Low Cost Heritage Imaging Techniques Compared

This paper challenges the notion that cultural heritage imaging technologies can only be the domain of advanced heritage institutions and must necessarily involve expensive equipment. Three main technologies are examined and compared: Reflectance Transformation Imaging, photogrammetry and low-end 3D scanning techniques. These are compared in regard of their ease of use in real-life situations, accuracy, reliability and flexibility in covering a multitude of heritage documentation cases. A variety of cases studies are presented where tangible heritage objects were imaged using two or more techniques and results were compared. The paper proposes that there is no clear winner and that there is not a single solution for all cases. Each technology has its place, its relative advantages and disadvantages. It suggests that heritage institutions can and should embrace all three, while empirically gauging their effectiveness in their local environment and specific needs. Finally, it is suggested that considering the rapid and continual advancement in technology, quality will continue to rise and prices may well drop. However, training and expertise will not replace the promise of automated solutions.

Content

Author and article information

Contributors

Moshe Caine

Michael Magen

Conference

Publication date: July 2017

Publication date (Print): July 2017

Pages: 430-437

Affiliations

[0001]Hadassah Academic College Jerusalem

37 Hanevi'im Street, Jerusalem, Israel

[0002]Israel Museum Jerusalem

Derech Ruppin, Jerusalem, Israel

Article

DOI: 10.14236/ewic/EVA2017.85

SO-VID: 96a164f8-4e19-4106-b021-9986399f0730

License:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Conference name: Electronic Visualisation and the Arts (EVA 2017)

Conference acronym: EVA

Conference number:

Conference location: London, UK

Conference date: 11 – 13 July 2017

Conference sponsor: Electronic Workshops in Computing (eWiC)

Conference theme: Electronic Visualisation and the Arts

Product

Product Information: 1477-9358BCS Learning & Development

Self URI (article page): https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14236/ewic/EVA2017.85

Self URI (journal page): https://ewic.bcs.org/

8. REFERENCES

Agisoft Photoscan http://www.agisoft.com 4 February 2017
Autodesk ReCap 360 ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="www.autodesk.com/products/recap/overview">www.autodesk.com/products/recap/overview 4 February 2017
Autodesk Remake https://remake.autodesk.com 4 February 2017
D. Akca 2012 3d Modeling of Cultural Heritage Objects with a Structured Light System. Mediterranean archaeology and Archaeometry 12 1 139 152
B. BayramG. NemliT. ÖzkancO.E. OflazbB. Kankotani. Çetin 2015 Comparison of Laser Scanning and Photogrammetry and their use for Digital recording of Cultural Monument Case study: Byzantine land walls-Istanbul. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences ii-5 w3 25th International Cipa Taipei, Taiwan
W. BoehlerA. Marbs 2004 3d Scanning and Photogrammetry for Heritage Recording: A Comparison. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Geoinformatics - Geospatial Information Research: Bridging the Pacific and Atlantic University of Gävle Sweden
P. Bourke 2016 Report: Comparing Laser Scanning to 3D Reconstruction. http://paulbourke.net/miscellaneous/laservs3d/
Cultural Heritage Imaging. http://culturalheritageimaging.org/Technologies/RTI 14 February 2017
P. GrussenmeyerT. LandesT. VoegtleK. Ringle 2008 Comparison Methods of Terrestrial Laser Scanning, Photogrammetry and Tacheometry Data for Recording of Cultural Heritage Buildings. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences xxxvii part b5 Beijing, China
F. Hassani 2015 Documentation of cultural Heritage Techniques, Potentials and Constraints. the international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences xl-5 w7 25th International Cipa Symposium Taipei, Taiwan
HP. 3D Scan. http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaign/3Dscanner/overview.html 2 March 2017
R KadobayashiN. KochiB. OtaniR. Furukawa 2004 Comparison and Evaluation of Laser Scanning and Photogrammetry and their Combined Use for Digital Recording of Cultural Heritage. national institute of information and communications technology Seika-cho Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0289, Japan
L. W. Macdonald 2011 Visualising an Egyptian Artefact in 3D: Comparing RTI with Laser Scanning J. P. BowenS. DunnK. Ng EVA London 2011: Electronic Visualisation and the Arts. BCS, Electronic Workshops in Computing 155 162
T. MalzbenderD. GelbH. Wolters 2001 Polynomial Texture Maps, Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH, 28 519 528
Meshlab. http://www.meshlab.net 4 February 2017
K. PavelkaJ. ReznícekZ. BíláL. Prunarová 2013 Non-Expensive 3d Documentation and Modelling of Historical Object and Archaeological Artefacts by Using Close Range Photogrammetry. Geoinformatics FCE CTU
E. M. Payne 2013 Imaging Techniques in Conservation Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies 10 2 17 29 ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="DOI:10.5334/jcms.1021201">DOI:10.5334/jcms.1021201
J. ReznicekK. Pavelka 2008 New Low-Cost 3d Scanning Techniques for Cultural Heritage Documentation. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences xxxvii Part b5. Beijing, China
RTI viewer. http://culturalheritageimaging.org/WhatWeOffer/Downloads/index.html 8 January 2017
R. ScopignoM. CallieriP. CignoniM. CorsiniM. DellepianeF. PonchioG. Ranzuglia 2011 3d Models for Cultural Heritage: Beyond Plain Visualization IEEE Computer Society.
D. SkarlatosS. Kiparissi 2012 Comparison of Laser Scanning, Photogrammetry and SfM-MVS Pipeline Applied in Structures and Artificial Surfaces Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences i-3
M. J. WachowiakB. V. Karas 2009 3d Scanning and Replication for Museum and Cultural Heritage Applications Jaic 48.

