# Two-Dimensional Shape Analysis of Complex Geometry Based on Photogrammetric Models of Iconostases
## 5 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Shape** \\ **Descriptor** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Iconostasis/** \\ **Style** \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**S1**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S3**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S4**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S5**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S6**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S7**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S8**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S9**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S10**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(Exc(S)\)} & ICONB & 0.450 & 0.686 & 0.534 & 0.722 & 0.413 & 0.415 & 0.558 & 0.534 & 0.819 & 0.792 \\  & ICONC & 0.464 & 0.896 & 0.560 & 0.630 & 0.544 & 0.930 & 0.908 & 0.820 & 0.758 & 0.650 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(Elo(S)\)} & ICONB & 0.494 & 0.314 & 0.438 & 0.341 & 0.587 & 0.588 & 0.418 & 0.466 & 0.181 & 0.221 \\  & ICONC & 0.536 & 0.110 & 0.440 & 0.370 & 0.456 & 0.070 & 0.090 & 0.254 & 0.242 & 0.350 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(Cst(S)\)} & ICONB & 0.585 & 0.481 & 0.445 & 0.240 & 0.515 & 0.446 & 0.379 & 0.373 & 0.983 & 0.640 \\  & ICONC & 0.815 & 0.779 & 0.877 & 0.919 & 0.788 & 0.934 & 0.838 & 0.854 & 0.970 & 0.931 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(C(S)\)} & ICONB & 0.885 & 0.802 & 0.755 & 0.578 & 0.875 & 0.845 & 0.697 & 0.703 & 1 & 0.842 \\  & ICONC & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.994 & 0.998 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(S(S)\)} & ICONB & 0.919 & 0.899 & 0.916 & 0.904 & 0.981 & 0.910 & 0.963 & 0.959 & 1 & 0.940 \\  & ICONC & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.989 & 0.971 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(R(S)\)} & ICONB & 0.763 & 0.785 & 0.744 & 0.842 & 0.932 & 0.868 & 0.879 & 0.926 & 0.787 & 0.754 \\  & ICONC & 0.885 & 1 & 0.878 & 0.844 & 0.941 & 0.832 & 0.881 & 0.926 & 0.818 & 0.847 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(Ell(S)\)} & ICONB & 0.722 & 0.757 & 0.680 & 0.658 & 0.809 & 0.786 & 0.809 & 0.769 & 0.970 & 0.767 \\  & ICONC & 0.878 & 0.781 & 0.899 & 0.925 & 0.836 & 0.835 & 0.847 & 0.855 & 0.960 & 0.932 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Experimental results of the shape descriptors applied to the shapes of icons of both case studies: ICONB and ICONC. In the case of the icon shapes, the eccentricity and elongation were excluded from the proposed classification considering they showed significant variations in the resulted quantitative values. All the considered shape descriptors, except ellipticity which does not seem to be a relevant descriptor here, were also applied to the classification of the front and side cross-sections of the iconostasis' main constructive elements (base, column, and molding). It is noted that when applied to the elements extracted from the cross-section, the shape descriptors reveal different behaviors compared to the previously described classification of the shapes in terms of their stylistic characteristics. Even though the value ranges of the solidity shape descriptor illustrated the differences between the Baroque and Classicism periods when applied to the iconostasis base and column, the remaining descriptors did not show clear a distinction according to the particular style origins. However, by analyzing the obtained results for every single shape descriptor, the value ranges of the particular shape descriptor can be related to certain constructive elements. For example, the iconostasis' columns can be numerically described by the following value ranges observed in both cross sections: eccentricity: 0.05-0.15; compactness: 0.10-0.25; rectangularity: 0.60-0.80; solidity: 0.60-0.85; elongation: 0.85-0.95; and convexity: 0.90-1.00, regardless of the style to which they belong to. Therefore, it can be noted that given individually or mutually combined shape descriptors can be applied to classify the main constructive components concerning both front and side cross sections.