# Two-Dimensional Shape Analysis of Complex Geometry Based on Photogrammetric Models of Iconostases
## 5 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Iconostasis Main Elements** & **Shape Descriptor** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Classification Values**} \\ \hline  & & **Baroque** & **Classicism** \\ \hline  & Compactness = \(Cst(S)\) & 0.24–0.64 & 0.77–0.94 \\  & Convexity = \(C(S)\) & 0.57–0.89 & 0.99–1.00 \\  & Solidity = \(S(S)\) & 0.89–0.99 & 0.97–1.00 \\  & Rectangularity = \(R(S)\) & 0.74–0.93 & 0.83–1.00 \\  & Ellipticity = \(Ell(S)\) & 0.65–0.78 & 0.78–0.94 \\ \hline  & Compactness = \(Cst(S)\) & 0.97–0.99 & \\  & Convexity = \(C(S)\) & 1 & \\  & Solidity = \(S(S)\) & 1 & \\  & Rectangularity = \(R(S)\) & 0.78–0.82 & \\  & Ellipticity = \(Ell(S)\) & 0.96–0.97 & \\ \hline  & Eccentricity = \(Ecc(S)\) & 0.24–0.26 & 0.22–0.40 \\  & Elongation = \(Elo(S)\) & 0.73–0.74 & 0.56–0.76 \\  & Compactness = \(Cst(S)\) & 0.32–0.48 & 0.37–0.55 \\  & Convexity = \(C(S)\) & 0.80–0.97 & 0.93–0.95 \\  & Solidity = \(S(S)\) & 0.97–0.99 & 0.81–0.95 \\  & Rectangularity = \(R(S)\) & 0.90–0.95 & 0.79–0.88 \\ \hline  & Eccentricity = \(Ecc(S)\) & 0.06–0.08 & 0.10–0.11 \\  & Elongation = \(Elo(S)\) & 0.90–0.91 & 0.87–0.89 \\  & Compactness = \(Cst(S)\) & 0.12–0.14 & 0.18–0.22 \\  & Convexity = \(C(S)\) & 0.95–0.98 & 0.93–0.95 \\  & Solidity = \(S(S)\) & 0.62–0.67 & 0.70–0.83 \\  & Rectangularity = \(R(S)\) & 0.62–0.66 & 0.64–0.76 \\ \hline  & Eccentricity = \(Ecc(S)\) & 0.30–0.34 & 0.32–0.40 \\  & Elongation = \(Elo(S)\) & 0.66–0.72 & 0.61–0.67 \\  & Compactness = \(Cst(S)\) & 0.46–0.61 & 0.54–0.71 \\  & Convexity = \(C(S)\) & 0.96–0.99 & 0.95–0.99 \\  & Solidity = \(S(S)\) & 0.95–0.99 & 0.94–0.97 \\  & Rectangularity = \(R(S)\) & 0.69–0.94 & 0.78–0.84 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Proposal of classification for the iconostases’ elements based on the shape descriptors and their ranges of variation for the different artistic movements. Assessment of the Proposed Methodology for Shape Analysis  
Considering the main idea of the shape analysis was to numerically describe the shape characteristics in terms of iconostasis style origins, the third case study has been employed to assess the proposed methodology. The iconostasis of the Serbian Orthodox Church of St. Procopius the Great Martyr in Srpska Crnja (ICONT) (Figure 25), which originated from the end of the Baroque period (1788), has been used for testing the methodology in the task of the icon shapes' classification with respect to the artistic style origins. The shape measurements (Figure 26) were calculated in the same way as described in the previous case studies and the results of the applied shape descriptors are shown in Table 5.  
Figure 25: ICONT. Orthophoto with highlighted characteristic icon shapes used in the shape analysis. When compared to the results of the shape descriptors for the icon shapes of the typical examples of the Baroque and Classicism iconostases, the obtained results are consistent with the expected results. In contrast to the iconostasis from the Classicism period, where most of the icon shapes are distinguished by absolutely convex and solid shapes, the obtained value ranges for the convexity and solidity show results more similar to the case study of the Baroque iconostasis. The ellipticity shape descriptor also showed the lowest values compared to the case study of the iconostasis from the Classicism period, reflecting a higher level of irregularity of the shape boundary which is common for the Baroque style. The value ranges of the eccentricity and elongation are more similar to those obtained in the case study of the iconostasis from the Classicism period, which is also expected as these two iconostases have approximately the same dimensions. The rest of the resulting shape descriptors vary in between the primary case studies, which can be related to the transition period of origin of this iconostasis but also to the similarity in its proportion to the one from the Classicism period.