CONPRA

Series,
Vol. I

3D Digital Recording of
Archaeological,
Architectural and
Artistic Heritage
Edited by Ján Zachar, Milan Horňák & Predrag Novaković
Ján Zachar, Milan Horňák & Predrag Novaković (eds.)

3D DIGITAL RECORDING OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL
AND ARTISTIC HERITAGE

CONPRA Series, Vol. I

Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani

(University of Ljubljana Press, Faculty of Ar ts)
Ljubljana 2017
3D DIGITAL RECORDING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL AND
ARTISTIC HERITAGE

CONPRA Series, Vol. I

Editors/Uredniki: Ján Zachar, Milan Horňák & Predrag Novaković
Proofreading/Lektoriranje: Ivana Krekáňová, Dragana Filipović
Technical editing and layout/Tehnični urednik: Jure Preglau, Siniša Stojanović

© University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts/Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta

All rights reserved. / Vse pravice pridržane.

Published by / Založila: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana University Press,
Faculty of Arts)
For the publisher / Za založbo: Roman Kuhar, the dean of the Faculty of Arts/Roman Kuhar, dekan Filozofske
fakultete

Ljubljana, 2017
First Edition, e-edition/Prva izdaja, elektronska izdaja
Publication is free of charge./Publikacija je brezplačna.

Publication is avaliable at/Publikacija dostopna na: https://e-knjige.ff.uni-lj.si

DOI: 10.4312/9789612378981

Supported by FP7 MARIE CURIE ACTION IAPP - Contributing the Preventive Archaeology: Innovativeness, Development and
Presentation, Grant no. 324508

The content of this publication does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and
views expressed in the publication lies entirely with the authors.

Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni

knjižnici v Ljubljani
COBISS.SI-ID=289146880
ISBN 978-961-237-898-1 (pdf )
Content
Predrag Novaković
CONPRA PROJECT PUBLICATIONS AND THE PRACTICE OF PREVENTIVE ARCHAEOLOGY . . . 5

Milan Horňák
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Seta Štuhec
3D DIGITAL RECORDING: BASICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3D model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3D modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3D digital documenting/digitisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3D digital reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A BRIEF HISTORY OF 3D DIGITAL RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ADVANTAGES AND APPLICATIONS OF 3D MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Nenad Jončić, Ján Zachar

3D SCANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
LASER SCANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Airborne laser scanning (LiDAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Terrestrial laser scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Handheld (portable) laser scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Long- and short-range laser scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Workflow notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
STRUCTURED LIGHT SCANNING (SLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Seta Štuhec, Ján Zachar

DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2D PHOTOGRAMMETRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Simple rectification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Rigorous orthorectification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Practical approach in 2D Photogrammetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
IMAGE BASED MODELLING (lBM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Software and on-line services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Image-based data collection: Basic rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Pre-processing the data (taking and editing photos) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Data processing and post-processing: software applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Ján Zachar, Milan Horňák

3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
SITES WITH SOIL LAYERS AND SEDIMENTED DEPOSITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Radoľa, Koscelisko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Rajec, Charubina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Mošovce, Hinterland of the residential area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Bratislava, Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
 SITES WITH ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Senec, Synagogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Skalka nad Váhom, Monastery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Čachtice, Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Brazda, Ancient sepulchral architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Bratislava, Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Považská Teplá, Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Ján Zachar, Perica Špehar

3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Jazernica, Medieval church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Rajec, Historical Town Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Sazdice, medieval church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Žehra, Hodkovce, Manor house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Žehra, Hodkovce, Neo-Gothic church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Žehra, Hodkovce, Neo-Gothic architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Žehra, Hodkovce, Farm building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Žehra, Hodkovce, Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Banská Belá, mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Rajec, Burgess house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Ján Zachar, Marko A. Janković

3D RECORDING OF CASTLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Čachtice, Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Dobrá Voda, Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Ján Zachar, Nenad Jončić

3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Sculptures of St. John of Nepomuk and St. Florian, Beckov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Sculpture of the Virgin, Nové Mesto nad Váhom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Altar sculptures, Church of St. Barbara, Žilina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Copy of the sculpture of Virgin Mary, Žilina, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Ceramic pot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Architectural elements, fragment of a vault rib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Prehistoric sculptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Milan Horňák
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

List of abbreviations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

List of figures and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

CONPRA PROJECT PUBLICATIONS AND THE PRACTICE OF
PREVENTIVE ARCHAEOLOGY
Predrag Novaković (University of Ljubljana)

Preventive archaeology, in some countries also known as development-led archaeolo-

gy, nowadays accounts for more than 90% of the archaeological work across Europe.
In almost all European countries preventive archaeology is clearly the result of the im-
plementation of the La Valletta Convention (1992) on the protection of archaeological
heritage.
It is safe to say that, since then, the number of archaeological projects increased by
500% to 1,000%. Such an increase would not have been possible without radical chang-
es in a number of factors that rule preventive archaeology, its concepts and practices:
new legislation, introduction of preventive archaeology into spatial planning processes,
a new financial principle (polluter – payer), new (digital) technologies for data retrieval
and recording in field-based projects and, last but not least, a substantial increase in the
number of active professional archaeologists.
With the emergence of preventive archaeology and its present dominance in the discipli-
nary practice,1 the divide between academic and preventive archaeology became even
more accentuated, and raised numerous discussions about the unity of the archaeologi-
cal discipline and its future. While these two strands do not, and will not, differ in terms
of the scientific methods and tools implemented in their research, they indeed differ in
the reasons for undertaking archaeological research, and in their business and organisa-
tional contexts. Whilst these differences did not have such an influence on the nature of
the archaeological discipline in the past, today, when more than 90% of projects are of a

1  For more on concepts and development of preventive archaeology in the last two decades, see Bozóki-Ernyey Katalin (2007),
Guermandi and Rossenbach (2013), Novaković et al. (2016).
6 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

preventive nature, and the majority of them are funded from non-academic resources,
it is very important to understand the differences and consider them when discussing
the future of the archaeological discipline. Already for some time it has been very clear
that by far the greatest amount of new discoveries and forms of evidence in archaeology
derives from preventive research, thus rendering archaeology a 'data-driven' discipline.
One could hardly find another discipline where the quantity of new data has increased
by several orders of magnitude, almost without any control of what research, and where,
takes place.
This situation requires serious reconsideration for the future of the archaeological disci-
pline. On the other hand, this is not the case with disciplines traditionally considered close
to archaeology, e.g. art history, history, anthropology or ethnology, where one could hardly
speak of any new pieces of evidence discovered 'by chance'. In another paper (Novaković,
Horňák 2016, 32), we have posed a rhetorical question – what would happen with our
knowledge of ancient history, and ancient history as a discipline, if over the last two dec-
ades some 10,000 new fragments of written sources were discovered 'by chance' in the
Mediterranean? The comparison is, of course, rather exaggerated, but it nevertheless illus-
trates the situation in archaeology today, where it is the 'chance' discoveries that sustain
the discipline. In this sense, a great deal of archaeological practice is moving away from
the traditional goals and disciplinary practices of the humanities and getting closer to the
engineering sciences, providing a series of science-based practical services.
The discussion about whether preventive research achieves the levels, standards, and
state of the art of academic research is, to some extent, misleading. It actually refers
more to current practices and routines than to conceptual frameworks of both academic
and preventive archaeology. The truth is that, in many situations, planning large field-
work campaigns in preventive circumstances may not be optimal due to the lack of time,
infrastructure, other resources, and funds; also, the implementation of fieldwork may
be substantially conditioned by time pressure, inadequate temporary living conditions
and highly stressful working conditions compared to the academic research context. But
although the conditions in preventive contexts may not be optimal, this is not the key
difference between the two. The essential difference is in the conceptualisation of re-
search: whereas academic archaeology performs its fieldwork with a particular prob-
lem-oriented research design in mind, no such design is possible in preventive research,
and even less in rescue and salvage situations.
But this does not necessarily diminish the potential and quality of preventive research.
Instead, detailed individual problem-oriented designs should be replaced with standards
against which the quality of preventive archaeology must be measured. These standards
cannot include specific research questions or agendas, but, on the other hand, they can
provide a suitable framework for addressing at least some of the major research issues
in archaeology (e.g. adequate description of the evidence, chronology, classification of
finds, stratigraphic history of sites, phasing, cross-referencing stratigraphy and finds, and
a kind of 'general' interpretation of sites and finds). It is fair to say that sometimes the
sampling and collection strategies, accuracy of measurements, and objects of observa-
tion would not satisfy the requirements of individual, problem-oriented research de-
signs; but, on the other hand, the evidence acquired in preventive work would often be
completely missed in academic research, and would never pose new research questions.
  7

Indeed, what we see here is actually more the question of how to combine the research
standards of preventive archaeology and various academic agendas.
The question of standards in preventive archaeology is beyond the scope of the CONPRA
project and its publications, and should be addressed by national bodies responsible for
heritage protection and also involve academic institutions. While most countries in Eu-
rope implement various kinds of preventive archaeology, only a few have adopted true
standards which guarantee quality (e.g. the UK, the Netherlands, Slovenia). Indeed, it is
difficult to overestimate the importance of standards in preventive archaeology and, for
that matter, in archaeology in general. With the development of preventive archaeolo-
gy, numerous new professional subjects (public and private) performing research and
associated services have emerged and are competing in the market of archaeological
research services. In such circumstances, it is the standards (and their fulfilment) which
are the most efficient tool in securing adequate quality control.
In countries lacking standards of archaeological research, their place is, more or less im-
plicitly, occupied by the long-standing procedures and routines practiced by top academic
institutions. There are many reasons why this is not a good substitute for standards; aca-
demic institutions simply have different archaeological agenda and priorities, less experi-
ence in day-to-day fieldwork in stressful conditions, and normally do not train personnel
for preventive research. Moreover, there is no assurance that, for example, one detailed
academic problem-oriented excavation would adequately treat evidence not directly re-
lated to the research problem. This is not because one would consider such evidence
less important, time-consuming or, even worse, too expensive regarding the allocated
research budget, but simply because of a lack of standards (i.e. the necessary level of re-
cording and treatment of data and objects). It all comes down to professional ethics. And
it is here where the subjects in academic and preventive archaeology are not in equal po-
sitions. Archaeological stakeholders in preventive research need to go through a series of
frequently painstaking negotiations, compromises, and improvisations in order to secure
adequate working conditions, funding and appreciation of their work. The developers are
not looking for the most excellent archaeology, but instead for the cheapest.
By saying this, we are not trying to widen the gap between academic and preventive
archaeology, but rather to attempt to bridge it. Indeed, there are many aspects in which
academics can take part in preventive archaeology. By this, we do not envisage academ-
ic institutions simply competing in the market of archaeological services in preventive
contexts, which seems to be the case in countries where academic institutions have to
survive serious budget cuts and personnel shortages. Instead, good knowledge and ex-
perience in organising and implementing preventive projects on different scales, strat-
egies of heritage protection, and some sound reasoning may lead to highly effective
involvement of academics in preventive practice. They may act as consultants, reviewers,
or specialists for a number of different analyses; and, why not, academic institutes can
be members of consortia created ad hoc for meeting the most challenging demands in
preventive archaeology. There are some exemplary cases of these practices. The final
result is not only more and better developed archaeology, but also the creation of more
productive frameworks for facing the challenges of a highly data-driven discipline.
And there are also some great advantages of preventive over academic archaeology. First
and foremost is the great coverage of different areas which, under normal conditions
8 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

