In the survey field, both in the architectural and archaeological environment, research carried out over the last few years has focused on testing survey and processing procedures, called 3D survey procedures, i.e. a method aimed at converting a monument into a georeferenced, measurable and textured 3D object (point cloud or triangulate mesh). In order to achieve it, range based and image based methodologies, combined and detailed through the traditional survey, are commonly used. These methodologies are, currently, comparable to each other, with more and more marked characteristics, in terms of correspondence to the measured object, of measurement accuracy, and in terms of quantity of information. This model, in the survey and data capture specific phase (measurement phase), both in the architectural and archaeological field, has some homogeneous characteristics: conservation of three-dimensional and spatial positioning information, the possibility of obtaining measurements in each phase of the process, detection of distinct elements, through data organization and segmentation. In this phase, therefore, the different procedures converge, essentially, towards a 3D model, with substantially similar characteristics. In the processing and graphic elaboration phase (interpretation phase), instead, analysis methodologies applied to architectural elements or to archaeological sites change considerably, having remarkable divergences, which are such as to justify the comparison architectural 3D survey vs archaeological 3D survey. This is due to the fact that, in the architectural field, restitution has to satisfy, first of all, the requirement of recognizability of represented elements, acquired through the use of expert systems based on geometric knowledge, interpretation and construction; in the archaeological field, the first required datum is the understanding of a fragment historical dating in addition to the repositioning of an element in its original position/location. Ourstudy, first of all, supports the interpretation phase, developing specific systems able to simplify processes and improve graphic products.

Canciani, M., Falcolini, C., Spadafora, G., Saccone, M. (2013). The architectural 3d survey vs archaeological 3d survey, 1.

The architectural 3d survey vs archaeological 3d survey

CANCIANI, Marco;FALCOLINI, Corrado;SPADAFORA, GIOVANNA;SACCONE, MAURO
2013

Abstract

In the survey field, both in the architectural and archaeological environment, research carried out over the last few years has focused on testing survey and processing procedures, called 3D survey procedures, i.e. a method aimed at converting a monument into a georeferenced, measurable and textured 3D object (point cloud or triangulate mesh). In order to achieve it, range based and image based methodologies, combined and detailed through the traditional survey, are commonly used. These methodologies are, currently, comparable to each other, with more and more marked characteristics, in terms of correspondence to the measured object, of measurement accuracy, and in terms of quantity of information. This model, in the survey and data capture specific phase (measurement phase), both in the architectural and archaeological field, has some homogeneous characteristics: conservation of three-dimensional and spatial positioning information, the possibility of obtaining measurements in each phase of the process, detection of distinct elements, through data organization and segmentation. In this phase, therefore, the different procedures converge, essentially, towards a 3D model, with substantially similar characteristics. In the processing and graphic elaboration phase (interpretation phase), instead, analysis methodologies applied to architectural elements or to archaeological sites change considerably, having remarkable divergences, which are such as to justify the comparison architectural 3D survey vs archaeological 3D survey. This is due to the fact that, in the architectural field, restitution has to satisfy, first of all, the requirement of recognizability of represented elements, acquired through the use of expert systems based on geometric knowledge, interpretation and construction; in the archaeological field, the first required datum is the understanding of a fragment historical dating in addition to the repositioning of an element in its original position/location. Ourstudy, first of all, supports the interpretation phase, developing specific systems able to simplify processes and improve graphic products.
978-1-4799-3169-9
Canciani, M., Falcolini, C., Spadafora, G., Saccone, M. (2013). The architectural 3d survey vs archaeological 3d survey, 1.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11590/175710
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact