Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
3D modelling of archaeological small finds by the structure sensor range camera: comparison of different scanning applications
DICEA Univ Rome La Sapienza, Geodesy & Geomat Div, Rome, Italy..
DICEA Univ Rome La Sapienza, Geodesy & Geomat Div, Rome, Italy..
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Urban Planning and Environment, Geoinformatics. DICEA Univ Rome La Sapienza, Geodesy & Geomat Div, Rome, Italy..
DICEA Univ Rome La Sapienza, Geodesy & Geomat Div, Rome, Italy..
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: APPLIED GEOMATICS, ISSN 1866-9298, Vol. 10, no 4, p. 399-413Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Today, range cameras represent a cheap, intuitive and effective technology for collecting the 3D geometry of objects and environments automatically and practically in real time. Such features can make these sensors a valuable tool for documenting archaeological small finds, especially when not expert users are involved. Therefore, in this work, Scanner and itSeez3D, two of the most promising scanning applications actually available for the Structure Sensor, a range camera specifically designed for mobile devices, were tested in order to evaluate their accuracy in modelling the 3D geometry of two archaeological artefacts, characterized by different shape and dimensions. The 3D models obtained through the two scanning applications were thus compared with the reference ones generated with the more accurate photogrammetric technique. The results demonstrate that both the applications show the same level of geometric accuracy, which amounts generally to very few millimetres, from an overall point of view, and, at the same time, they substantially point out the good quality of the Structure Sensor 3D reconstruction technology. In particular, the itSeez3D application is surely the best solution for the color restitution, even if it requires a payment of $7 to export and thus to use effectively each model generated. On the other side, Scanner is a free application and its geometric accuracy is comparable to that of itSeez3D, but, however, the colours are frequently smoothed and sometimes not fully rendered.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SPRINGER HEIDELBERG , 2018. Vol. 10, no 4, p. 399-413
Keywords [en]
Range camera, Occipital structure sensor(TM), 3D modelling, Software comparison, Small finds
National Category
Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-239750DOI: 10.1007/s12518-018-0215-5ISI: 000449933600009Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85056353764OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-239750DiVA, id: diva2:1277442
Note

QC 20190110

Available from: 2019-01-10 Created: 2019-01-10 Last updated: 2019-01-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Nascetti, Andrea

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nascetti, Andrea
By organisation
Geoinformatics
Geosciences, Multidisciplinary

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 48 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf