Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Radu Comes
 -- 2748 2022-08-24 19:33:12 |
2 Update references
Sirius Huang
 -923 word(s) 1825 2022-08-25 03:15:22 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Comes, R.;  Neamțu, C.G.D.;  Grec, C.;  Buna, Z.L.;  Găzdac, C.;  Mateescu-Suciu, L. Digital Reconstruction of Fragmented Cultural Heritage Assets. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26459 (accessed on 23 November 2024).
Comes R,  Neamțu CGD,  Grec C,  Buna ZL,  Găzdac C,  Mateescu-Suciu L. Digital Reconstruction of Fragmented Cultural Heritage Assets. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26459. Accessed November 23, 2024.
Comes, Radu, Călin Gheorghe Dan Neamțu, Cătălin Grec, Zsolt Levente Buna, Cristian Găzdac, Liliana Mateescu-Suciu. "Digital Reconstruction of Fragmented Cultural Heritage Assets" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26459 (accessed November 23, 2024).
Comes, R.,  Neamțu, C.G.D.,  Grec, C.,  Buna, Z.L.,  Găzdac, C., & Mateescu-Suciu, L. (2022, August 24). Digital Reconstruction of Fragmented Cultural Heritage Assets. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26459
Comes, Radu, et al. "Digital Reconstruction of Fragmented Cultural Heritage Assets." Encyclopedia. Web. 24 August, 2022.
Digital Reconstruction of Fragmented Cultural Heritage Assets
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/app12168131

The most peculiar characteristic of a cultural heritage is represented by its uniqueness. To ensure that an object is preserved against environmental deterioration, vandal attacks, and accidents, modern Cultural Heritage documentation involves 3D scanning technologies. In the case of fragmented artifacts, the digitization process represents an essential prerequisite for facilitating an accurate 3D reconstruction.

cultural heritage 3D scanning digital reconstruction 3D reconstruction

1. Introduction

Modern Cultural Heritage documentation involves interdisciplinary research teams from various fields. The three-dimensional documentation of both cultural heritage sites and artefacts has become a common task in archaeological and restoration processes [1]. This digital documentation process that makes use of modern scanning equipment and software enables the acquisition of precise digital models of both the archaeological sites and artefacts to define digital replicas. Three-dimensional scanning is frequently used for the documentation of Cultural Heritage (CH), as it is capable of defining accurate measurements compared to other digitization methods (photogrammetry, as an example) [2]. The accuracy evaluation of photogrammetry has been analyzed using a custom machine gauge [3] and a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). The trueness and precision of photogrammetry has been analyzed using CMM in other research domains, such as dental implants [4] and industrial applications [5].
Digital Cultural Heritage documentation involves a wide variety of technologies that provide heterogeneous data regarding file structure and file format. Because of this, depending on the final output of the 3D model, there are various standard file type conversion steps that are required to ensure that the output 3D dataset can be integrated within either digital applications such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), or computer-aided manufacturing processes (CAM).
One of the most important challenges related to the preservation of cultural and historical heritage is associated with the rapid decay of exterior monuments due to environmental deterioration, as well as vandal attacks [6]. Unfortunately, in many areas around the world, archaeological heritage has been affected by both natural hazards and anthropic destruction. The negative impact of social non-involvement in the protection of archaeological sites has had an impact in multiple countries. Romanian archaeology did not benefit from a specific legislation from its beginning, and until January 2000, as presented by Dorel Micle, even though Romania has been a member of the European Convention concerning archaeological heritage (signed at La Valetta on 16 January 1992) ever since 1997, it was only in 2000 that the government enacted the first law concerning the protection of archaeological heritage. This had an impact regarding the prevention of archaeological treasure hunting, but as presented within this research article aimed at the promotion of the Dacian ornamental shields, various Dacian archaeological sites have been targeted by treasure hunters with metal detectors up until this period, as well as after 2000, in remote areas such as the Dacian Hillfort from Piatra Roșie [7].
