Next Article in Journal
Identification of Poverty Areas by Remote Sensing and Machine Learning: A Case Study in Guizhou, Southwest China
Next Article in Special Issue
Towards an Operative Predictive Model for the Songshan Area during the Yangshao Period
Previous Article in Journal
A Theoretical Proposition for Spatial Data Infrastructure On-Going Improvement
Article

A Critical Comparison of 3D Digitization Techniques for Heritage Objects

1
Computer Science Department, Università degli Studi di Torino, Corso Svizzera 185, 10149 Turin, Italy
2
Department of Architecture and Design, Politecnico di Torino, Viale Pier Andrea Mattioli 39, 10125 Turin, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article is an extended and updated version of the paper published in proceedings of the 2019 IMEKO TC-4 MetroArchaeo, Florence, Italy, 4–6 December 2019.
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10(1), 10; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijgi10010010
Received: 12 November 2020 / Revised: 22 December 2020 / Accepted: 27 December 2020 / Published: 30 December 2020
Techniques for the three-dimensional digitization of tangible heritage are continuously updated, as regards active and passive sensors, data acquisition approaches, implemented algorithms and employed computational systems. These developments enable higher automation and processing velocities, increased accuracy, and precision for digitizing heritage assets. For large-scale applications, as for investigations on ancient remains, heritage objects, or architectural details, scanning and image-based modeling approaches have prevailed, due to reduced costs and processing durations, fast acquisition, and the reproducibility of workflows. This paper presents an updated metric comparison of common heritage digitization approaches, providing a thorough examination of sensors, capturing workflows, processing parameters involved, metric and radiometric results produced. A variety of photogrammetric software were evaluated (both commercial and open sourced), as well as photo-capturing equipment of various characteristics and prices, and scanners employing different technologies. The experimentations were performed on case studies of different geometrical and surface characteristics to thoroughly assess the implemented three-dimensional modeling pipelines. View Full-Text
Keywords: geomatics; sensors; 3D modeling; structure from motion; laser scanning; structured light scanning; cultural heritage geomatics; sensors; 3D modeling; structure from motion; laser scanning; structured light scanning; cultural heritage
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Adamopoulos, E.; Rinaudo, F.; Ardissono, L. A Critical Comparison of 3D Digitization Techniques for Heritage Objects. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 10. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijgi10010010

AMA Style

Adamopoulos E, Rinaudo F, Ardissono L. A Critical Comparison of 3D Digitization Techniques for Heritage Objects. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2021; 10(1):10. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijgi10010010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Adamopoulos, Efstathios, Fulvio Rinaudo, and Liliana Ardissono. 2021. "A Critical Comparison of 3D Digitization Techniques for Heritage Objects" ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10, no. 1: 10. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijgi10010010

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop