3d Cameras Acquisitions for the Documentation of Cultural Heritage

Abstract

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Photography has always been considered as a valid tool to acquire information about reality. Nowadays, its versatility, together with the development of new techniques and technologies, allows to use it in different fields of application. Particularly, in the digitization of built heritage, photography not only enables to understand and document historical and architectural artifacts but also to acquire morphological and geometrical data about them with automated digital photogrammetry. Nowadays, photogrammetry enables many tools to give virtual casts of reality by showing it in the way of point cloud. Although they can have metric reliability and visual quality, traditional instruments – such as monoscopic cameras – involve a careful planning of the campaign phase and a long acquisition and processing time. On the contrary, the most recent ones, based on the integration of different sensors and cameras, try to reduce the gap between time and results. The latter include some systems of indoor mapping who, thanks to 360° acquisitions and SLAM technology, reconstruct the original scene in real time in great detail and with a photorealistic rendering. This study is aimed at reporting a research evaluating metric reliability and the level of survey detail with a Matterport Pro2 3D motorized rotating camera, equipped with SLAM technology, whose results have been compared with point clouds obtained by image-based and range-based processes.</p>

Capability of Matterport 3d Camera for Industrial Archaeology Sites Inventory

“…1) and its parameters (Matterport, 2019b). As it pointed out in (Pulcrano, et al, 2019), the basic principle of the system is SLAM technology (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping). The system uses a structured light (infrared) 3D sensor with capture time equals to 20 seconds per scan.…”

“…A typical field of view equals to 360° (horizontal) x 300° (vertical). A more detailed description a reader can find in (Lehtola, et al 2017, Gärdin, et al 2018, Pulcrano, et al, 2019.…”

“…The Matterport data quality question was considered in (Lehtola, et al 2017, Gärdin, et al 2018, Pulcrano, et al, 2019. The first one discusses a comparison of different indoor modeling systems, among them Matterport.…”

“…Anyway, authors declare Matterport accuracy in a range of 0.3-3% versus TLS data. In (Pulcrano, et al, 2019) authors used ICP algorithm to compare TLS and close-range photogrammetry point cloud with Matterport data. It is clear that these data have different structure and density, which in turn can lead to some problems with clouds orientation.…”

A Comparison of Low-Cost Sensor Systems in Automatic Cloud-Based Indoor 3D Modeling

“…Terrestrial laser scanners (TLSs) provide dense and accurate geometric information, though they are expensive [6], require the careful planning of scan locations, and can be time-consuming to use [7]. In recent years, an increasing number of low-cost sensor systems for 3D modeling using different operating systems have entered the market [8,9]. Easy-to-use laser scanners for projects with moderate requirements for accuracy are available, including the Leica BLK360 [3].…”