3D-ICONS - D4.1: Interim Report on Post-processing

I C O N S
D4.1: Interim Report on Post-processing
3D ICONS is funded by the European Commission’s
ICT Policy Support Programme
Author:
L. De Luca (CNRS)
3D Digitisation of Icons of European Architectural and Archaeological Heritage

Revision History
Rev. Date Author Org. Description
0.1 08/09/13 L. De Luca CNRS Draft
0,2 10/1013 L. De Luca CNRS Draft
0.3 14/10/13 L. De Luca CNRS Version after first review
0,4 22/10/13 S. Bassett MDR Review and editing
0.5 23/10/13 S. Bassett MDR Addition of QC Form
Revision: [Final]
Author:
L. De Luca (CNRS)
Statement of originality:
This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated
otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of
others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both.
3D-ICONS is a project funded under the European Commission’s ICT Policy Support
Programme, project no. 297194.
The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are the sole responsibility of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

iii
Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Progress on post-processing activities .................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Current Work in Progress ............................................................................................................ 3
3. Problems encountered and actions undertaken .................................................................................. 4
4. Internal discussion about methodological approaches ..................................................................... 5
4.1 Classification of elementary “proces sing steps” .......................................................................... 6
4.1.1 Geometric reconstruction ............................................................................................................. 7
4.1.2 Visual enrichment ............................................................................................................................ 9
4.1.3 Model structuring .......................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.4 Hypothetical reconstruction ..................................................................................................... 12
4.1.5 Complementary 2D media (derived from the 3D model) .............................................. 14
4.2 Case studies .............................................................................................................................................. 15
4.2.1 Cerveteri and Tarquinia Tombs (FBK) .................................................................................. 16
4.2.2 Centre Pompidou in Paris (CNRS) ........................................................................................... 17
4.2.3 Treasury of Marseille in Delphi (CNRS) ............................................................................... 18
4.2.4 Roman archaeological finds (POLIMI) .................................................................................. 20
5. Metadata on post-processing.................................................................................................................... 21
6. Quality Control ............................................................................................................................................... 21
7. From post-processing (WP4) to publication (WP5) ........................................................................ 22
8. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix A – Quality Control Form ............................................................................................................ 24
iv

Executive Summary
Deliverable 4.1 (Interim report on post-processing) is a first overview of all the aspects
concerning the post-processing of the 3D digitisation that will be supplied to Europeana as
viewable 3D models by content providers. The report concerns the progress of the post-processing
work, the problems encountered and the actions undertaken. Starting from an
analysis of the work in progress carried out by the content providers, an internal
discussion concerning the main technical issues is used as starting point for the
identification of a set of common approaches (elementary processing steps) aiming to
harmonize the elaboration and the refinement of 3D models.
There are seven partners who have started the post-processing of their data sets (CNRS-MAP,
POLIMI, UJA-CAAI, CMC, ARCHEOTRANSFERT, CETI and DISC) and it is mainly their
1
experiences that are reflected in this report.
There is a strong overlap of the activities in WP3 and WP4 (as shown below) with complex
relationships between digitisation and post-processing. Consequently, there has been in-depth
discussion about the methodological approaches and the structure of the pipelines.
Figure 1. Overlapping of activities between WP3 and WP4
Five general post-processing aspects are identified: geometric reconstruction, visual
enrichment, model structuring, hypothetical reconstruction and complementary 3D media
(derived from the 3D model). Examples of approaches, issues raised and solutions
encountered by partners are provided in the context of the identified post-processing
activities. Some case studies are also presented which illustrate the different approaches.
The report concludes with a discussion about the link between the post-processing
activities and the metadata creation, as well as the link between post-processing and
publication. Finally, an updated version of this report (D4.3 Final Report on Post-
Processing) will be published in M36 which will cover all the partner experiences, lessons
learned and provide a complete and global overview of the post-processing part of the 3D-ICONS
pipeline.

D4.1 Interim report on post-processing
1. Introduction
The 3D-ICONS project will provide to Europeana an important collection of reality-based
3D models (detailed and accurate geometric representations) for the purpose of cultural
dissemination. In addition, the 3D models and their metadata will provide further uses
such as documentation, digital inventories, etc. This report concerns the activities carried
out within the framework of the task 4.1:
• The refinement of the 3D digitization produced in WP3 (Digitization), including
geometric reconstruction, visual enrichment and model structuring;
• The making of all necessary graphical and content refinement improvements of the
2
model and the other data provided;
• The creation of some complementary 2D media (derived from the 3D model) such
as video tours, panoramic images, etc. for enriching the documentation of the
monument and its details.
Activities concerning WP 4 started at month 12 of the project. This interim report (month
21) begins with a snapshot of the progress of the post-processing activities (see section 2),
directly extracted from the monitoring tool developed within the framework of the project.
Section 3 introduces an internal discussion about technical issues encountered, while
section 4 presents the results of the classification of a set of elementary post-processing
steps aiming to make emerge a common basis for the definition of post-processing
methodologies. The issues about the relationship between post-processing activities and
metadata creation and between model optimization and final publication are discussed
respectively in section 5 and 6.

2. Progress on post-processing activities
2.1 Current Work in Progress
At this moment in time (October 2013), 444 models have been post-processed (WP4)
starting from the 2,941 3D digitations (WP3) identified and in progress by the project
partners. One can consider these figures fairly normal, because the post-processing
activities concern the complex phase of the elaboration of final 3D representations starting
from the gathered data. In fact, according to the morphological complexity of the artifact,
different geometric reconstruction and visual enrichment techniques are often integrated.
In the case of complex architectural buildings, even if the digitization phase is often carried
out in an automatic way (e.g. 3D laser scanning) an important activity of interactive
modeling and structuring (which is very time consuming) is required. The following table
shows the number of 3D models for which each partner has already achieved the post-processing
(3D reconstruction, visual enrichment and model structuring).
3
No. of 3D
Models
WP3 Completion
of Digitisation
WP4 Completion
of Modeling
ARCHEOTRANSFERT 151 65 6
CETI 36 4 3
CISA 90 0 0
CMC 21 12 0*
CNR-ISTI 176 76 0
CNR-ITABC 153 134 0
CYI-STARC 83 2 0
DISC 109 65 27
FBK 57 11 0
KMKG 450 0 0
CNRS-MAP 323 283 261
MNIR 95 15 0
POLIMI 527 154 98
UJA-CAAI 619 150 49
VisDim 50 50 0
Total 2941 1009 444
* in progress
There are seven partners who have started the post-processing of their data sets (CNRS-MAP,
POLIMI, UJA-CAAI, CMC, ARCHEOTRANSFERT, CETI and DISC) and it is mainly their
experiences that are reflected in this report.

3. Problems encountered and actions undertaken
Internal discussion has focused on finding a good way for articulating the post-processing
activities within the entire pipeline. This revealed an important overlap between the two
work packages concerning the digitization implementation: WP3 (data acquisition) and
WP4 (post-processing). In the Figure 1, representing the main steps of a typical 3D
digitization process, several processing activities can be considered to be part of the data
acquisition (WP3) as well as part of the post-processing (WP4).
Figure 1. Overlapping of activities between WP3 and WP4
In some cases, the 3D digitization solutions (integrating hardware and software) merge the
data acquisition (WP3), the geometric reconstruction (WP3/4) and the visual enrichment
(WP4) into a unique automatic process; in other cases, the data acquisition (WP3) is
strongly independent from the 3D modeling and structuring strategy (WP3/WP4), and so
on.
For example, the post-processing is affected by factors hindering 3D data collection such
as:
4
• Transparency
• Reflectance
• Poor light conditions
• Accessibility of the object and its position
• Geometric complexity of the object.
Software tools such as MeshLab, Blender, Geomagic and 3D Studio are used for Post-processing
functions such as:
• Filling holes and gaps

• Correction of corrupted or duplicated sides and vertices
• Refinement and cleaning anomalies caused by defects of light conditions
5
• Texturing.
All these ambiguities make it difficult to really segment some of the more complex
pipelines into well-identified processing steps. In fact, the overall pipeline generally
depends on the main purpose of the 3D digitization, the specific strategy to produce the
general model, as well as the final visual and geometric result to be achieved.
In addition, some content providers in the project have significant experience with 3D
digitization and representation of heritage artifacts, sometime coupled with an in-depth
knowledge of tools, methods and approaches, which constitute the results of their scientific
activity. Furthermore, beyond the use of common and commercial solutions for handling
3D representations in various formats, within the context of this project, and in order to
obtain excellent results in terms of geometric and visual accuracy, some project partners
are experimenting with the integration of several tools and emerging technologies into
more complex 3D reconstruction approaches.
Due to the WP3/4 overlap problem as well as to the high heterogeneity of the developed
approaches (sometime resulting from a strong integration of technical and methodological
aspects), we carried out the definition of a common basis to be used for classifying our
different operating modes, as well the data structures and the file formats used for
handling geometrical and visual content (see next section). This classification has a twofold
objective: on one hand the aim of harmonizing the production of 3D models within the
framework of the project (as well as the description of the processing steps during the
metadata creation phase); on the other hand, the need to identify common refinement
pipelines according to the final publication formats.
4. Internal discussion about methodological approaches
From a purely technological standpoint, during the generation of the 3D representation of
an artifact, the geometrical precision, the detailed representation of visual aspects and the
3D real-time visualization are fundamental aspects. But beyond the simple application of a
technical process, whether simple or integrated, the methodological dimensions plays an
important role in identifying the objectives of 3D representation that can be achieved
starting from a 3D digitization. Indeed, in several cases, the type of representation desired
for the communication purpose (or required for the analysis needs) determines the data
processing and post-processing strategy. In fact, the elaboration of 3D models of complex
heritage buildings in their current state, as well as the reconstruction of their hypothetical

past states, requires the definition of specific pipelines integrating surveying tools,
geometric modeling techniques and (in some cases) an overall model structuring strategy.
Four main approaches are representative of the diffuse practices among the 3D-ICONS
partners working on the digital documentation and visualization of heritage artifacts.
Firstly, some approaches are inclined to represent the geometric accuracy of 3D
models: these are mainly based on methods of automatic meshing starting from a 3D laser
scanning acquisition. Secondly, other approaches are based on morphological
descriptions that are specific to particular kinds of analysis (e.g. temporal transformations,
architectural composition, etc.): they are characterized by data acquisition and data
processing strategies consistent with specific representation goals. Thirdly, other
techniques focus on reproducing the visual appearance of the surfaces forming the
object, by taking into account photographic information. Finally, other approaches
concentrate on the simultaneous representation of multiple factors at multiple scales:
for this goal, they use different technical procedures in a complementary way.
In order to define a set of common elements of an overall methodology (taking into account
the heterogeneity of the 3D reconstruction approaches used by the project content
providers), we firstly analyzed several 3D reconstruction projects carried by content
provides in order to produce a classification of the main procedures. This first analysis,
carried out by studying and comparing a range of technical solutions, allowed the structure
of a set of typical 3D reconstruction pipelines (from the 3D surveying on-site to the final 3D
model used for various application contexts) to be identified.
In the following section, post-processing issues and solutions provided by partners are
used as examples for each of the post-processing steps where applicable.
4.1 Classification of elementary “processing steps”
With the aim of identifying a set of elementary “processing steps” which can be combined
in several ways in order to compose 3D reconstruction pipelines, this analysis takes into
account the:
• Deployed digitization tools (3D scanners, digital cameras, etc.);
• Employed acquisition, geometric modeling and visual enrichment techniques;
6
• Source and final data formats.
Five general post-processing aspects (detailed in the following sections) have been
identified: geometric reconstruction, visual enrichment, model structuring, hypothetical
reconstruction and complementary 3D media (derived from the 3D model). This work is

mainly based on the experiences of CNRS-MAP, CMC and UJA-CAAI as well as on several
inputs coming from the WP2 (CNR-ISTI) and WP3 (POLIMI, FBK) leaders.
4.1.1 Geometric reconstruction
The geometric reconstruction is the essential processing step for the elaboration of a 3D
representation of an artifact (starting from the results of a digitization campaign). The choice of
the relevant technique (see Figure 2) for this step is generally based on the evaluation of the
morphological complexity of the object, its scale, as well as the purpose of the final 3D
representation (e.g. graphic documentation, metric analysis, dissemination, etc.).
Figure 2. Examples of geometric reconstruction techniques (CNRS-MAP)
A simple criterion for choosing (and evaluating) a relevant 3D reconstruction technique is the
degree of consistency of the 3D model with the real object. The list of techniques below is ordered
from those which ensure high geometric consistency with the real object to the techniques that
introduce increasing levels of approximations :
• Automatic meshing from a dense 3D point cloud;
• Interactive or semi-automatic reconstruction based on relevant profiles;
• Interactive or semi-automatic reconstruction based on primitives adjustment;
• Interactive reconstruction based on technical iconography (plans, cross-sections
7
and elevations);
• Interactive reconstruction based on artistic iconography (sketches, paintings, etc.)

Regarding the archiving of the obtained 3D representations the following formats are
generally used:
• .ply _ Polygon File Format - Stanford University – ASCII;
• .obj _ Wavefront Technologies – ASCII;
• .dae _ Collada (Khronos Group) – ASCII;
• .3ds _ Autodesk 3Ds Max; (proprietary).
8
• .ma _ Autodesk Maya - ASCII ;
• .blend _ Blender (proprietary).
CMC have used Quantum GIS, Gimp & Blender to process Ordnance survey digital height
maps of Skara Brae and its environs which were included in a set of GIS data provided by
Historic Scotland. Using Quantum GIS, these point clouds were rendered as a greyscale
image with the terrain height displayed as a grey value, black being sea level and white
being the highest terrain feature (in this case as the highest point was a hill top 95 meters
above sea level, white was set to represent 100 meters). The greyscale images was
exported as a 300dpi tiff file.
The tiff was then imported to Blender and applied to a UV mapped plane. The plane was
subdivided to very dense mesh and the image applied as a Displacement map,
the distortion was scaled with reference to the x and y dimension of the plane to produce a
3d model of the landscape. The model was then used to form the basis for a series of
investigations for rising sea levels and the creation of interpretations of the sites possible
appearance when in use. This process is reported to have very well.
However, the Leica scan data of Skara Brae was very dense, approximately 200 scans each
ranging from 5 million to 30 million points each. To reduce the overhead to a manageable
level, it was decided to take each individual 'house' and process these as separate entities.
The files were first exported as E57 files which recorded the clouds global position and
intensity values. These were opened in CloudCompare where the intensity was converted
to an RGB value and the point density reduced by a spatial subsampling to approx. 5 million
points. These were exported as a PLY file to retain RGB colour values. The PLY file was then
opened in pointstream to manually remove noise before being exported to Geomagic
from wrapping. This part was facilitated by the Discovery Programme team. The next stage
is to use the wrapped mesh to create retopologised low poly models of each house. The
issues raised by this process is the storage of the scan data as a proprietary Leica format
limits access to those with costly specialised software and that converting such dense

clouds and subsequent mesh geometry to an easily accessible format is a long process
requiring several complex steps.
4.1.2 Visual enrichment
With regard to the visual enhancement of the geometric 3D reconstructions, several computer
graphics techniques were systematically examined in order to assess their degree of relevance in
the specific context of the digitization of heritage artifacts. As this project aims to provide detailed
and geometrically accurate 3D digitizations of heritage artifacts, our analysis primarily focuses on
techniques which provide the simulation of visual characteristics in geometric consistency with
the real object (see Figure 3). Other techniques, mainly used for cultural disseminations purposes,
are taken into account.
Figure 3. Example of visual enrichment based on the projection of textures starting from
photographs finely oriented on the 3D model (CNRS-MAP)
The list of visual enrichment techniques below are ordered from those that ensure a strong
geometric consistency with the real object to the techniques that introduce increasing
approximations:
• Texture extraction and projection starting from photographs finely oriented on the
3D model (e.g. image-based modeling, photogrammetry);
• Texturing by photographic samples of the real materials of the artifact;
9
• Texturing by generic shaders.

Concerning the archiving of the results of the visual enrichment processes (textures, shaders,
colors, etc.), it’s very difficult to identify some general approaches because, in most cases, these
aspects are directly related to the 3D modeling and rendering software used, and often directly
embedded (in proprietary format) into the general 3D scene. Nevertheless, the technical solutions
presented below are currently used for preservation purposes:
• Storing textures at different levels of resolution;
• Storing the source images used to generate textures;
• Using standard formats for image-based textures (.jpg, .png, .tif, .tga, .bmp, etc.);
10
• Using standard ColladaFX shaders.
UJA-CAAI compared two software packages for generating models from photography as
follows:
• Free Software: Autodesk 123D Catch
• Commercial software Agisoft PhotoScan Professional Edition
After experimenting with both programmes, CAAI concluded that Autodesk 123D Catch
gives the best results when making 3D models of sculptures and small objects (I.e. ‘details’).
Considering all the software available for Photogrammetry, Autodesk 123D Catch is
especially useful due to its capacity to recognize areas of shade and irregular contours.
However, Agisoft PhotoScan Professional Edition is considered to be the best tool for 3D
models of architectural and archaeological excavations, particularly for its correction
placing of each of the shots generated by the model.
CMC also used Agisoft Photoscan in combination with Blender, and Photoshop/Gimp.
Artefacts were placed on an even background and uniformly lit to minimise highlights and
shadows. The subject was photographed in several radial patterns, each image at approx.
15 degree intervals. 3-6 such rotations were recoded. The images were all colour balanced
using the Auto levels function in Photoshop/ Gimp.
The images were imported into Photoscan and the backgrounds masked. An initial
alignment and low density mesh was generated first to asses coverage, then a higher
quality mesh produced with high resolution texture maps (4096*4096).
The triangular mesh was imported in to Blender for retopology to a UV mapped light
weight mesh, suitable for export as a DAE, FBX or OBJ model.