Due to various degradation aspects previously presented, CH artefacts are frequently broken into fragments when they are discovered. The traditional manual reconstruction may induce additional damage to the CH fragmented artefacts; therefore, the use of computer-aided techniques for reassembly and digital reconstruction provides several advantages over traditional techniques [8]. The main advantage is represented by the output 3D models that can be used for a wide variety of applications, both digital, such as: VR [9], AR [10], and MR [11], but also regarding the development of tangible replicas using computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) and rapid prototyping (RP) techniques such as casting [12], additive manufacturing [13], laser synthetization, and laser cladding [2].
As presented by Parfenov V. et al., in this context, the need to reconstruct damaged and stolen cultural heritage objects, and to gradually replace them with replicas represents one of the most important aspects on the agenda. This idea of replacing originals with copies is not new, and it causes an ambiguous attitude in society. As an example, the authors have presented the famous masterpiece of Michelangelo—a marble sculpture of David, which has remained for almost 370 years in Piazza della Signoria in Florence, and was copied in 1873 when the original statue was moved for eternal storage in the Gallery of Academy of Fine Arts in the city [6].
Modern technologies that integrate 3D scanning technology and CAM represent an attractive alternative to the traditional manual reconstruction approaches. The main advance of 3D scanning is that it is a contactless method that does not have any negative impact on the original cultural heritage elements [14].
With a wide variety of 3D scanning technologies, determining which solution is optimal is influenced by numerous aspects that are related to the digitization of objects or monuments. As presented by Di Angelo L. et al., there is no 3D scanner on the market that meets all of the technical and economic constraints; therefore, they have developed an Analytic Hierarchy Process method to determine the best 3D scanner for cultural heritage applications [15].
Faithful 3D reconstructions can be defined using 3D scanned datasets of various objects and monuments if there are enough information to define the whole 3D digital reconstruction. To facilitate the dissemination and promotion of digital 3D reconstructions, researchers are also developing VR, AR, and XR environments. The researchers Liritzis I. et al. have proposed the development of an educational application that combines science, history, and archeology to enhance learning regarding the Sanctuary of Delphi [16]. The pilot study was aimed to introduce cultural heritage and archaeology to university syllabuses to support e-learning studies.
As presented by Gomes L. et al., both innovation in data acquisition sensors and an increase in computational power have made digital reconstructions based on 3D scanned models an ongoing research field [17] with many existing challenges regarding current 3D reconstruction frameworks, such as:
  • The accuracy and trueness of the proposed digital reconstruction [18];
  • 3D modeling problems (self-intersections and non-manifold geometry) [19];
  • 3D model topology (triangles or quads) [20];
  • File format interoperability towards VR, AR, XR, and CAM [21];
  • Aspects related to open and reusable digital cultural heritage 3D models [22];
  • Empowering linked Cultural Heritage data [23].

2. 3D Reconstruction Cultural Heritage Projects and Frameworks

The development and wide adoption of 3D scanning technologies have enabled 3D digitization and reconstruction projects to emerge around the world. The pioneer projects, as well as the most complex 3D reconstruction projects, are discussed here.
The most prominent pioneer project focusing on the digitization of cultural heritage is the “The Digital Michelangelo Project” by Levoy et al. [24], which integrates the 3D scanning of 10 statues created by Michelangelo. The authors have adopted a wide variety of scanning solutions, including triangulation laser scanners, time-of-flight laser scanners, and digital cameras. As was presented on the project website during their academic year abroad in Italy of a large team including 30 faculty, staff, and students from Stanford University and the University of Washington, the authors have been involved in several side projects such as the Digitizing of the Forma Urbis Romae. The team has scanned the 1163 fragments of the impressive Marble Plan, which is the key source document of ancient Roman topography, measuring 60 feet across, 45 feet high, and 2–4 inches thick.
The authors have developed computer algorithms to aid in the reconstruction of the Marble Plan, and they have created a public database that includes all of the 3D scanned fragments intended to be used as a public tool for study and research. The authors have managed to approximate only 10% of the original monument, based on the features and fitting between fragments. The results have been presented and published in the Proceedings of the Third Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture, Journal of Roman Archaeology, in 2005.
In this case, the accurate 3D reconstruction of the Forma Urbis Romae represents an impossible task, as the existing fragments represent only about 15% of the original marble map, and with the disintegration of the Roman Empire in the fifth century A.D., the Forma Urbis suffered the same fate as the rest of the city; for several hundred years, marble slabs were systematically stripped from the map and used to construct new buildings, or simply burnt in kilns to make lime for cement [25].
As presented by Adán et al., the process of defining the automatic reconstruction of archaeological pieces through the integration of a set of unknown segments is a highly complex problem, and when only a few segments of the original pieces are available, the solutions, exclusively based on computation algorithms, aim to create credible whole restorations. The authors have proposed the use of hybrid human/computer strategies to tackle incomplete 3D puzzles. The method has been applied successful on the fractured pieces belonging to the remains of Roman sculptures at the well-known Mérida site in Spain [26].
Most of the 3D reconstructions of cultural heritage projects are focused on archaeological pottery. Ceramic studies have played a central role in the development of archaeology, as ceramics represent by far the largest class of artefacts recovered during the excavations of historical sites. A method intended to assist in the tedious task of reconstructing ceramic vessels shards using 3D computer vision has been presented by Cohen and Ezgi [27]; their proposed method aligns the shards based on a set of 3D weighted curve moments; the main advantage of the proposed method is that it can be extendable to surface markings.
For physically reconstructed cultural heritage objects such as ceramics, it is important to capture the photorealistic 3D model. A post-reconstruction of photorealistic 3D models of ceramic artefacts intended for use in interactive virtual exhibitions is presented by Chow and Chan [28].
A recently published review paper by Angelo et al. presents the computer-based methods for the classification and reconstruction of 3D high-density scanned archaeology pottery [29]. It aims to provide a complete and critical analysis of the state-of-the-art until the end of 2021 of the most important published methods on pottery analysis, classification, and 3D reconstruction.
In case of complex cultural heritage objects, 3D laser scanning is combined with 3D modeling techniques to define 3D reconstructions. A case study that combines cultural heritage and ship design is presented by the authors Arapakopoulos et al., for a traditional Greek Boat with Trechadiri hull type named after “Aghia Varvara”; the boat is characterized as a modern cultural heritage monument by the Greek Ministry of Culture [30].
The use of 3D laser scanning and additive technologies for the reconstruction of damaged and destroyed cultural heritage objects is presented by the authors Parfenov et al.; they have been successfully used for outdoor sculptures in St. Petersburg that have been destroyed during WWII [6].
Other researchers have proposed a reconstruction and analysis method for a bronze battle axe, and have compared the inflicted damage injuries using neutron tomography, manufacturing modeling, and X-ray microtomography data [31].
As presented by other researchers, the main risk of a virtual reconstruction is the lack of a faithful reconstruction. Their work proposed a systematic workflow that integrates 2D and 3D sources [32]. Another recently published state-of-the-art approach that has the advantage of making the reconstruction activities easier and less arbitrary is to integrate iconographic 3D comparison elements within the reconstruction process [33].
Implementing 3D reconstruction within digital interactive applications represents an important tool in safeguarding cultural heritage and making it available to future generations, and supporting immersive learning opportunities [34].

References

  1. Soler, F.; Melero, F.J.; Luzón, M.V. A Complete 3D Information System for Cultural Heritage Documentation. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 23, 49–57.
  2. Remondino, F. Heritage Recording and 3D Modeling with Photogrammetry and 3D Scanning. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1104–1138.
  3. Popescu, D.; Ștefan, B.O.D.I.; Cătălin, G.R.E.C.; Neamțu, C.; Marian, J.A.C.; Curta, R. Photogrammetry accuracy evaluation through 3D scanning and measurement of a custom-designed gauge. ACTA Tech. Napoc.—Ser. Appl. Math. Mech. Eng. 2021, 64, 761–766.
