Acquisition Evaluation on Outdoor Scanning for Archaeological Artifact

Digitalization

Aufaclav Zatu Kusuma Frisky

12 a

, Adieyatna Fajri

, Simon Brenner

and Robert Sablatnig

1 b

Computer Vision Lab, Institute of Visual Computing and Human-Centered Technology, Faculty of Informatics, TU Wien,

Wien, Austria

Department of Computer Science and Electronics, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Department of Archaeology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Keywords:

3D Acquisition, Cultural Heritage, 3D Reconstruction, 3D Comparison, Outdoor Scanning.

Abstract:

Archaeological archives are important assets because they provide primary information resources for research,

mainly digital archives that not degraded. Instead of directly visiting a site, an archaeologist can examine and

manipulate the data without harming the real object. However, choosing an efﬁcient scanning scheme with

detailed results is a challenging task. In this work, we present new sculpture models obtained in three different

ways and assess it in two comparison approaches: A quantitative and qualitative assessment. The quantitative

comparison architecture provides a detailed assessment of three different scanning mechanisms in two stages:

point cloud and mesh comparison. This evaluation is purposed to describe the differences between unmodiﬁed

data. Finally, a qualitative evaluation is performed by an expert and practitioner to explain the difference based

on four different produced models to help their needs in the real application.

1 INTRODUCTION

Archaeological archives should represent a real con-

dition of the artifact, and it is a researchable resource

generated by archaeological investigations. These

archives are also the primary source of information

to understanding any interpretations of published re-

sults. Furthermore, the data collection related to the

records of all archaeological remains must be updated

periodically(CIFA, 2014). Instead of a direct visit

to sites, an archaeologist can examine the digital in-

frastructure from the data and manipulate it without

harming the real object. However, the reconstruc-

tion becomes challenging due to environmental con-

ditions, especially for artifacts located in an outdoor

environment.

In the indoor environment, the lighting condition

can be controlled to meet particular requirements. In

the Michelangelo project (Levoy et al., 2000), the

lighting from various directions around the statue is

in the ﬁxed distance. These setups are possible be-

cause the indoor environment usually is reachable and

can be manipulated based on the requirement. On

the other hand, several outdoor scanning approaches

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7512-2043

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4195-1593

have been created to solve the reconstruction prob-

lem, such as Photogrammetry (Boehler and Marbs,

2004), Structured Light (Georgopoulos et al., 2010),

and low-cost scanner (Gonzalez et al., 2013). How-

ever, these works are only focused on their speciﬁc

problems.

Figure 1: Sculpture object.

We made a detailed comparison on point clouds,

geometry, and completeness to understand the differ-

ence between the processes. Hence, several results

792

Frisky, A., Fajri, A., Brenner, S. and Sablatnig, R.

Acquisition Evaluation on Outdoor Scanning for Archaeological Artifact Digitalization.

DOI: 10.5220/0008964907920799

In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2020) - Volume 5: VISAPP, pages

792-799

ISBN: 978-989-758-402-2; ISSN: 2184-4321

from four different methods without any modiﬁca-

tions (such as noise reduction, smoother, and hole

ﬁlling) are used to keep their originality. The con-

tribution of this paper is two-fold: First, a scan-

ning of Indonesian sculptures in an outdoor environ-

ment that can be used by other archaeologists or sci-

entists to study Indonesian culture to acknowledge

the complexity of Indonesian sculptures. Second, a

comparison of various ways of reconstruction, i.e.,

Photogrammetry, ASUS XTION, AICON Primescan

Structural light scanner, and Single Image Recon-

struction (SIR) to investigate the characteristics of the

surface results in outdoor sculptures. In the ﬁnal part,

these results are given to an Indonesian archaeologist

and qualitatively assessed based on the requirement

on the real application.

2 RELATED WORKS

With the increasing demand for 3D spatial infor-

mation in cultural heritage documentation, the tech-

niques of obtaining it have been increasingly impor-

tant. In particular, a point clouds with high accuracy

and density are demanded to describe the detail infor-

mation of object components (Lee et al., 2015). Many

different devices have been used to build 3D models,

with each system coming with its limitations, advan-

tages, and costs. It should be noted that many restric-

tions are due to the properties of the various objects

that are to be digitized. Between all the available sen-

sors, methods, and platforms, the most suitable ones

based on expert requirements should be chosen care-

fully(Remondino and Rizzi, 2010).

Figure 2: The outdoor scanning process of Structured Light

Scanner to capture the sculpture.

In cultural heritage preservation, Photogramme-

try and laser scanning have long played an essen-

tial role in archaeological research (Remondino and

Rizzi, 2010). Photogrammetry, i.e., extracting infor-

mation from a series of images, has long been used

to record, measure, and model archaeological struc-

tures of different-size artifacts. An alternative to the

most known and market-dominating laser scanners

is Structured Light (Georgopoulos et al., 2010). A

Structured Light 3D scanner projects a pattern of light

on the object and detects the deformation of the pat-

tern on it. The scanners are non-contact optical sys-

tems, similar to Photogrammetry; they transform im-

age pairs to surface information. The main advan-

tage of using this scanner is the faster speed com-

pared to a typical laser scanner (Georgopoulos et al.,

2010). However, a problem arises when the location

of the sculpture is in an area that lacks electricity and

unobstructed sunlight. Direct sunlight intensity has

2-5 orders of magnitude brighter than the projected

structured light (Gupta et al., 2013), and it makes

a distortion on the result. Therefore, the structured

light method is rarely used for outdoor scanning. In

Gupta’s works (Gupta et al., 2013), they show that

the reconstruction quality of an object placed out-

doors degrades under intense ambient illumination,

even when spectral ﬁltering is used. However, the

content of the artifact can still be seen, including the

engraving reliefs in the objects. Based on this evi-

dence, we include the Structured light method into

one of our compared methods. On the other hand,

a new approach called Single Image Reconstruction

(SIR) recovering the geometric information from a

single photograph or synthetic image. This method

tried to infer the 3D shape of complex objects, given

from one picture. Recent work in cultural heritage

application, Pan et al. (Pan et al., 2018) uses Deep

Learning to predict the depths in the relief images

from Borobudur temple. However, the real problem

with SIR in full 3D reconstruction remains the same,

as it is shown from the one perspective.

3 DATA PREPARATION

Firstly, we investigate 3D data obtained from several

scanning processes. This process is divided into two

parts, which are quantitative and qualitative evalua-

tions. Quantitative evaluation measures unprocessed

data by ﬁnding the distance and differences. On the

other hand, qualitative evaluation measures the effec-

tiveness of the results on user experience. The qual-

itative and quantitative evaluation is described in the

next subsection.

Acquisition Evaluation on Outdoor Scanning for Archaeological Artifact Digitalization

793

Full Point

Comparison

Density

Photogrammetry

Comparison

POINT CLOUD

COMPARISON

Slice Depth

Distance

Full mesh

Comparison

Direct View

Mean Angular

Difference

MESH

COMPARISON

ALIGNMENT

Structured Light Scanner

Photogrammetry

Low-Cost Scanner

Hausdorff

Distance

Figure 3: Quantitative Evaluation scheme.

3.1 Quantitative Evaluation

The sculpture scanned in this paper is an Indonesian

Sculpture replica of Prajnaparamita Sculpture made

from Candi Stone and located in the outdoor envi-

ronment (see Figure 1). Candi stone, also known as

Black Lava Stone, is a type of black basalt quarried

in Indonesia. The scanning is done under direct sun-

light, without a cloud, between 50.000 and 100.000

lux in illuminance. The four different processes used

the following conﬁguration:

• Structured Light Scanner. The scanner used is

AICON Primescan with 2 x 8 Megapixel cam-

era resolution, 28 Megapixel projection resolu-

tion, and a ﬁxed 50 mm ﬁeld of view. The distance

between the object and the scanner is one meter,

but the angle is variance. The whole process con-

sisted of forty times of scanning from different an-

gles (see Figure 2). After that, these chunks of

scans are manually registered to obtain the com-

plete point cloud of the statue.

• Photogrammetry. In this method, 48 RGB pic-

tures with 3.024 x 4.032 resolution are taken from

iPhone 7, covering all the sides of the statue. The

pictures are taken randomly from different angles,

yet still covering all areas of the statue (Figure

4). The photogrammetry process is performed us-

ing Agisoft using a high-density option. In qual-

itative evaluation, we used three different reso-

lutions, i.e., 1.280 x 720 (720p), 1.920 x 1.080

(1080p), and 3.024 x 4.032 (4K).

Figure 4: Photogrammetry setup of 48 images.

• Low-Cost Scanner. The low-cost scanner used in

this paper is ASUS XTION Primesense. Based

on Gonzalez’s (Gonzalez et al., 2013) accuracy

test, to get a 15mm accuracy, the distance be-

tween the scanning device and the object should

be maintained in one meter. In this work, we

follow the conﬁguration on Gonzalez work, start-

ing from one meter using freehand scanning. The

process tried to capture a whole sculpture while

maintaining the distance. The scanning process is

performed in the Skanect application.

VISAPP 2020 - 15th International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications

794

• Single Image Reconstruction. Single Image Re-

construction (SIR) approach used in this paper

is a method in Pan et al.’s (Pan et al., 2018)

with input 720p from frontal image data. Next, a

pre-trained model from Eigen work (Eigen et al.,

2014) is used to obtain the depth and point clouds.

The number of the point cloud is the same num-

ber with a number of pixels in the depth image.

Furthermore, the stochastic point-based rendering

method is used to reconstructed point clouds to

obtain the 3D model.

To be able to compare 3D models, the aligning

process is needed. One of the most common ways to

align 3D data onto one another is the Iterative Clos-

est Point (ICP) algorithm by Besl and McKay in (Besl

and McKay, 1992). This method minimizes the dif-

ference between two-point clouds by decreasing dis-

tances between them in every iteration. ICP algorithm

is a widely popular solution and has been improved

several times. The algorithm keeps iterating until it

ﬁnds the minimum Mean Square Difference (MSD)

while we ﬁxed the iterative count parameter steadily

at 100.

After the point clouds are aligned, it converted

into a mesh using Poisson Reconstruction (Kazhdan

et al., 2006). Poisson reconstruction is chosen be-

cause of the detailed result by combining the bene-

ﬁts of both global and local ﬁtting schemes. The pur-

pose of this conversion is to investigate the surface

produced from point cloud by each method. Since

this part of the work is focusing on investigating the

surface alone, the comparison is only made to the

scanned surface, ignoring the hole. There are three

methods used in this paper to evaluate the quality of

the surface: Visual, Depth Distance, and Mean Angu-

lar Difference. Different parts of the statue give dif-

ferent errors and complexity. Therefore, in order to

achieve a fair comparison, the sculpture is sliced into

eleven smaller pieces (see Figure 5), and the differ-

ences between each part are investigated separately.

Different level of depth is a problem, especially

when comparing the 3D models from different scan-

ning processes. To overcome that problem, In Figure

6, it can be seen that a ground plane is used as a basis

for zero values depth, where the camera direction is

orthogonal from the surface of this plane. Based on

the visual result, it is decided to use a structured light

mesh model to ﬁnd the plane, and the other meshes

(Photogrammetry and Low-cost scanner) are aligned

to this chosen one. This plane is obtained by perform-

ing RANSAC shape ﬁnder from (Yang and F

orstner,

2010). After all meshes are aligned, then the depth

value is measured. Using this obtained depth value,

we obtained the surface normal by calculating the nor-

Figure 5: Slice conﬁguration. The orange line is the border

of a slice, thin box in the right and left means it is the right

and left side of the mesh.

mal using the basis plane. Afterward, based on Acker-

mann and Goesele’s work,(Ackermann and Goesele,

2015), the Mean Angular Difference (MAD) is calcu-

lated by ﬁnding the mean difference value. In the next

section, a result comparison of three different meshes,

i.e. Structured Light Scanner (SLS), Photogramme-

try(PH), and Low-cost Scanner(LC) are presented.

Figure 6: Left image: Mesh with with basis plane (rectan-

gle) from RANSAC shape detector, Right image: Aligned

mesh.

3.2 Qualitative Evaluation

In this section, the qualitative measure shows the dif-

ference of quality impact on archaeologist’s works.

Two parts of the evaluation process are conducted,

which are the reconstruction process and result. Both

the reconstruction process and the mesh model of six

different results are randomly given to ten archaeolo-

gists and conduct a direct interview to assess it. The

ﬁnal result of this assessment is adaptability, ﬂexibil-

ity, efﬁciency, and post-processing. From these ex-

Acquisition Evaluation on Outdoor Scanning for Archaeological Artifact Digitalization

795

aminers, ﬁve of them are an expert, and the others

are practitioner and student. The expert consisted of

lecturers at universities who deepened their knowl-

edge about Indonesian artifacts and experts from In-

donesian artifact observation centers. Also, the prac-

titioner is ﬁeld staff from the observation center and

master students from the archaeologist department.

4 RESULTS

Based on Figure 3, the comparison step mainly con-

sists of two parts: point clouds and mesh comparison.

The point clouds comparison process mainly used the

full, unprocessed point cloud and compared the re-

sults between them. There are four steps included in

point cloud comparison, i.e., full point cloud compari-

son, direct view, two-pair Photogrammetry, and Haus-

dorff distance. In mesh comparison, there are two

parts of the process, full and slices comparison. The

full-size part, there is a direct full mesh comparison

using a direct view, slices direct view, slice depth dis-

tance, and mean angular difference. In the next sec-

tion, all the results in each process is explained more

detail.

4.1 Point Cloud Comparison

In our ﬁrst investigation, we determine how well the

Photogrammetry worked, including the minimum re-

quirements for the photogrammetry algorithm. The

data consists of 48 images, and neighboring pairs of

images are created. We perform Photogrammetry on

these pairs to obtaining the points clouds. From 48

images, we created eight neighboring image pairs and

an 8-point cloud to be compared with structured light

mesh and low-cost scanner results. The numbers in

each pair name are the image numbers; for exam-

ple, pair1-2 refers to the pairing of images 1 and 2.

In this experiment, pair1-2 and pair3-4 are used for

the bottom-left side of the statue, pair3-4 is used for

the upper-left side, pair14-15 and pair15-16 are used

to check the bottom-front side, pair17-18 is used to

check the upper-front side, pair33-34 is used to check

the bottom-right side, and pair34-35 is used to check

the upper-right side. In other words, two models are

in close proximity by hand, then registered using ICP.

Finally, all 48 images are aligned and compared with

structured light and low-cost mesh. It can be seen

in Table 1, that pair15-16 gives the highest Mean

Squared Difference(MSD) and variance rather than

the other. It can be concluded that the comparison

at the top front part of the statue performs worse and

more complicated surface than the other part.

Table 1: MSD two-pair point cloud of photogrammetry

compared with SLS and LC in millimeter.

Conﬁg. PH vs SLS PH vs LC Variance

Model (a) (b) (a) k (b)

pair1-2 42.23 35.34 5.25k4.32

pair2-3 41.54 33.65 4.32k5.25

pair3-4 40.34 35.45 4.45k6.23

pair14-15 45.88 38.32 18.1k8.45

pair15-16 52.56 44.78 15.5k12.4

pair17-18 44.50 39.67 19.4k11.5

pair33-34 42.30 34.85 4.37k5.68

pair34-35 41.68 33.87 6.61k3.46

Max. Dist. 68.76 51.48 -

Average 43.88 36.99 -

Next, We perform Hausdorff distance comparison

to determine the distance between point clouds. Ta-

ble 2 shows the Hausdorff distance and MSD between

three full sculpture point clouds. Based on this result,

the distance between ST and LC is higher than the

other. It proves that the gap between this performance

is quite low compared with others. Another factor

is because both methods directly scan the object; the

noise produces in both processes is minimum. On the

other hand, PH, have a noise from the background,

which is not included in the other approaches. Be-

cause of that, it can be seen that both results in two

comparison processes with PH is higher than SLS vs.

LC.

Table 2: Comparison results of Hausdorff Distance (H) and

MSD in full point cloud against Structured Light Scanner

(SLS) in millimeter.

Conﬁguration SLS vs. LC SLS vs. PH

Full(H) 4.88 28.7

Full(MSD) 2.41 16.0

Variance (MSD) 0.32 6.85

Max. Dist. (MSD) 2.71 18.3

In density comparison, two sets of point clouds

have a close Hausdorff distance if every point of each

set is proximate to the other set. Differences in den-

sity are depicted in Figure 7, where the structured

light shows the highest density compared to the other

two. On the other hand, because of the usage of

background in the image, the Photogrammetry’s point

clouds is sparser than other results.

4.2 Mesh Comparison

In this section, fully connected point clouds, called

meshes, are used for comparison. Connecting point

clouds using Poisson Reconstruction created these

VISAPP 2020 - 15th International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications

796

Figure 7: Point cloud density comparison. Red is Pho-

togrametry, Green is Low-cost scanner, and Yellow is Struc-

tured light scanner.

meshes. The result of surface reconstruction can be

seen in Figure 8. Structured light gives the highest

level of detail, followed by Photogrammetry with 4k

resolution and low-cost scanner.

Figure 8: Direct view comparison of three different mesh.

Left: low-cost scanner, middle: photogrammetry, right:

structured light.

In the next experiment, to know the distance be-

tween the two depth images, Euclidean Distance is

used to measure the performance. As shown in Table

2, Slice 5 has a higher value than average in all dis-

tance comparisons. However, some have more differ-

ence values than others because of the different levels

of difﬁculty in reconstructing each part of the statue.

The geometrical quality of the mesh can change the

DD and MAD results. It is proved that different parts

can produce different performance results based on

how detailed the meshes are.

4.3 Qualitative Result

In this section, all the processes are evaluated based

on two parts. First is the effectiveness of the scan-

ning process, and the second is the quality of the re-

sults. For the effectiveness, we implement a param-

eter for the adaptability, ﬂexibility, time efﬁciency

(Georgopoulos and Stathopoulou, 2017), in the as-

sessment. For the result, examiners are invited to ﬁll

the evaluation. The variation engraved in the sculp-

ture surface itself plays a signiﬁcant role for the ar-

Table 3: Results of Depth Distance (DD) using Euclidean

Distance and Mean Angular Difference (MAD) from three

different comparisons : SLS , PH, and LC using eleven

slices (in mm).

Conﬁguration ST vs. LC ST vs. PH

Slice1 (DD) 215.66 266.34

Slice2 (DD) 273.32 417.50

Slice3 (DD) 326.59 398.09

Slice4 (DD) 309.37 399.09

Slice5 (DD) 339.75 435.78

Slice6 (DD) 274.37 283.49

Slice7 (DD) 202.09 273.68

Slice8 (DD) 220.56 621.74

Slice9 (DD) 194.29 304.04

Slice10 (DD) 201.43 319.68

Slice11 (DD) 295.71 352.04

Slice1(MAD) 29.57 12.43

Slice2(MAD) 27.34 10.71

Slice3(MAD) 30.79 10.77

Slice4(MAD) 45.92 19.36

Slice5(MAD) 24.96 9.56

Slice6(MAD) 22.33 9.51

Slice7(MAD) 22.13 8.76

Slice8(MAD) 24.36 9.91

Slice9(MAD) 23.84 10.65

Slice10(MAD) 23.30 10.71

Slice11(MAD) 28.24 13.92

Variance(MAD) 2.35 4.32

Max. Dist.(MAD) 29.54 13.43

chaeologist to understand the content in a 3D surface

engraved in the sculpture. Especially in Indonesian

sculpture, the usage of speciﬁc parts, i. e. crown,

necklace, and other accessories can determine the

story or even the construction time of the reliefs. On

the Barcelo work (Barcel

o, 2014), to understand the

surface characteristic, several parameters need to be

seen in the surface model, i.e., roughness, shape, and

waviness.

Overall, based on Table 4, the Photogrammetry

gives enough adaptability, ﬂexibility to be established

in an outdoor area. The problem in using Photogram-

metry is the homogeneous object with minimum vari-

ation in color and shape. Based on the obtained

model, the photogrammetry result has all the major

components, such as the body, hand, crown, and neck-

lace. Based on that, the style of the sculpture can

be determined. Furthermore, the main shape of the

accessories, the action of the sculpture, can be seen

clearly. The relief detail on the surface cannot be used

to determine the material due to the lack of roughness,

but the waviness can is depicted on the surface. Based

on that observation, it is best to use Photogrammetry

on outdoor artifact at noontime based on the adapt-

Acquisition Evaluation on Outdoor Scanning for Archaeological Artifact Digitalization

797

Table 4: Qualitative Evaluation. Higher Xmeans is better choice ( Adaptability, Flexibility, Efﬁciency, and Post-processing)

and easy to determine the main feature of the object( Main parts and Relief detail).

Scanning method Adaptability Flexibility Efﬁciency Post-Processing Main parts Relief detail

PH(720p) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX

PH (1080p) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX

PH (4k) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXXX

SL X X XX XX XXXXX XXXXX

LS XXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XX

SIR XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX - XX XX

ability, ﬂexibility, and efﬁciency results. Also, it can

be seen that a higher resolution on the input gives bet-

ter performance on detail reconstruction.

On the other hand, Structured Light Scanner lacks

adaptability, ﬂexibility, and efﬁciency. Based on

Georgopoulos’s review, (Georgopoulos et al., 2010),

they show the difﬁculties to set up the laser scanner

because of the need of AC electricity, the ﬂexibility

is limited by the power source and cable length. This

scanner is also sensitive to light. Because of that, po-

sitioning from the object, and the direction of scan

taking are very much considered. There are 40 scans

done in the sculpture, and after that, manual register-

ing is needed to complete the model. Contrary to the

scanning process, which is rather complicated, the re-

sult of SLS gives promising detail in the surface mod-

els. The surface has the roughness from the mate-

rial and the waviness of the depth. This method is ﬁt

to be used in the adequate size of an artifact with a

power source nearby. This scanning process is also

proven to be used in an outdoor environment at noon-

time with excellent results. The third acquisition pro-

cess is a low-cost scanning. Different from SLS, the

ASUS XTION scanner requires power from the USB

port directly from the computer. The process of scan-

ning is almost real-time and gives output directly. Be-

cause of the portability, this scanner is easy to use

in the outdoor environment. Regarding the results, it

lacks the roughness, and waviness makes the detail on

the crown and necklace cannot be examined. In this

quality level, based on (Zatzarinni et al., 2009), (Tal,

2014), also with an observation on the model from

the examiner, this quality can be used as a base sur-

face besides of textured 2D images to understand the

surface detail. The last reconstruction method is SIR

applied from (Eigen et al., 2014). The input is sliced

into a 304x228 resolution patch and trained using reg-

istered image and depth from one perspective. Based

on the examiner, the adaptability and ﬂexibility using

this method are better than any other methods. Sim-

ilar to the Low-Cost Scanner result, the depth infor-

mation obtained from SIR can help to determine the

shape and pose. The major drawback of using SIR is

created from one perspective. Hence, this approach is

the best to be used for 2.5D plane artifacts, such as

relief in-wall.

5 CONCLUSION

A comparison of scanning models using three dif-

ferent acquisition methods for quantitative evalua-

tion and four methods for qualitative evaluation is

presented. In this paper, the acquisition process,

efﬁciency, and the perspective from the user per-

spective are assesed. Firstly, quantitative measure-

ment is conducted. Two sub-architectures are es-

tablished to know the differences in point cloud ob-

tained and mesh model. However, most data prepara-

tion are needed to be completed using a manual ap-

proach. Moreover, after the data are collected, the

post-processing of structured light registration is done

by the human hand. After the data are ready, they

are compared to know the quality of the result be-

tween three different scanning processes. Using these

results of the comparison, archaeologists can under-

stand differences in performance and use this as the

basis for choosing the best method. On the other

acquisition, Photogrammetry gives an excellent per-

formance; however, much noise is produced through

the process. It is because the background is not re-

moved. It is also possible that the shape complexity

and the position where the data is taken can disrupt

the scanning process. Because of that, it makes the

preparation must be prepared carefully. Based on our

investigation, this problem can be solved by taking

close-range Photogrammetry. In the third approach,

the result of a low-cost scanner is presented. Over-

all, these results give the best efﬁciency, and it can be

used to reconstruct 2.5D models. This reconstruction

can be used on Indonesian sculpture, relief, and tem-

ple since all of them have similar shape properties.

What makes it different between them is the number

of scans or data used to create the models.

VISAPP 2020 - 15th International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications

798

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work is funded by a collaboration scheme be-

tween the Ministry of Research and Technology of

the Republic of Indonesia and OeAD-GmbH within

the Indonesian-Austrian Scholarship Program (IASP)

and Computer Vision Lab, TU Wien. Thank you to

Embassy of Republic Indonesia in Vienna for permis-

sion to scan the sculpture.

REFERENCES

Ackermann, J. and Goesele, M. (2015). A survey of pho-

tometric stereo techniques. Found. Trends. Comput.

Graph. Vis., 9(3-4):149–254.

Barcel

o, J. (2014). 3d modelling and shape analysis in ar-

chaeology. 3D Recording and Modelling in Archae-

ology and Cultural Heritage - Theory and Best Prac-

tices, pages 15–23.

Besl, P. J. and McKay, N. D. (1992). A method for regis-

tration of 3-d shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern

Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(2):239–256.

Boehler, W. and Marbs, A. (2004). 3d scanning and pho-

togrammetry for heritage recording: A comparison.

Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Geoinformatics, pages 291–

298.

CIFA (2014). Standard and guidance for the creation,

compilation, transfer and deposition of archaeological

archives.

Eigen, D., Puhrsch, C., and Fergus, R. (2014). Depth

map prediction from a single image using a multi-

scale deep network. In Ghahramani, Z., Welling, M.,

Cortes, C., Lawrence, N. D., and Weinberger, K. Q.,

editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing

Systems 27, pages 2366–2374. Curran Associates, Inc.

Georgopoulos, A., Ioannidis, C., and Valanis, A. (2010).

Assessing the performance of a structured light scan-

ner. International Archives of Photogrammetry,

Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,

XXXVIII:250–255.

Georgopoulos, A. and Stathopoulou, E. K. (2017). Data

Acquisition for 3D Geometric Recording: State of the

Art and Recent Innovations, pages 1–26. Springer In-

ternational Publishing, Cham.

Gonzalez, H., Riveiro, B., Vazquez-Fernandez, E.,

Mart

ınez-S

anchez, J., and Arias, P. (2013). Metro-

logical evaluation of microsoft kinect and asus xtion

sensors. Measurement, 46:1800–1806.

Gupta, M., Yin, Q., and Nayar, S. K. (2013). Structured

light in sunlight. 2013 IEEE International Conference

on Computer Vision, pages 545–552.

Kazhdan, M., Bolitho, M., and Hoppe, H. (2006). Poisson

surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Fourth

Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing,

SGP ’06, pages 61–70, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland,

Switzerland. Eurographics Association.

Lee, J., Hong, S., Cho, H., Park, I., Cho, H., and Sohn,

H.-G. (2015). Accuracy comparison between image-

based 3d reconstruction technique and terrestrial lidar

for as-built bim of outdoor structures. Journal of the

Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogramme-

try and Cartography, 33:557–567.

Levoy, M., Pulli, K., Curless, B., Rusinkiewicz, S., Koller,

D., Pereira, L., Ginzton, M., Anderson, S., Davis, J.,

Ginsberg, J., Shade, J., and Fulk, D. (2000). The Dig-

ital Michelangelo Project: 3D scanning of large stat-

ues. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2000, pages

131–144.

Pan, J., Li, L., Yamaguchi, H., Hasegawa, K., Thufail, F. I.,

Mantara, B., and Tanaka, S. (2018). 3D Reconstruc-

tion and Transparent Visualization of Indonesian Cul-

tural Heritage from a Single Image. In Sablatnig, R.

and Wimmer, M., editors, Eurographics Workshop on

Graphics and Cultural Heritage, pages 187–198. The

Eurographics Association.

Remondino, F. and Rizzi, A. (2010). Reality-based 3d

documentation of natural and cultural heritage sites—

techniques, problems, and examples. Applied Geo-

matics, 2(3):85–100.

Tal, A. (2014). 3d shape analysis for archaeology. 3D

Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cul-

tural Heritage - Theory and Best Practices, 8355:50–

63.

Yang, M. Y. and F

orstner, W. (2010). Plane detection in

point cloud data. Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conf. on

Machine Control guidance, 1:1–16.

Zatzarinni, R., Tal, A., and Shamir, A. (2009). Relief analy-

sis and extraction. In ACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2009 Pa-

pers, SIGGRAPH Asia ’09, pages 136:1–136:9, New

York, NY, USA. ACM.

Acquisition Evaluation on Outdoor Scanning for Archaeological Artifact Digitalization

799