@article{Tapinaki2023,

title = {CONVENTIONAL OR AUTOMATED PHOTOGRAMMETRY FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE DOCUMENTATION?},

author = {S. Tapinaki and M. Pateraki and M. Skamantzari and A. Georgopoulos},

url = {https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-M-2-2023-1535-2023},

doi = {10.5194/ISPRS-ARCHIVES-XLVIII-M-2-2023-1535-2023},

issn = {1682-1750},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-26},

urldate = {2023-01-01},

journal = {The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences},

volume = {XLVIII-M-2-2023},

pages = {1535-1542},

publisher = {Copernicus GmbH},

abstract = {Abstract. During the past 15 years photogrammetric practice has experienced an unprecedented change by the influence of computer vision algorithms, which support an almost completely automated processing. It is widely acknowledged that this fact has “democratized” Photogrammetry a lot, in the sense that it has become almost everyone’s tool. However, this radical change has been met by scepticism by traditional photogrammetrists, who claim that such tools may lead to geometrically wrong and inaccurate results if not accompanied by thorough projection and error checks and evaluation of the correctness of results.In this paper, the two approaches are briefly described on the basis of the geometric documentation of a cultural heritage funerary monument situated in the archaeological site of Messini in Southern Greece. An effort is made for highlighting the obvious advantages of each approach but also indicating their disadvantages. Applications, subject to different requirements and processing procedures are identified, rationalizing that conventional photogrammetric procedures still cannot be easily replaced.},

keywords = {Cultural heritage Documentation, MVS, Orthophoto, SfM, Stereoscopic photogrammetry},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}