  4. Revilla-León, M.; Rubenstein, J.; Methani, M.M.; Piedra-Cascón, W.; Özcan, M.; Att, W. Trueness and Precision of Complete-Arch Photogrammetry Implant Scanning Assessed with a Coordinate-Measuring Machine. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021.
  5. Catalucci, S.; Senin, N.; Sims-Waterhouse, D.; Ziegelmeier, S.; Piano, S.; Leach, R. Measurement of Complex Freeform Additively Manufactured Parts by Structured Light and Photogrammetry. Measurement 2020, 164, 108081.
  6. Parfenov, V.; Igoshin, S.; Masaylo, D.; Orlov, A.; Kuliashou, D. Use of 3D Laser Scanning and Additive Technologies for Reconstruction of Damaged and Destroyed Cultural Heritage Objects. Quantum Beam Sci. 2022, 6, 11.
  7. Micle, D. Archaeological Heritage Between Natural Hazard and Anthropic Destruction: The Negative Impact of Social Non-Involvement in the Protection of Archaeological Sites. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 163, 269–278.
  8. Zhang, Y.; Li, K.; Chen, X.; Zhang, S.; Geng, G. A Multi Feature Fusion Method for Reassembly of 3D Cultural Heritage Artifacts. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 33, 191–200.
  9. Fidas, C.; Sylaiou, S. Editorial for Special Issue “Virtual Reality and Its Application in Cultural Heritage”. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1530.
  10. Younes, G.; Kahil, R.; Jallad, M.; Asmar, D.; Elhajj, I.; Turkiyyah, G.; Al-Harithy, H. Virtual and Augmented Reality for Rich Interaction with Cultural Heritage Sites: A Case Study from the Roman Theater at Byblos. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2017, 5, 1–9.
  11. Rahaman, H.; Champion, E.; Bekele, M. From Photo to 3D to Mixed Reality: A Complete Workflow for Cultural Heritage Visualisation and Experience. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 13, e00102.
  12. Merchán, M.J.; Merchán, P.; Salamanca, S.; Pérez, E.; Nogales, T. Digital Fabrication of Cultural Heritage Artwork Replicas. In the Search for Resilience and Socio-Cultural Commitment. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 15, e00125.
  13. Anastasiadou, C.; Vettese, S. “From Souvenirs to 3D Printed Souvenirs”. Exploring the Capabilities of Additive Manufacturing Technologies in (Re)-Framing Tourist Souvenirs. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 428–442.
  14. Ramm, R.; Heinze, M.; Kühmstedt, P.; Christoph, A.; Heist, S.; Notni, G. Portable Solution for High-Resolution 3D and Color Texture on-Site Digitization of Cultural Heritage Objects. J. Cult. Herit. 2022, 53, 165–175.
  15. Di Angelo, L.; Di Stefano, P.; Fratocchi, L.; Marzola, A. An AHP-Based Method for Choosing the Best 3D Scanner for Cultural Heritage Applications. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 34, 109–115.
  16. Liritzis, I.; Volonakis, P.; Vosinakis, S. 3D Reconstruction of Cultural Heritage Sites as an Educational Approach. The Sanctuary of Delphi. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3635.
  17. Gomes, L.; Regina Pereira Bellon, O.; Silva, L. 3D Reconstruction Methods for Digital Preservation of Cultural Heritage: A Survey. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2014, 50, 3–14.
  18. Felicísimo, Á.M.; Polo, M.-E. Measurement and Control of Colour Fidelity in Scanned 3D Models for Heritage Conservation. J. Cult. Herit. 2022, 56, 159–166.
  19. Hu, S.; Chen, X. Preventing Self-Intersection with Cycle Regularization in Neural Networks for Mesh Reconstruction from a Single RGB Image. Comput. Aided Geom. Des. 2019, 72, 84–97.
  20. Amroune, A.; Cuillière, J.C.; François, V. Automated Lofting-Based Reconstruction of CAD Models from 3D Topology Optimization Results. Comput. Des. 2022, 145, 103183.
  21. Emmer, C.; Hofmann, T.M.; Schmied, T.; Stjepandić, J.; Strietzel, M. A Neutral Approach for Interoperability in the Field of 3D Measurement Data Management. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2018, 12, 47–56.
  22. Open and Reusable Digital Cultural Heritage|Europeana Pro. Available online: https://pro.europeana.eu/page/open-and-reusable-digital-cultural-heritage (accessed on 29 July 2022).
  23. Zhang, L. Empowering Linked Data in Cultural Heritage Institutions: A Knowledge Management Perspective. Data Inf. Manag. 2022, 100013.
  24. Levoy, M.; Ginsberg, J.; Shade, J.; Fulk, D.; Pulli, K.; Curless, B.; Rusinkiewicz, S.; Koller, D.; Pereira, L.; Ginzton, M.; et al. The Digital Michelangelo Project: 3D Scanning of Large Statues. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH, New Orleans, LA, USA, 23–28 July 2000; pp. 131–144.
  25. Fragments of the City: Stanford’s Digital Forma Urbis Romae Project. Available online: https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/forma-williams/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  26. Digitizing the Forma Urbis Romae. Available online: https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/forma-urbis-campfire00/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  27. Cohen, F.; Liu, Z.; Ezgi, T. Virtual Reconstruction of Archeological Vessels Using Expert Priors and Intrinsic Differential Geometry Information. Comput. Graph. 2013, 37, 41–53.
  28. Chow, S.K.; Chan, K.L. Reconstruction of Photorealistic 3D Model of Ceramic Artefacts for Interactive Virtual Exhibition. J. Cult. Herit. 2009, 10, 161–173.
  29. Di Angelo, L.; Di Stefano, P.; Guardiani, E. A Review of Computer-Based Methods for Classification and Reconstruction of 3D High-Density Scanned Archaeological Pottery. J. Cult. Herit. 2022, 56, 10–24.
  30. Arapakopoulos, A.; Liaskos, O.; Mitsigkola, S.; Papatzanakis, G.; Peppa, S.; Remoundos, G.; Ginnis, A.; Papadopoulos, C.; Mazis, D.; Tsilikidis, O.; et al. 3D Reconstruction & Modeling of the Traditional Greek Trechadiri: “Aghia Varvara”. Heritage 2022, 5, 67.
  31. Mednikova, M.; Saprykina, I.; Kichanov, S.; Kozlenko, D. The Reconstruction of a Bronze Battle Axe and Comparison of Inflicted Damage Injuries Using Neutron Tomography, Manufacturing Modeling, and X-ray Microtomography Data. J. Imaging 2020, 6, 45.
  32. Gherardini, F.; Sirocchi, S. Systematic Integration of 2D and 3D Sources for the Virtual Reconstruction of Lost Heritage Artefacts: The Equestrian Monument of Francesco III d’Este (1774–1796, Modena, Italy). Herit. Sci. 2022, 10, 1–19.
  33. Fazio, L.; Lo Brutto, M.; Barsanti, S.G.; Malatesta, S.G. The Virtual Reconstruction of the Aesculapius and Hygeia Statues from the Sanctuary of Isis in Lilybaeum: Methods and Tools for Ancient Sculptures’ Enhancement. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3569.
  34. Pisani, S.; Miller, A.; Hall, M. Digitally Restoring Artefacts Using 3D Modelling Techniques for Immersive Learning Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN), Vienna, Austria, 30 May–4 June 2022; Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9815895 (accessed on 29 July 2022).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Radu Comes
,
Călin Gheorghe Dan Neamțu
,
Cătălin Grec
,
Zsolt Levente Buna
,
Cristian Găzdac
,
Liliana Mateescu-Suciu
View Times: 1.4K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 25 Aug 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback