Table 2: Comparison of registration results for three different control point selection approaches for ten simulated image pairs.

Image pairsInitial error before registrationError of the control point pairs after registration
Edge-based approachExclusion techniqueProposed hybrid approach
RMS ( )MaxMinRMS MaxMinRMS MaxMinRMS

No. 16.09813.1150.1032.86153.1%12.7410.1443.43743.6%7.5910.0481.48675.6%
No. 26.89210.0900.0303.19253.7%12.5560.1093.92543.0%3.0970.0450.88187.2%
No. 36.44212.0710.0422.64259.0%10.9720.0473.41946.9%7.3780.1091.30279.8%
No. 46.20110.5480.1022.71156.3%11.8270.0642.76955.3%3.8180.0081.06182.9%
No. 56.3639.7920.1642.78156.3%9.4610.0573.00552.8%5.6730.0581.28979.8%
No. 66.2707.9030.1622.24264.2%9.7980.0752.33662.7%2.9340.0350.96084.7%
No. 76.8139.6060.0663.31251.4%10.5400.1073.45649.3%5.4970.0371.61476.3%
No. 86.92012.2860.0793.38951.0%14.2010.0614.35937.0%3.6660.0641.22982.2%
No. 97.39911.8430.0134.15243.9%13.5730.0523.93246.9%5.9250.0851.49079.9%
No. 107.49415.4600.0515.42327.6%11.0190.0513.64551.3%7.2930.0111.64378.1%

Average51.6%48.9%80.6%