CMC noted the following concerns: the Photoscan software can be challenged with simple
objects when insufficient areas of unique reference points fail to generate registration.
Positioning of highlights or shadows can often confuse the registration algorithms. This
issue was resolved by moving around the object, keeping a constant relation between the
objects and light sources even though this resulted in shadows and highlight being 'baked'
on to the texture map (but which can be rectified by further processing).
Mesh retopology can be a time consuming process, however, it produces better quality
light weight topology than automatic decimation. It also facilitated the creation of human
recognizable texture maps.
4.1.3 Model structuring
Depending on the scale and on the morphological complexity, a geometric 3D
reconstruction of an architectural object or an archaeological site generally leads to
the representation of a single (and complex) geometric mesh or a collection of
geometric entities organized according to several criteria. The model structuring
strategy (see Figure 4) is generally carried out with the aim of harmonizing the
hierarchical relations, which can express the architectural composition of a building
(e.g. relations between entities and layouts) and can also be used as a guideline for
structuring the related metadata. In some cases, it could be important to identify a
scientific advisor ensuring the consistency of the chosen segmentation (e.g.
temporal layers) and nomenclature (e.g. specialized vocabulary).
Figure 4. Example of 3D model structuring (CNRS-MAP)
11

According to the technique used and to the general purpose of the 3D
representation, the results of a geometric reconstruction can be structured in four
ways:
• Single unstructured entity (e.g. dense point clouds, or detailed mesh);
• Decomposed in elementary entities (e.g. 3D models composed by few parts);
• Decomposed in elementary entities hierarchically organized ( e.g. 3D models
decomposed in several parts for expressing the architectural layouts);
• Decomposed in entities organized in classes (e.g. 3D models decomposed in several
parts for expressing the classification of materials, temporal states, etc.).
According to the chosen model structuring strategy, the final dataset structure
(including geometry and visual enrichment) can be composed in several ways.
12
3D geometry:
• Single structured 3D file (with one level of detail);
• Multiple independent 3D files (with one level of detail);
• Multiple independent 3D files (with multiple level of detail).
Textures:
• Embedded into the 3D geometry file;
• Stored as external 2D files.
4.1.4 Hypothetical reconstruction
The hypothetical reconstruction of the past state of an architectural object or
archaeological site is an issue primarily related to field of historical studies. Nevertheless,
some specific technical and methodological issues with 3D graphical representation of
disappeared (or partially disappeared) heritage buildings are often integrated in 3D
reconstruction approaches. While primarily related to the analysis of iconographic sources
and historical knowledge, the methodological approaches for the elaboration of
hypothetical reconstructions (see Figure 5) can be based on the integration of metric
representations (2D or 3D) of existing parts of the object, as well as on the reconstruction
of the objects shapes starting from non-metric graphic descriptions of the artifact.

According to the informative degree of the iconography available as a source, the
elaboration of the 3D representation of the hypothetical state of an artifact, may mainly be
carryiedout based on:
• the 3D acquisition of existing (or existed) parts;
• previous 2D surveys of existing (or existed) parts;
• non-metric iconographic sources of the studied artifact;
• iconographic sources (metric and / or non-metric) related to similar artifacts;
These methods (which can also be used in a complementary way) do not necessarily
determine the procedures, but emphasize the importance of the scientific dimension, the
intellectual rigor and transparency in the development of a hypothetical reconstruction. In
this sense, in order to include the 3D reconstruction of hypothetical states of an artifact
into an effective context of production of historical knowledge, the following
recommendations should be taken into account:
• Identify the scientific advisor(s) who can guide and validate the 3D model during its
13
elaboration;
• Save information about iconographic sources and bibliographical references and
used in the elaboration of the 3D model;
• Identify and save information indicating the degree of uncertainty (information
gaps, doubts, etc.).

Figure 5. Example of 3D hypothetical reconstruction of a past state (CNRS-MAP)
4.1.5 Complementary 2D media (derived from the 3D model)
During the elaboration of the 3D representation of an artifact object, complementary 2D
media are produced starting from the 3D model. These 2D media can be produced in
different ways, depending on the type of 3D source (point cloud, geometric model, visually-enriched
3D model), as well as on the final visualization type (static, dynamic, interactive).
As those 2D documentary media are directly derived from the 3D model, with the aim of
anticipating the metadata creation, it is important to underline the relationships which can
be established between images, videos, etc. and the 3D model.
2D complementary media can be produced starting from (and still remain linked to) the 3D
general model of the entire architectural or archaeological artifact or to entities or sub-entities
of the 3D general model. These issues will be discussed within the framework of
the upcoming (October 30 and 31, 2013) workshop on metadata.
Concerning the archiving of complementary 2D media, the following formats are
generally used:
14

15
Static image (e.g. renderings):
• Source file format: .tif, .tga, .bmp, etc.
• Final output file format: .jpg, .png, etc.
Animated images (e.g. videotours):
• Source file format: .mov, .avi, etc.
• Final output file format: .mpg, .mkv, etc.
Interactive Image (e.g. panoramic imaging, VR objects):
• Source file format: .tif, .tga, .bmp, etc.
• Final output file format : .mov (quickTime), .swf (Flash), etc.
4.2 Case studies
Starting from the results of the aforementioned classification, a set of typical 3D post-processing
pipelines has been identified based on several aspects. First, the common
articulation of several elementary processing steps into a relevant process. Second, the
evaluation of the relevance of each elementary processing steps (as well as the
combination of some processing sequences) according to the object scale, its morphological
complexity and its final representation format. The following sections illustrate some
examples showing the relationship between the characters of the artifact (morphological
complexity, scale, typology, etc.) and the chosen post-processing pipeline (composed by
several elementary processing steps).

4.2.1 Cerveteri and Tarquinia Tombs (FBK)
Based on the methodological approaches presented in Section 4.1, the technical aspects
concerning the post-processing of this case study can be described as follows.
16
A - GEOMETRIC RECONSTRUCTION
• Automatic meshing from a dense 3D point cloud
B - MODEL STRUCTURING
• Unstructured, single mesh
C - VISUAL ENRICHMENT
• Texture extraction and projection starting from photographs finely oriented on the
3D model (photogrammetry)
D - DATASET STRUCTURE (Geometry)
• Single 3D file with 1 level of detail
E - DATASET STRUCTURE (Textures)
• Stored as external 2D files

4.2.2 Centre Pompidou in Paris (CNRS)
17
• Interactive and semi-automatic reconstruction based on relevant profiles
• Interactive reconstruction based on technical iconography (plans, cross-sections
and elevations)
• Decomposed in elementary entities hierarchically organized (by following the
architectural layout)
• Decomposed in entities organized in classes (materials)
• Texturing by photographic samples of the real materials of the artifact
• Texturing by generic shaders
• Multiple independent 3D files with multiple levels of details
• Embedded into the 3D geometry file (generic shaders)
• External 2D images (external textures).

4.2.3 Treasury of Marseille in Delphi (CNRS)
18
• Automatic meshing from a dense 3D point cloud (sculpted elements)
• Interactive and semi-automatic reconstruction based on relevant profiles (existing
architectural elements)
• Interactive reconstruction based on ancient iconography (hypothetical
architectural elements)
• Decomposed in elementary entities, partially hierarchically organized

• Texture extraction and projection starting from photographs finely oriented on
the 3D model (Image-based-modeling)
19
• Texturing by generic shaders.
• Single 3D file structured with 1 level of detail
• Embedded into the 3D geometry file
• Stored as external 2D files
F - HYPOTHETICAL RECONSTRUCTION
• Based on the 3D acquisition of existing (or existed) parts;
• Based on non-metric iconographic sources of the studied artifact;
• Based on iconographic sources (metric and / or non-metric) related to similar
artifacts;
G - SCIENTIFIC (Historic) ADVISING
• Scientific Committee (nomenclature, temporal states and hypothetical
reconstruction)
• Bibliographic references (nomenclature and hypothetical reconstruction)

4.2.4 Roman archaeological finds (POLIMI)
20
• Automatic meshing from a dense 3D point cloud
• Unstructured, single mesh
• Texture extraction and projection starting from photographs finely oriented on the 3D model
(photogrammetry)
• Single 3D file structured with 1 level of detail
• Stored as external 2D images
G - SCIENTIFIC (Historic) ADVISING
• Scientific Committee

