanning. Certain
current limitations of the latter, however, indicate that even in
3D modeling photogrammetry still has a significant role to play.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Department of Restoration of An
cient Monuments of the Greek Ministry of Culture, and the ar
chaeologist Mrs. O. Voyatzoglou in particular, for their kind
permission to present this material. We are also indebted to the
HCB Company and Dr. V. Pagounis for the laser scanning data.
REFERENCES
Baratin, L., Bitelli, G., Unguendoli, M., Zanutta, A., 2000. Di
gital orthophoto as a tool for the restoration of monuments. Int.
Arch. Phot. Rem. & Sens., 33(5), pp. 62-69.
Balletti, C., Guerra, F., 2002. Laser applications for 3D survey
of cultural heritage. Int. Arch. Phot. Rem. & Sens., 34(5), pp.
302-308.
Bitelli G., Capra A., Zanutta A., 2002. Digital photogrammetry
and laser scanning in surveying the “Nymphaea” in Pompeii.
CIPA Int. Workshop on Scanning for Cultural Heritage, Corfu,
pp.115-120.
Boccardo P., Comoglio G., 2000. New methodologies for archi
tectural photogrammetric survey. Int. Arch. Phot. & Rem. Sens.,
33(5), pp. 70-75.
Böhler, W., Heinz, G., Marbs, A., 2001. The potential of non-
contact close range laser scanners for cultural heritage record
ing. Proc. XVIII CIPA Int. Symposium, Potsdam, pp. 430-436.
Karras, G., Mavromati, D., Madani, M., Mavrellis, G., Lympe-
ropoulos, E., Kambourakis, A., Gesafidis, S., 1999. Digital or
thophotography in archaeology with low-altitude non-metric i-
mages. Int. Arch. Phot. & Rem. Sens., 32(5W11), pp. 8-11.
Karras, G., Mavromati, D., 2001. Simple calibration techniques
for non-metric cameras. XVIII CIPA Int. Symposium, Potsdam,
pp. 39-46.
Knyaz, V., Zheltov, S., 2000. Approach to accurate photoreali
stic model generation for complex 3D objects. Int. Arch. Phot. &
Rem. Sens., 33(5), pp. 428-433
Mavromati, D., Petsa, E., Karras, G., 2002. Theoretical and pra
ctical aspects of archaeological orthoimaging. Int. Arch. Phot.
Rem. & Sens., 34(B5), pp. 413-418.
Monti C., Brumana R., Fregonese L., Savi C., Achille C., 2002.
3D models generation from laser canner data to support digital
orthophoto 3D. Int. Arch. Phot. Rem. & Sens., 34(5), pp. 423-
428.
