3D Reconstructions as Research Hubs: Geospatial Interfaces for Real-Time Data Exploration of Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam Domestic Interiors

Abstract

This paper presents our ongoing work in the Virtual Interiors project, which aims to develop 3D reconstructions as geospatial interfaces to structure and explore historical data of seventeenth-century Amsterdam. We take the reconstruction of the entrance hall of the house of the patrician Pieter de Graeff (1638–1707) as our case study and use it to illustrate the iterative process of knowledge creation, sharing, and discovery that unfolds while creating, exploring and experiencing the 3D models in a prototype research environment. During this work, an interdisciplinary dataset was collected, various metadata and paradata were created to document both the sources and the reasoning process, and rich contextual links were added. These data were used as the basis for creating a user interface for an online research environment, taking design principles and previous user studies into account. Knowledge is shared by visualizing the 3D reconstructions along with the related complexities and uncertainties, while the integration of various underlying data and Linked Data makes it possible to discover contextual knowledge by exploring associated resources. Moreover, we outline how users of the research environment can add annotations and rearrange objects in the scene, facilitating further knowledge discovery and creation.

Standardization of digitized heritage: a review of implementations of 3D in cultural heritage

“…There are a lot of digital services for hosting and visualizing 3D models, but they should not necessarily be all counted as fit for visualizing CH research. Some that are often mentioned in previous reports to possibly visualize 3D CH data are Sketchfab, 75 Hexagon, 76 Configure One, 77 Atlatl, 78 Soft8Soft, 79 3D Cloud Marxent, 80 Canva-sLogic, 81 Threekit, 82 ModelViewer, 83 p3d, 84 3DHop [88], PoTree, 85 Exhibit, 86 Mozilla, 87 SayDuck, 88 Kompakkt, 89 GB3D, 90 Universal Viewer, 91 Smithsonian Voyager, 92 ADS 3D Viewer, 93 and ATON Framework [89]. Note that some of these are designed for a specific project, and are therefore tailored-made for the project requirements.…”

“…Another online 3D viewing platform that is research based is Virtual Interiors. A partner program led by Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands, Virtual Interiors seeks to visualize interiors from the Dutch Golden Age based on historical data, which can then further be used in culture development and creative productions [92]. Developed with BabylonJS JavaScript framework, the project seeks create a platform for reading and visualizing Big Data on the web.…”

10 anos de LARP: trajetórias e perspectivas

“…According to , the (re)construction process is a form of scholarly discovery, much like traditional written scholarship in that both approaches "asks scholars to collect and weight primary and secondary sources and to build a visual and/or spatial argument that interprets the past" (p. 303-304). In addition to this, the (re)construction process is a way to return to and reconsider legacy data from a new perspective as well as inspiring the search for missing elements brought to light by the (re)construction process (Favro, 2012;Huurdeman;Piccoli, 2021). It is therefore an "abstract of information" in the sense that it acts as an aggregation and representation of data that also creates new knowledge (Sullivan & Snyder, 2017, p. 468).…”

Digital Cultural Items in Space: The Impact of Contextual Information on Presenting Digital Cultural Items

“…Understanding the experiences of visitors engaging with DCIs has formed the backbone of much of the work in digital cultural heritage. Efforts have been made to present complex historical narratives [44], to understand immersive technologies such as augmented and virtual reality [38] [48] [24] and explore how we can use DCIs to form better visitor experiences [28][56] [2]. And yet, the focus of efforts within digital cultural heritage research has been challenged, in a phenomenon that some scholars refer to as, 'the gap', representing the disconnect between research efforts and the every day needs of the cultural heritage practitioner [13].…”