5. Metadata on post-processing
Within the framework of WP4, post-processing activities run in parallel with the metadata
creation. Besides the metadata for Europeana, essentially oriented through resource
discovery, the CARARE2 metadata schema encompasses a larger vision which includes
digital preservation. This project is an important opportunity to create documentation on
processing pipelines (including technical and methodological aspects).
In this sense, the work presented in the previous sections could also be used as a
framework for capturing metadata during the post-processing pipeline. These aspects,
accompanied by more general issues on the metadata creation, will be covered by the
deliverable D4.2.
6. Quality Control
In conjunction with WP2, Task 2.2, a quality control process has been defined by CISA and
FBK in consultation with the other partners for the production and processing of the
digitized content. This process involves recording the information about the processes and
equipment used to capture the data through to the post-processing techniques used (in the
final section which covers data registration, alignment and processing). The purpose of
recording this information is to provide an audit of the complete sequence of activities and
the equipment used (with settings etc.) so that if any issues arise with the output, from the
original dataset through to the final processed model, then once the cause of the problem
has been identified, it can be traced and modifications made to rectify the problem. The
complete form is to be found in Appendix A.
21

7. From post-processing (WP4) to publication (WP5)
The analysis of the overall production of 3D models within the framework of the project, as
well as the conclusions of the first deliverable (D5.1) concerning the publications issues,
allowed identification of two general pipelines which can be considered as a reference for
pre-orienting the post-processing activities according to specific final outputs.
22
PIPELINE _ TYPE 1
3D digitization and reconstruction: dense point cloud + regular mesh + texture mapping (or vertex
colouring)
Processing: automatic processing + optimization
Model structuring: unstructured
Final 3D representation: the final model is generally managed in Meshlab, RapidForm, ....
This kind of 3D representation can be converted in WebGL-based 3D viewers, such us NEXUS (for dense
meshes and point clouds) or Potree (only for dense point clouds).
PIPELINE _ TYPE 2
3D digitization and reconstruction: Sparse point cloud (e.g. topographical surveying, technical drawings)+
structured geometry + texture mapping
Processing: semi-automatic and manual processing
Model structuring: generally structured (architectural layout, temporal states, etc.)
Final 3D representation: the final model is generally managed in 3Ds Max, Maya, Blender,…
This kind of 3D representation can be converted in Collada (.dae) format in order to be interactively
visualized by several 3D real-time engines (such as Unity, 3Dvia, etc..).
The post-processing phase concerns essentially the elaboration of the 3D representation, at
the maximum level of geometric and visual accuracy, ready to be converted in the final
publication format. The production of the final publication representation, including the
geometry and texture optimization issues, will be presented in the deliverable D5.2 (WP5).

8. Conclusions
This interim report presents a first overview of the post-processing activities concerning
the digitization implementation of the project. Starting from the presentation of the
progress status of each partner in this task, we presented the main problems encountered
as well as the main action undertaken concerning the definition of a common basis for :
• Classifying the elementary processing steps composing the post-processing
23
pipelines;
• Identifying two main overall pipelines with the aim to pre-orient the processing of
the data through a specific final output (for the publication);
• Give to content providers an initial (and common) grid for describing their post-processing
activities when creating metadata.
Beside the presented methodological and technical issues (also including the solutions
undertaken), the management and the long term preservation of high quantities of data
(raw data, visually-enriched 3D geometric representations, complementary 2D media,
metadata, etc.) forms an important issue within the framework of the project. Some
solutions for setting-up several shared data repositories are currently under discussion.
Finally, an updated version of this report (D4.3 Final Report on Post-Processing) will be
published in M36 which will cover all the partner experiences, lessons learned and provide
a complete and global overview of the post-processing part of the 3D-ICONS pipeline.

Appendix A – Quality Control Form
24
Type of survey / Data acquisition
Image-based (passive sensors)
Range-based (active sensors)
Topographic / Geodetic
CAD / maps / sections / Sketch-up
Employed sensor(s)/instrument(s)
Compact/Amateur digital camera
SLR/Reflex digital camera
Panoramic digital camera
TOF-CW terrestrial laser scanner
Brand / Model / Type
Ranging noise (datasheet)
Digital camera
calibrated? [yes/no]
TOF-PW terrestrial laser scanner
Digital camera
calibrated? [yes/no]
Airborne laser scanner
Full wave-form [yes/no]

Triangulation-based laser scanner
RGB camera [yes/no]
Stripe projection system
RGB camera
25
Total station
angular resolution
Ranging noise with reflector (datasheet)
Ranging noise no reflector (datasheet)
GNSS receiver
Receiver class [navigation/geodetic]
Antenna class [internal/ geodetic external]
Used signal [code, single frequency phase,
double frequencies phase]
Scene / Object info
Location (city, museum, site, etc)
dimensions (W x L x H)
Units
Indoor
Outdoor

Material (marble, glass, stone, wood, iron, etc.)
Surface characteristics (translucent, opaque, porous,
etc.)
Date of survey - beginning
26
Date of survey - end
Operator
Data acquisition
CAMERAS / IMAGES
Geometrically calibrated? [yes/no]
Radiometrically calibrated / color profiled? [yes/no]
Color checkboard? [yes/no]
Focus [auto/manual]
Quality / format
Flash [on/off]
Extra artificial light (lamps)
Controlled environmental light? [yes/no]
Average baseline [value]
Average distance camera / object
Optical image stabilization [on/off]
Digital image stabilization [on/off]
Number of images [value]

27
HDR images? [yes/no]
Avg number of overlapping images [value]
Use of coded targets? [yes/no]
Ground Control Points (GCPs)? [yes/no]
number
Reference / known distances? [yes/no]
numbers [value]
avg length [value]
ACTIVE / SCANNER
Calibrated sensor? [yes/no]
Date of calibration
Number of scans [value]
cloud [value]
cloud + intensity [value]
cloud + intensity + RGB [value]
Calibrated camera? [yes/no]
Image resolution? [value]
HDR images? [yes/no]
Leveled?
Dual axis compensator [on/off]
Targets? [yes/no]
Min sampling step [value]

28
Max sampling step [value]
Avg sampling step [value]
Min acquisition distance [value]
Max acquisition distance [value]
Avg acquisition distance [value]
TOPOGRAPHIC
number of stations [value]
targets [yes/no]
natural features [yes/no]
open/free traverse [yes/no]
polygonal/loop traverse [yes/no]
link traverse [yes/no]
Network [yes/no]
double-face observation [yes/no]
reflector/target on tripod with tribrach [yes/no]
reflector/target on tripod [yes/no]
reflector/target hold by an operator [yes/no]
min acquisition distance /length of legs[value]
max acquisition distance [value]
avg acquisition distance [value]
topographic nails? [yes/no]
sketches of observed points? [yes/no]

29
GNSS receiver
Differential
static
local reference station
permanent reference station
avg baseline length
avg duration of acquisition
kinematic
real-time
stop-and-go
avg baseline length
Non-differential
Low-end instrument positioning [yes/no]
Precise Point Positioning (PPP) [yes/no]
avg duration of acquisition [value]
number of stations
CAD-like
Data provider
Data type
Digitized maps / sections
Old pictures
Metric/Scaled? [yes/no]

Data registration / alignment / processing
30
CAMERAS / IMAGES
automated image orientation / alignment with SfM? [yes/no]
Guided/manual alignment [yes/no]
accuracy of the image orientation/alignment [value in px]
scaling & geo-referencing with GCPs? [yes/no]
scaling with reference distance? [yes/no]
Employed software
Operator
ACTIVE / SCANNER
target- or sphere-based registration? [yes/no]
ICP-like registration?
standard deviation of the registration procedure [value in mm]
geo-referencing? [yes/no]
TOPOGRAPHIC / GEODETIC
adjustment accuracy/misclosure of traverse [value in mm]
sigmaXY [value in mm]
sigmaZ [value in mm]

31
Geometric modeling
point spacing of mesh reconstruction [value in mm]
number of triangles [value in mm]
smoothing / filtering [yes/no]
Auto [yes/no]
Tolerance [value in mm]
mesh decimation / simplification [yes/no]
Triangle count [yes/no]
Tolerance [value in mm]
final number of triangles [value]
Texture mapping
Real images [yes/no]
Synthetic images [yes/no]
Bump mapping [yes/no]
Image-based
External images (for multispectral texturing for example)
Known exterior orientation (GNSS/INS, bundle
adjustment, etc.)
Image to mesh registration (DLT, Tsai, resection, etc.)
manual
automated
Texturing with CG software (3DS, Maya, etc.)
Range-based

Images from scanner? [yes/no]
External images
Known exterior orientation (GNSS/INS, bundle
adjustment, etc.)
Image to mesh registration (DLT, Tsai, resection, etc.)
32
manual
automated
Texturing with CG software (3DS, Maya, etc.)
color-vertex [yes/no]
parameterized texture [yes/no]

3D-ICONS - D4.1: Interim Report on Post-processing

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to 3D-ICONS - D4.1: Interim Report on Post-processing (20)

More from 3D ICONS Project (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

3D-ICONS - D4.1: Interim Report on Post-processing