## 4 Results
### Photogrammetric Variants B, C, and D vs. the Reference Photogrammetric Variant A  
When comparing the photogrammetric variants, an effect of the relative change in the configuration of the camera network was only present in the ossuary, as there were no significant changes in the image strips in the exterior of the chapel. Variants B, C, and D showed an identical distribution of deviations in the exterior of the chapel compared to the reference variant A (Figures 13-15). The 2 cm deviations in Figure 13 were caused by different quality settings for the dense cloud calculation and are also related to different noise levels. Figure 11: Narrow space with poor light conditions under the terrain of the square—the biggest deviations from TLS were in this area, up to the level of 2 cm. Figure 12: Deviations in the comparison of TLS and photogrammetry with all images active (TLS vs. A) in the ossuary (external view on the **left**, cross-section on the **right**). The differences in the graphs visible in Figures 13-15 were caused by the different distribution of deviations in the underground ossuary, due to the deformations of the camera network. Figure 14: Deviations in the comparison of photogrammetry with all images active and the variant without connection through opening 3 (A vs. C) (**left**), and histogram of the deviations (**right**). Figure 13: Deviations in the comparison of photogrammetry with all images active and the variant without connection through openings 2 and 3 (A vs. B) (**left**), and histogram of the deviations (**right**). Figure 15: Deviations in the comparison of photogrammetry with all images active and the variant without connection through opening 2 (A vs. D) (**left**), and histogram of the deviations (**right**). As expected, variant B, which relied only on the connection through the entrance of opening 1 showed some of the largest deformations in the ossuary (Figure 16). The smallest deformations of the model were manifested in variant C (Figure 17), when openings 1 and 2 were used to connect the exterior and the ossuary. Similar results to those in variant B were also achieved with variant D, in which not only opening 1, but also the narrow opening 3 was used. Its size (only 65 cm) greatly complicated the creation of a continuous interconnecting image strip and even slightly worsened the results compared to variant B (Figure 18). Figure 16: Deviations in the comparison of photogrammetry with all images active and the variant without connection through openings 2 and 3 (A vs. B) in the ossuary (external view on the **left**, cross-section on the **right**). Figure 17: Deviations in the comparison of photogrammetry with all images active and the variant without connection through opening 3 (A vs. C) in the ossuary (external view on the **left**, cross-section on the **right**). Figure 18: Deviations in the comparison of photogrammetry with all images active and the variant without connection through opening 2 (A vs. D) in the ossuary (external view on the **left**, cross-section on the **right**). From the comparison of the individual variants, it can be concluded that the connection of spaces through openings 1 and 2 (variant C) led to similar results as the reference variant with all images (variant A). Thus, the connection through opening 2 had a significant effect on the robustness of the camera network. The numerical results of the comparison of all variants are summarized in Table 5.  
The deviations between the photogrammetric variants in Table 5 may have been partly caused by the differences in the quality settings of the dense cloud calculation (medium vs. low). These are most evident in sharp and small elements, such as the edges of the bricks or the joints between them, which were captured in a lower quality. However, when we experimentally compared clouds A and B in the same medium quality, we arrived at a total deviation of 7.3 mm, while A (medium) vs. B (low) reached 8.0 mm.