Scientific rigour of online platforms for 3D visualization of heritage

Abstract

<p>3D visualisations –including 3D scans and 3D reconstructions–designed as part of larger archaeology, history or cultural heritage projects are commonly shared with the public through online platforms that were not necessarily designed to host heritage representations and often fail to contextualize them. This paper seeks to evaluate whether five online platforms commonly used today to share 3D visualisations of heritage (Google Arts & Culture, CyArk, 3DHOP, Sketchfab and game engines) offer features that facilitate their scientific rigour and community participation, based on guidelines from International Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS)and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO). The author starts by summarizing recommendations from 32 international guidelines that are relevant to the 3D visualization of heritage, condensing them into nine key criteria: multi-disciplinary teams, objective-driven methodology and tools, careful documentation, type of reconstruction and level of certainty, authenticity, alternative hypotheses, multiple historical periods, respectful use of the heritage, and community engagement. The author proceeds to review the platforms above comparing their features with these nine recommendations and concludes that, while there are currently available features that could help to elevate the scientific rigour of the 3D visualisations and their contextualization to the public, they are not mandatory and are seldom used. The paper finishes with a recommendation for an information package to support3D visualisations of heritage on public online platforms.</p><p><strong>Highlights:</strong></p><ul><li><p>Online platforms for the 3D visualization of heritage fail to disclose what type of reconstruction it is and its level of certainty, struggling to balance community engagement vs scientific rigour of their contents.</p></li><li><p>ICOMOS and UNESCO recommendations regarding heritage are loosely followed on the reviewed platforms, and supporting documentation is often lacking.</p></li><li><p>Scientific rigour on these platforms could be elevated with supporting textual fields to disclose further information about each visualisation.</p></li></ul>

Levantamiento arquitectónico y análisis arqueológico del castillo de Píñar como punto de partida para su conservación

“…Por este motivo, entendemos que este tipo de modelos debe ser uno de los requisitos mínimos exigidos por las administraciones para la gestión actual y futura de los bienes patrimoniales 3 . Existen además actualmente distintas plataformas web (3DHOP, Sketchfab) que permiten la subida y visualización de modelos 3D con alta calidad, lo que ofrece unas interesantes posibilidades de difusión no solo a nivel académico y técnico, sino también del público general (Scopigno, Callieri, Dellepiane, Ponchio, & Potenziani, 2017;Statham, 2019). Figura 28: Infografía de hipótesis de reconstrucción de las torres 1, 2,10 y 11 en diferentes materiales.…”

Making Virtual Archeology Great Again (Without Scientific Compromise)

“…The two main documents giving the primary guidelines for 3D visualization of heritage are the London Charter (Denard, 2009) and the Seville Principles (International Forum of Virtual Archaeology, 2011). There are also the more than 30 documents produced since 1931 by ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) and UNESCO that analyse the subject, including the physical heritage (see overview by Statham, 2019). The main concern is a misinterpretation of the information that might be conveyed to the public due to the visual realism, which might be mistaken for the historical truth (Statham, 2019).…”

“…There are also the more than 30 documents produced since 1931 by ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) and UNESCO that analyse the subject, including the physical heritage (see overview by Statham, 2019). The main concern is a misinterpretation of the information that might be conveyed to the public due to the visual realism, which might be mistaken for the historical truth (Statham, 2019). The digital archaeology methodology that we propose addresses those concerns and follows the recommendations to ensure scientific accuracy and transparency.…”

“…The digital archaeology methodology that we propose addresses those concerns and follows the recommendations to ensure scientific accuracy and transparency. We discuss the main five essential components, together with the concrete solution implemented in the Quebec intendant's palace case study, following the recommendations of Statham (2019): 1) Transparency: The final product needs to explicitly state the type of reconstruction and the level of certainty. Solution: In the main menu, the clear choice of visualization of a 3D reconstruction or Edition mode is given.…”

A Content-Based Immersive Experience of Basilica of Sant'ambrogio in Milan: From 3d Survey to Virtual Reality

“…This specific integration of devices, innovative methods and advanced technologies in the field of Digital Cultural Heritage (DCH) are well known as the Scan-to-BIM process (Brumana et al, 2018). Recent studies have shown how the intangible and tangible values of detected heritage artifact can be shared and transmitted to different professionals and users with high levels of detail (LOD) and contents (LOI), going beyond the simple 2D representation and the simple use of BIM objects and BIM libraries developed for new buildings (Ortega et al, 2015;Statham, 2019). Thanks to previous researches (Banfi et al, 2019;Stanga et al, 2017), the presented paper offers a new virtual environment, based on the use of 'informative models', that communicates the 'hidden' values collected during the last few years of one of the most important monuments in Milan: the Basilica of Sant'Ambrogio.…”