Comments

Comment on this article

[1] Agisoft Photoscan http://www.agisoft.com 4 February 2017

[2] Autodesk ReCap 360 ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="www.autodesk.com/products/recap/overview">www.autodesk.com/products/recap/overview 4 February 2017

[3] Autodesk Remake https://remake.autodesk.com 4 February 2017

[4] D. Akca 2012 3d Modeling of Cultural Heritage Objects with a Structured Light System. Mediterranean archaeology and Archaeometry 12 1 139 152

[5] B. BayramG. NemliT. ÖzkancO.E. OflazbB. Kankotani. Çetin 2015 Comparison of Laser Scanning and Photogrammetry and their use for Digital recording of Cultural Monument Case study: Byzantine land walls-Istanbul. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences ii-5 w3 25th International Cipa Taipei, Taiwan

[6] W. BoehlerA. Marbs 2004 3d Scanning and Photogrammetry for Heritage Recording: A Comparison. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Geoinformatics - Geospatial Information Research: Bridging the Pacific and Atlantic University of Gävle Sweden

[7] P. Bourke 2016 Report: Comparing Laser Scanning to 3D Reconstruction. http://paulbourke.net/miscellaneous/laservs3d/

[8] Cultural Heritage Imaging. http://culturalheritageimaging.org/Technologies/RTI 14 February 2017

[9] P. GrussenmeyerT. LandesT. VoegtleK. Ringle 2008 Comparison Methods of Terrestrial Laser Scanning, Photogrammetry and Tacheometry Data for Recording of Cultural Heritage Buildings. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences xxxvii part b5 Beijing, China

[10] F. Hassani 2015 Documentation of cultural Heritage Techniques, Potentials and Constraints. the international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences xl-5 w7 25th International Cipa Symposium Taipei, Taiwan

[11] HP. 3D Scan. http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaign/3Dscanner/overview.html 2 March 2017

[12] R KadobayashiN. KochiB. OtaniR. Furukawa 2004 Comparison and Evaluation of Laser Scanning and Photogrammetry and their Combined Use for Digital Recording of Cultural Heritage. national institute of information and communications technology Seika-cho Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0289, Japan

[13] L. W. Macdonald 2011 Visualising an Egyptian Artefact in 3D: Comparing RTI with Laser Scanning J. P. BowenS. DunnK. Ng EVA London 2011: Electronic Visualisation and the Arts. BCS, Electronic Workshops in Computing 155 162

[14] T. MalzbenderD. GelbH. Wolters 2001 Polynomial Texture Maps, Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH, 28 519 528

[15] Meshlab. http://www.meshlab.net 4 February 2017

[16] K. PavelkaJ. ReznícekZ. BíláL. Prunarová 2013 Non-Expensive 3d Documentation and Modelling of Historical Object and Archaeological Artefacts by Using Close Range Photogrammetry. Geoinformatics FCE CTU

[17] E. M. Payne 2013 Imaging Techniques in Conservation Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies 10 2 17 29 ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="DOI:10.5334/jcms.1021201">DOI:10.5334/jcms.1021201

[18] J. ReznicekK. Pavelka 2008 New Low-Cost 3d Scanning Techniques for Cultural Heritage Documentation. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences xxxvii Part b5. Beijing, China

[19] RTI viewer. http://culturalheritageimaging.org/WhatWeOffer/Downloads/index.html 8 January 2017

[20] R. ScopignoM. CallieriP. CignoniM. CorsiniM. DellepianeF. PonchioG. Ranzuglia 2011 3d Models for Cultural Heritage: Beyond Plain Visualization IEEE Computer Society.

[21] D. SkarlatosS. Kiparissi 2012 Comparison of Laser Scanning, Photogrammetry and SfM-MVS Pipeline Applied in Structures and Artificial Surfaces Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences i-3

[22] M. J. WachowiakB. V. Karas 2009 3d Scanning and Replication for Museum and Cultural Heritage Applications Jaic 48.