and circumstances, would not be investigated to such a scale and extent by academic
research alone. Let us just think of the thousands of sites and new lines of evidence
discovered in urban zones. No academic research programme would have a chance to
excavate even a small percentage of urban areas that are under constant pressure from
land development projects. Though these urban 'windows of opportunity' are normally
open for a very short period of time, it is they that have yielded extraordinary evidence
for the history of our towns.
Although one could say that preventive research has little influence on the choice of
locations to be examined, and hence their contribution to major scientific questions is
less harmonised with academic agendas, it is in the long run that preventive archaeology
demonstrates its high relevance for academic research. It does not provide quick an-
swers to individual research problems, but by undertaking thousands of trial trenches,
surveys and excavations over a decade or two, whole regions or countries are 'sampled'
in an extraordinarily detailed way, with no ecological, morphological, settlement or his-
torical area left out. A lot of the results of such continuous 'sampling' are yet to be prop-
erly evaluated, but what is already clear is that these results, though in many cases still
interim and partial, generate new important research questions and influence academic
research agendas. The most illustrative cases are numerous projects along motorways or
similar linear features crossing large areas of space, which have brought to light so much
new evidence that successfully challenged and contrasted with long-existing interpreta-
tions of demography, settlement and chronology, and that shed a completely new light
on our past.
Another important outcome of the developments in preventive archaeology is the con-
siderable increase in the number of trained professional archaeologists capable of day-
to-day coping with the unprecedented amount of preventive research. The truth is that
such an increase in the amount of work conducted was only possible with the increase
in the number of archaeologists, but it is also true that a wider professional community
could put more pressure on improving the quality of heritage protection and its practic-
es. This is the aspect that the CONPRA project is especially focused on. The development
of digital technologies for data retrieving, recording and processing, coupled with the re-
cent developments in remote sensing techniques, non-invasive archaeological methods,
and integrative powers of geographic information systems, web servers, and IT technol-
ogy in general, pose a great challenge to archaeology professionals. To put it simply, if a
developer hires a team of experts able to produce a final detailed building plan of a new
settlement using e.g. LIDAR, aerial mapping, underground surveying, modern CAD tools,
field laser scanning, 3D modelling, etc., within a period five times shorter than some
ten years ago, similar is expected from preventive archaeology. The challenge can be
confronted only by using the same tools as professionals in other fields and developers.
This, of course, raises the question of the education of archaeologists. It is illusory to
think that students will quickly get familiar with a myriad of new technologies that
emerged during their studies. Simply, there is not enough time, resources and trained
teachers to promptly react to all the novelties appearing daily. New techniques and tech-
nologies also need to be properly contextualised and experimented with prior to becom-
ing routine in archaeological practice. And, in many cases, they also have to be properly
acknowledged by the professional communities and bodies responsible for protection
  9

of the archaeological heritage. With the great increase in the number of preventive pro-
jects, it becomes even more evident that training in new techniques and procedures
is a career-long endeavour, and could be implemented in a number of different ways,
not all akin to academic training. Here we refer to different forms of apprenticeship,
secondments, various ad hoc courses, and different forms of learning-through-work. It
is important to note that a great deal of today's archaeological 'experts' in CADs, GIS,
3D scanning, 3D photogrammetry, LIDAR, geophysics, various laboratory analyses, etc.,
are originally archaeologists by academic training, but self-taught in the course of their
careers and practice.
The initiative for the CONPRA project came, indeed, from such a self-taught population
of younger professionals from private and public (academic) institutions working in pre-
ventive archaeology. The CONPRA project was primarily aimed at assisting in building
capacities for facing current challenges in the practice of preventive archaeology. The
project partnership is composed of two small private enterprises: Via Magna s.r.l. (Mar-
tin, Slovakia) and Terra Verita s.r.l. (Prague, Czech Republic), and two university depart-
ments of archaeology (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and University of Belgrade, Ser-
bia). Except Serbia, in all the other countries the market of archaeological services has
developed more or less in parallel (and in association) with preventive archaeology. The
development of the market of archaeological services created new situations in archae-
ological preventive practice which, until the 1990s, used to be completely in the domain
of public institutions and negotiations between (mostly) public stakeholders of spatial
development.
In observing such markets in Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, a very important
fact was identified, that of the rather locally based work of private enterprises. These
enterprises mostly work close to their home base, have very few (if any) contacts with
enterprises outside their country (or even their region), and cannot easily follow the de-
velopments and achievements in academic archaeology on a trans-national level; their
major contacts with academia are through students they occasionally hire and occa-
sional contacts with professors or established researchers in the case of very interesting
discoveries. They are also lacking in professional associations (such as for example CIFA
– the Chartered Institute of Archaeologists in the UK) which could lobby for their profes-
sional interests, develop and promote common standards and codes of conduct, analyse
trends and fads in the market, and so on.
Such conditions are definitely not favourable for investing in new knowledge, skills, and
equipment, if clear economic gains are not anticipated in the near future. The fact is that,
in all European countries, markets of archaeological services are quite volatile. Mostly
dependent on the intensity of development and spatial planning, it is archaeological
markets which are the first to experience crises in the development and construction
sectors. Being a 'miner's canary' (Schlanger 2010, 108) is not a favourable role for any
economic enterprise. On the other hand, academic institutions in the CONPRA countries
(and elsewhere as well) also suffered substantial setbacks due to the global economic
crisis since 2008, which excluded them from a great deal of investments in developing
and applying new technologies in archaeological research.
A large number of enterprises in preventive archaeology in the CONPRA countries fall
into the category of small or micro-enterprises. Very few of them have more than 10
10 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

permanently employed professionals in archaeology and associated fields pursuing ar-

chaeological research. Most of their work is done in the field (e.g. archaeological excava-
tion, archaeological surveys, archaeological monitoring) and also includes processing of
the field data and the material evidence. In circumstances where most of the enterpris-
es could employ only a very small number of experts, narrow specialisation for certain
aspects of archaeological work is rarely the case. Quite the opposite, it seems that it is
the 'general' field archaeologists for whom the demand is the greatest, those able to
competently and efficiently master a large span of archaeological skills in the field and
in data processing.
CONPRA publications are targeted primarily at this profile of experts and enterprises
who have certain experience in conventional archaeological fieldwork, and who can con-
siderably enrich their skills by using several new techniques and tools in their everyday
work. Indeed, while it is of crucial importance that field archaeologists understand these
methods and techniques, it is even more important to understand where and how their
routine work can be upgraded and made more efficient or accurate, and hence more
competitive.
The CONPRA project was focused mostly on the development (and transfer) of knowl-
edge in those aspects of archaeological fieldwork which are currently among the most
promising and 'prolific' in archaeological practice, and which have shown clear advan-
tages in terms of efficiency, accuracy, and time and labour requirements. They are all
strongly based on new digital technologies of data retrieval and processing, and have
proved successful in various types of archaeological research, both academic and pre-
ventive. It is not by chance that most of them are well-suited for non-invasive archae-
ological research (various surveys, remote sensing and other types of reconnaissance)
since it is these methods and techniques that are crucial for making the ultimate decision
for an entire excavation. Preventive archaeology is, in the first place, about testing and
sampling, and providing sound evidence for prescribing costlier actions, e.g. excavation.
In a certain sense, it is successful testing and sampling that are the ultimate proof of the
relevance and necessity of preventive archaeology.
The CONPRA Series comprises four volumes, which are all a result of the joint work of
secondees, tutors and other experts involved in the project:
• 3D Digital Recording of Archaeological, Architectural and Artistic Heritage (Vol. 1)
• Using Aerial Photography and LIDAR in Archaeology (Vol. 2)
• Introduction to Managing Datasets in Archaeology (Vol. 3)
• Virtual Reconstructions and Computer Visualisations in Archaeological Practice
(Vol. 4)
It is these fields, we believe, where major improvements have been made in recent years,
and which will gain in importance in the future. All four fields are strongly based on mod-
ern IT and digital technologies, and it is essential that practitioners in preventive archae­
ology implement them in their everyday practice. These technologies will increase the
capacities of many private or semi-private SMEs and other practitioners in preventive
research, not only in the sense that they could complete their tasks faster and more ac-
curately, but also that they will be able to significantly contribute to the positive image of
(preventive) archaeology as a whole, thereby increasing its relevance in modern society.
  11

At the end of the day, it is always the question of relevance and added (social and other)
values against which preventive archaeology and heritage protection are measured. Our
societies do recognise heritage as a value worth protecting and enjoying. To this end, a
series of legislative documents were produced and a number of public institutions estab-
lished with the aim of protecting the heritage. Yet, heritage, archaeological in particular,
is always challenged by spatial development. Whilst weighing the values of development
and heritage, both are primarily considered as a resource, and it is in this context, es-
pecially at local levels, that heritage protection is frequently considered an obstacle to
development or even an unnecessary cost. Heritage is a resource where investments
bring 'profit' in the very long run, whilst a great deal of development (especially privately
funded) is expected to pay off in a much shorter period of time. But let us look for a mo-
ment at the historical centres of many European towns. They all attract large masses of
tourists and generate substantial income, yet this was possible only through decades of
implementation of a careful protection policy and long-term efforts.
The 'frustrations' that developers are facing can be even more severe if preventive ar-
chaeological research is not done according to the highest professional standards or,
even worse, if very costly excavations turn out almost 'fruitless'. As has been already
said, developers would go for the cheapest archaeology, and not the highest-quality
one. Unfortunately, recent evidence from many countries (e.g. Aitchison 2009; 2014,
and accompanying national reports; also in Guermandi and Rossenbach 2013) shows
that enterprises are willing to charge prices that barely cover their costs, just to be able
to survive another season. Such a situation is increasingly worrying, since it undermines
the quality of preventive archaeology in general and, to remedy this situation, the most
urgent task of the relevant public bodies and legislators is to secure adequate minimum
conditions for preventive research.
In the meantime, it is up to the enterprises and all other subjects acting in the field of
preventive archaeology to invest in knowledge and skills, in order to make them more
competitive and diversified. The CONPRA publications aim to contribute to this process.
INTRODUCTION
Milan Horňák (Via Magna)

Nowadays, excavations constitute a significant part of the overall archaeological activity.

Archaeologists conducting excavations face financial limitations on one hand, and the
demand for a comprehensive and efficient execution of field work on the other. Because
of the destructive nature of archaeology, high-quality archaeological documentation is
of utmost importance in archaeological excavations. Given the characteristic present-day
time pressure and resulting lack of on-site interpretations during the excavations, the ac-
curate and exhaustive documentation becomes even more important, as post-excavation
interpretations are entirely based upon it. The traditional measuring means and manual
recording have been replaced by digital documentation, including the total station and
Differential GPS. Three-dimensional (3D) recording stands at the front-end of modern
technological innovations in archaeological documentation. A similar situation can be
observed in the field of historical architecture survey. Current construction activities usu-
ally lead to a substantial change in the layout of historical structures. 3D data acquisition
can be applied here as a way of storing 3D information on previously existing structures,
which can in the future be used for further evaluation.
Although new technologies, such as terrestrial laser scanning, enable fast, accurate and
comprehensive acquisition of cultural heritage data for subsequent analyses, the lack of
financial means and technical knowledge of rescue archaeologists and conservators has
so far hampered incorporation of 3D digitalization into the documentation workflows
established over the years (which are generally based on the total station measurements
combined with photographs and pencil drawings).
However, the recent boom in computer vision programs that combine Structure from
Motion (SfM) approach with dense Multi-View Stereo (MVS) algorithms changed this
14 M ilan H orňák

situation. These packages enable generation of accurate 3D models from a collection

of photographs in a straightforward and cost-effective manner, without the need for
extensive photogrammetric and computer vision knowledge of the user, or the informa-
tion on geometrical properties of the scene. As such, they became a regular element in
the documentation practice in many research and commercial fields, including cultural
heritage monitoring and preservation. Furthermore, laser scanning technology nowadays
demonstrates a remarkable progress, especially regarding user-friendliness, which makes
it more accessible to a broader spectrum of potential users. Moreover, the increasing
application of structured light technology, incorporated mostly into handheld scanners,
causes substantial price drop and enables scanning to be affordable in the cultural her-
itage domain.
The main aim of this publication is to deliver a broad overview of technologies available
for digital documentation, primarily focusing on 3D digital recording and its importance
for preventive archaeology and other branches of cultural heritage management. The
book is not intended to bring in-depth and comprehensive research evaluation of all
digital technologies currently available. On the contrary, its objective is to present a
practical approach to digital documentation, show its potential, limits and problems,
as well as possibilities to overcome them. The core of the book is represented by case
studies illustrating different strategies and practices of 3D digital recording in some par-
ticular fields of archaeology, art history and conservation. Different experience with the
applied technologies is described, including problems encountered in the data retrieval
and processing. Each category of the case studies is discussed separately and from the
point of view of the relevance of the applied technological strategy, as well as possible
practical improvements. Finally, remarks on the possibilities of 3D modelling for further
documentation purposes are made.
3D DIGITAL RECORDING: BASICS
Seta Štuhec (University of Ljubljana)

TERMS
3D model
A digital three-dimensional (3D) model is a digital representation of the 3D geometry
of an object. The three geometrical dimensions are usually represented in a Cartesian
coordinate system with three perpendicular axes: X, Y and Z (in most 3D software envi-
ronments, the latter represents the depth). Such a virtual environment enables viewing
of a 3D model from all possible directions, rotating the 3D model, zooming, creating
cross-sections, measuring and other operations. The 3D surface geometry can be con-
structed and represented in several ways, the most common ones being Non-Uniform
Rational Basis Spline (NURBS)-based, SubDivision surfaces (SubD), T-splines-based and
polygon(al) meshes (also called mesh or polymesh) (Figs. 1-2).

Figure 1. 3D model surface types: A: mesh-quads, B: mesh-quads, smoothed, C: NURBS.

(Available at: https://andrewevs92.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/127/).
16 S eta Š tuhec

Figure 2. 3D mesh-triangles with different resolution (3D Modelling for programmers.

Available at: https://cathyatseneca.gitbooks.io/3d-modelling-for-programmers/content
/3ds_max_basics/3d_ representation.html.
The 3D polygon mesh model consists of linked polygon facets (also known as faces) that
represent 3D surface of a specific form. The line segments that link the faces are called
edges, and the point where the edges meet is called vertex (Tobler, Maierhofer 2006).
The polygon models are most commonly constructed of triangular (tris) or quadrilateral
(quads) polygons. Therefore, a single triangle consists of a triangular face, three edges
and three vertices, whereas an additional vertex and an edge are needed for a quad.
Polygons that consist of more vertices and edges are called n-gons, where n represents
the number of vertices. Because such mesh-based representations are suitable for fitting
noisy data (Ilic 2005), and their use is also flexible and efficient for various processing steps
(such as simplifications, smoothing, etc.), meshes – in particular triangular meshes – are
normally used to model surfaces that are acquired by 3D laser scanning and image-based
3D modelling. Additionally, polymeshes can also be constructed from scratch in several
3D modelling software packages used for 3D animations, video games, films and (re)
constructions.
Important aspects of every 3D model are its colour and texture. The colour information
for each face in a polygonal 3D model can be stored per vertex. This discrete colour
information is afterward interpolated to represent the colour of the complete face. On
the other hand, the texture is created by assigning a texture coordinate to every vertex
and then projecting the 2D images onto the 3D geometry. Although polymeshes are
ubiquitous in the 3D world, NURBS forms the standard mathematical model used by
modern Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems to model 3D curves and surfaces. NURBS
can present complex surfaces that are completely smooth. As such, they have become
the standard in industrial 3D modelling and reverse engineering industries (Danaher 2005,
p. 156). Presenting an object such as a piece of ceramic vessel, with many small details,
can, however, be very problematic with NURBS. This means that polygonal meshes are
still preferred for the majority of cultural heritage objects.
 3D DIGITAL RECORDING: BASICS 17

3D modelling
When browsing through the literature, one finds many terms that refer to the creation of
3D models. Unfortunately, these terms are not used consistently and can cause confusion
among researchers. Therefore, we are going to define the terminology of 3D model crea-
tion as it is used in the present book. The term ‘3D modelling’ is defined as a general term
for the digital creation of a mathematical visualisation of an object in three dimensions
(Vaughan 2012, p. 4) and does not imply how exactly the 3D model was created.

3D digital documenting/digitisation
‘3D digital documenting’ or ‘digitisation’ refers to the recording of a physical object in
three geometrical dimensions. There are several techniques available that allow us to
digitise existing objects. They can roughly be divided into two groups: active and passive
techniques. Active techniques emit radiation onto an object in order to measure it. These
techniques are normally referred to as 3D scanning. Following this definition, total station
is also an active 3D recording instrument that could be used to create a 3D model of an
object, but since it measures only one point at a time, it is too time-consuming to create
high-resolution 3D models from the data. Passive techniques, on the other hand, do not
emit any electromagnetic radiation. The most commonly used one is image-based 3D
modelling that allows the construction of a 3D model from a set of overlapping images
using the principles of photogrammetry and computer vision.

3D digital reconstruction
The term ‘3D reconstruction’ is often confused with ‘3D digitisation’, a confusion which
most likely originates from the technical perspective. In the fields of photogrammetry
and computer vision, reconstruction refers to the creation of light rays and their inter-
section with the physical object at the moment of capturing the image. In this sense, 3D
reconstruction means re-creation of an object (in a digital way) using the imagery at hand.
Notwithstanding this, the term ‘reconstruction’ is well-established within the cultural
heritage field and refers to the virtual re-creation of a complete object or scene in order
to show how it looked when it was originally created (ICOMOS 2013). Therefore, 3D
digital reconstruction, as described in this book, refers to 3D virtual modelling of objects
or parts of objects that do not (or no longer) exist. Such 3D models can be constructed
from scratch in a 3D software environment, or can use data created by 3D digitisation and
other techniques (geophysical survey, etc.) as a basis for further reconstruction.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF 3D DIGITAL RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGY

3D recording is not a new phenomenon in archaeological documentation. Since the ‘birth’

of photogrammetry in the middle of the 19th century, its principles were first used by
aerial archaeologists in the 1920s to map larger areas (Fryer 2001). Later, from the 1960s
onwards, archaeologists started to use photogrammetry to document archaeological ex-
cavations (Whittlesely 1966), mostly using low-altitude aerial images acquired from the
top of poles and ladders. Photogrammetric processing at that time was based on analogue
stereo images that were observed through a stereoscope to get the notion of the third
18 S eta Š tuhec

dimension. Only after the so-called digital revolution in the 1990s, digital photogram-
metry gradually took over and some techniques slowly merged with the research field
of computer vision (Štular, Štuhec 2015). The development of the latter is to be situated
in the 1970s and originates in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence whose task,
among others, was to give a computer the same vision and understanding of a scene as
in humans. At first, the task did not seem too challenging but, in the attempts at solving
it, a new research field emerged (Szeliski 2011).
Although the discipline of computer vision currently covers a broader area than the
sole extraction of 3D geometrical information, it has always been an important part of
it. Gradually, certain computer vision techniques – which were always tailored toward
speed – started to be combined with photogrammetric concepts and algorithms, for
which accuracy has always been the main aim, that is – to extract reliable image-based
3D data rapidly (Cooper, Robson 2001). Nonetheless, it was not until the late 2000s that
comprehensive, intuitive and cost-effective software packages and online services became
available. Because of these software characteristics, image-based modelling quickly be-
came a part of the standard archaeological 3D documentation workflow and has, in the
course of this decade, superseded the 3D scanning techniques that were actually the first
to hit 3D digitisation market.
3D scanners were, in fact, known already in the late 1960s, but 3D laser and structured
light scanners as we know them today appeared later, in the 1980s (Štular, Štuhec 2015).
Several private companies offered their 3D scanning services for the benefit of archae-
ology in the 1990s, but archaeologists themselves only started to use this method in the
mid-2000s (Koller et al. 2009; Doneus, Neubauer 2006) when the equipment became
easier to afford and use. However, at present, majority of 3D scanners can still not be con-
sidered cost-effective in most archaeological situations and are, therefore, as mentioned
before, gradually superseded by image-based 3D modelling. Obviously, both techniques
have advantages and flaws, and the superiority of one technique over the other is mostly
related to the type of archaeological remains one intends to digitise. Although cost-ef-
fectiveness is not the only factor to be considered, it certainly plays a very important role
when choosing a 3D documentation technique.
The first papers on the use of 3D in archaeology appeared at the Computer Application
and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) conference already in 1974 when L.
Biek published his first in a series of several papers on LERNIE, the interactive and visual
system that was to be used to record and analyse archaeological remains. His contribution
contained photogrammetric approaches, animation, ‘video’ documentation, etc. (Biek
1974, 1976, 1978; Biek et al. 1981; Biek 1985, 1986). Soon after, active 3D digitisation
techniques began to be used in archaeological documentation. One of the first examples
is the 3D digitisation of a medieval moated site Mathrafal in Welshpool, Wales using the
total station (Arnold et al. 1989). However, it was not until 1991 that 3D techniques, in
general, received more attention, and the whole field of archaeological 3D applications
got its own umbrella term. In his paper on photogrammetric digitisation of the Roman
temple in Bath, England, P. Reilly coined the term “Virtual Archaeology” and thus laid
the foundations for a whole new discipline (Reilly 1991). The early virtual archaeology
applications of the 1990s covered 3D documentation as well as the use of 3D recon-
structions for museological purposes. Some of these studies were compiled in the book
 3D DIGITAL RECORDING: BASICS 19

“Virtual Archaeology. Re-creating ancient worlds” (Forte, Siliotti 1997). Soon after, 3D
models started to be used as a research tool (albeit to a very moderate extent, see below).
Among the first of such efforts was the attempt to create a system of automatic pottery
classification (Menard, Sablatnig 1996).
One of the first larger projects completely dedicated to the use of 3D in archaeology
was called 3D MURALE. The project was aimed at the creation of a tool for recording,
inspecting, reconstructing and visualising all kinds of archaeological remains (Cosmas et
al. 2001). In the 2000s, several projects were carried out with a similar goal. Probably the
most successful were the project EPOCH2 and its successor, 3D-COFORM3. In 2005, in the
framework of the EPOCH project, a software package MeshLab4 for 3D data processing
and analysis was created. A year later, the launch of the online image-based 3D modelling
service ARC3D5 marked more-or-less the beginning of the so-called digital image-based
3D modelling revolution in archaeology (although the same authors already published
several archaeological publications at the end of the 1990s, i.e. Pollefeys et al. 1998,
2000, 2001). Afterward, several other programs and online services were established,
such as Microsoft Photosynth and Bundler, followed up by Autodesk 123D Catch, Eos
Systems PhotoModeller Scanner, Visual SfM and Agisoft PhotoScan, to name a few. This
technological development caused an immense and sudden increase in the usage of 3D
digitisation in archaeology. The previous, rather small group of people that was dealing
with virtual archaeology suddenly grew into an extensive community.
Since 1974, the previously mentioned annual CAA conferences became the first platform
where people could discuss the topics related to virtual archaeology (although, back
then, virtual archaeology was not called that name). Other important conferences that,
over time, started including contributions on 3D modelling in archaeology have been, for
instance, the annual Digital Heritage International Congress (DH), the International Society
for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS) commission V conferences, the Scientific
Computing and Cultural Heritage conferences, the EUROGRAPHICS Workshops on Graphics
and Cultural Heritage and the biennial CIPA Heritage Documentation Symposia. Papers
and ongoing projects presented at these conferences reveal a broad usage of the created
3D models today.

ADVANTAGES AND APPLICATIONS OF 3D MODEL

Various technologies enable the acquisition of geometrical as well as textural data of an

object. Final result of such digitisation process is a digital, geometrical 3D model that is
not only a representation of the object, but which should also be considered the object’s
digital surrogate. This does not mean that a 3D model can ever be a substitute for the
physical object. However, ideally, the digital copy provides a comprehensive documenta-
tion, while it can also be used to examine the object in the ways different/supplementary
to the ones possible when working with the physical object. However, for a 3D model to

2  http://epoch-net.org/site/.
3  http://www.3d-coform.eu/.
4  http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/.
5  http://www.arc3d.be/.
20 S eta Š tuhec

be treated as the virtual copy of an object, it is important to pay attention to the accuracy,
spatial resolution and the precision of the digitisation. All three aspects depend on the
particular method of data capturing as well as all the data post-processing procedures.
Therefore, such provenance metadata are necessary in order to enable other users to
properly assess a 3D model and verify its suitability for the intended purpose. In this way,
a 3D model is not an interpretation on its own (as is, for example, a drawing), but it is a
tool that can be used to showcase and analyse the object, simulate past activities, and
gather information that enables a better understanding of the object. The combination
of these activities makes it possible to better interpret the object.
The most obvious advantage of a digital 3D model, compared to the traditional archaeo-
logical documentation methods such as photography and drawing, lies in the fact that a
3D model is not static, but it can be manipulated in various ways. It can be viewed from all
directions, zoomed in or out, the lighting conditions as well as texturing can be changed
over and over again. These features enable us to grasp very small, very large or very
heavy objects, buildings or areas. Furthermore, the geometry can be inspected without
texture and in optimal lighting conditions. Certain algorithms also emphasise the digital
model’s geometry and can make it even easier to perceive. It is also possible to automati-
cally detect distinct geometrical features (such as edges) and make a semi-automated 2D
drawing from the 3D model. The various analytical possibilities, such as measuring and
cross-sectioning, greatly add to the described benefits. Measurements extracted from a
3D model can, in many cases, be more accurate than those taken from the physical object,
or its drawing or a photograph.
Even though various technologies are currently capable of reliably digitising the 3D geom-
etry of a surface, there are still many open issues related to digital 3D objects. These con-
cern the overall digital data management of 3D models, and there are also more specific
issues associated with the long-term data preservation. Furthermore, there exists a large
variety of approaches to digitising the geometry of a surface in 3D and not all of those
techniques are suitable for every 3D digitisation job. For example, many 3D digitisation
approaches struggle with shiny, glossy or transparent archaeological artefacts, so specific
solutions have to be found in those cases. However, the choice of a particular technology
generally depends on the time and finances available within the project.
In addition, there is also a lack of suitable software packages that allow for an all- en-
compassing, archaeologically-relevant analysis of the 3D data. Most of the tools support
only a subset of the aforementioned (analytical) techniques. As an example, tools that
allow measuring and sectioning might lack decent visualisation capabilities, while 3D
environments that might be focused on displaying large datasets often do not support
georeferencing in real-world coordinate reference systems. Finally, most archaeological
workflows (e.g. excavation documentation), as well as publications, are bound to the 2D
or 2.5D derivates of 3D models, which means that the full potential of 3D models has not
yet been exploited (Štuhec 2012; Verhoeven in press).
Taking all their characteristics into account, digital 3D models can, therefore, be used to
document, present, share and analyse archaeological objects, buildings or areas. Through
the use of internet database systems, it is possible to share the models with a wider sci-
entific and lay public. Objects and features that would otherwise be inaccessible (such as
artefacts in museum depots, very fragile objects, archaeological remains physically difficult
 3D DIGITAL RECORDING: BASICS 21

to reach, stratigraphic contexts that were destroyed during the excavation process, etc.),
could be viewed from anywhere in the world. Such databases can also join 3D models of
objects that are kept away from each other, but belong to the same period, area or interest
group. There have been several projects aiming at creating a database that would allow
researchers to view and/or inspect archaeological remains with common characteristics.
The Carnuntum Database (www.carnuntum-db.at), for example, includes 3D models of
objects found in the Roman city of Carnuntum in Austria (Humer et al. 2010). The Virtual
Zooarchaeology of the Arctic Project (VZAP) is a virtual, interactive, osteological reference
collection for the study of northern vertebrates hosted on http://vzap.iri.isu.edu/. Another
3D model database is hosted by the project Digitizing Early Farming Cultures (DEFC)6,
which includes the most representative shards from the F. Schachermeyr’s Neolithic
pottery collection originating from Thessaly, Greece. The 3D models uploaded online
are not isolated, but are instead interconnected with the rest of the database containing
information on the Neolithic sites and finds in Greece and Western Anatolia (Štuhec et
al. 2016). Several other 3D databases are trying to enrich the 3D models by connecting
them to other types of data. MayaArch3D is an example of such an interactive platform
that also includes several different analytical tools (Billen et al. 2013). Apart from these
relatively local projects, there has also been an initiative for a Europe-wide collection of
3D models. This initiative was called the CARARE project7 and was carried out from 2010
until 2013 in the framework of the Europeana (D'Andrea, Fernie 2013).
A collection of 3D models can be presented online in the form of a virtual museum (e.g.
Virtual Museum Iraq, http://www.virtualmuseumiraq.cnr.it/homeENG.htm); traditional
museums and other educational institutions are also taking advantage of 3D technologies
(Engel 2011; Hess, Robson 2012). By using 3D reconstructions and animation they offer
a better visualisation of what ‘might have been and might have happened’. In addition,
museums are nowadays employing different interactive systems and augmented reality
to bring the past closer to the visitors (Hookk et al. 2015; Verykokou et al. 2014). Also, the
video games-format is becoming more and more popular for its potential in communi-
cating educational content (Mortara et al. 2014; Kontogianni, Georgopoulos 2015; Cirulis
et al. 2015). Last but not least, museums often resort to 3D digitising and reproduction
techniques to create replicas. Such replicas can be used as a substitute for the real objects
when these are undergoing conservation, restoration, or any other treatment, or when
a museum would like visitors to be able to touch and inspect the objects themselves.
3D replicas are not only useful in museums, but also for scientific research, especially
when very fragile objects or very large archaeological remains must be handled. The latter
can be 3D printed in a reduced size, while very heavy objects can be replicated in lighter
materials. It is also possible to document an object in situ and later work on the replica.
Repeated in situ 3D documentation also enables monitoring of weather and other external
influences (Vetrivel et al. 2015).
Nowadays, the most widely used virtual archaeology application of 3D objects is still only
for simple documentation purposes. 3D models are used to document landscapes (Masini
et al. 2011; Neubauer et al. 2012; Doneus et al. 2008; Verhoeven 2011), archaeological
excavations (De Padova, Maria Doriana 2015; Doneus et al. 2011; De Reu et al. 2014;

6  http://defc.digital-humanities.at/3Dmodels/.
7  http://carare.eu/.
22 S eta Š tuhec

Barbaro et al. 2014; Dellepiane et al. 2013), as well as artefacts (Opgenhaffen, Revello Lami
2015; Richardson, Smilansky 2013; Štular, Štuhec 2015). The generated 3D models are only
seldom used for actual archaeological analysis and interpretation, which is most likely due
to the lack of user-friendly analytical tools (see above) and the lack of knowledge of the
prospects of 3D technologies. However, in recent years there have been several attempts
to use 3D models as a tool in archaeological research. Several studies tried to classify pot-
tery or lithic tools based on the geometric characteristics of the 3D models (Kolomenkin
et al. 2011; Grosman 2013; Athanassopoulos, Shelton 2015; Muller, Clarkson 2014) and
some used pattern recognition algorithms to compare 3D models of artefacts in order to
recognize similar threads that may lead to correct typological classification, or to establish
new ones (Burrer 2013; Carrasco-Ochoa et al. 2015; Teddy et al. 2015). A rather popular
usage of 3D models is, also, the surface inspection which was, for example, carried out on
the high-resolution 3D models of Stonehenge (Abbott, Anderson-Whymark 2012). A closer
look at the digital surface is often also beneficial for the inspection of rock art (Zeppelzauer
et al. 2015) or the interpretative mapping of earthworks (Verhoeven in press).
For some time now, 3D models are also being integrated and used with other techniques
and tools, for example, in geographical information systems (GIS). GIS enables the con-
struction of whole cities (Baratin et al. 2015), or reversing the excavation process by
visualizing the time component as the fourth dimension (Klinkenberg 2014; De Padova,
Maria Doriana 2015). 3D models of individual artefacts can also be positioned in GIS at
the exact spot where they were found during the excavation. Additionally, much effort
has been put into the semantic description of 3D models. Especially building information
modelling (BIM) aims at the creation of a semantic library of buildings and their elements,
which allows researchers to better understand the construction, function and biography
of a building (Cheng et al. 2015; Fai et al. 2011; Fregonese et al. 2015; Volk et al. 2014).
Although it seems that 3D models are being used in various ways all over the world, there
is a lingering notion that more could be done. Within the increasing cooperation between
archaeologists and technicians, new tools and comprehensive software packages should
be developed that would allow archaeologists to analyse, exploit and question their 3D
models in an easier and a more meaningful way.
3D SCANNING
Nenad Jončić (University of Belgrade) & Ján Zachar (Via Magna)

3D scanning as a technological procedure is aimed at collecting information on the shape

and colour of the object scanned. The acquired data help build a basis for the construction
of digital, three-dimensional models useful for a wide variety of interpretative purposes.
Currently, there are a lot of different technologies and 3D scanning devices available,
each one coming with its own limitations, advantages and costs. Prime properties of the
3D scanning solution are its ability to effectively capture digital description of the objects
and meet the required level of accuracy and data clarity. According to the source, applied
scanning, laser scanning and structured light scanning can be distinguished.1 The three
principle types of scanning technology include Time-of-Flight (TOF), Phase-Shift (PS) and
Triangulation-based systems. Scanning technology is connected to other system factors,
including the acquisition distance, the acquisition rate and the data resolution/accuracy.
There is a wide range of 3D scanning technologies available for different items within
the sphere of cultural heritage, ranging in size from small archaeological finds to large
structures. There have been many studies that illustrate how 3D scanning, implemented
in the protection of cultural heritage, generates excellent results, both in terms of speed
and of accuracy. Until now, a lot of large scanning projects in the field of cultural heritage
management and archaeological research have demonstrated the relevance of this meth-
od as a modern and, in many cases, fundamental documentation practice.

1  As a unique category, image-based scanning should be mentioned. Formerly, it used to be defined as 3D photogrammetry,
but this is not a proper term.
24 N enad J ončić , J án Z achar

LASER SCANNING

3D laser scanning is a non-destructive, non-contact method of capturing data that can be

used for rapid and accurate creation of three-dimensional files, for archiving and digital
manipulation. A 3D laser scanner emits a narrow laser beam that hits a target object,
gathering millions of closely spaced measurements in a matter of minutes. These scanned
measurements are put together and grouped into compressed point cloud databases,
which can be processed to generate a 3D dense representation of the object (Arias et al.
2005; Yastikli 2007; Cheng et al. 2015).
In the most general terms, 3D laser scanning, also referred to as 3D digitising, entails the
utilization of a three-dimensional data acquisition device for acquiring a multitude of X, Y and
Z coordinates (points) + their RGB values. Furthermore, returning distance signals generate
intensity information registered for each of the points. The intensity – often called ‘the fourth
dimension’ – is a very useful parameter for visual enhancement of various architectural
features, especially in the dense and complex point clouds (Staiger 2003). Each measured
point is thus precisely defined in space, in a global or local coordinate system, with X, Y, and
Z coordinates. The collection of all these points is defined as a ‘point cloud’. The typical file
format for point cloud data contains the X, Y and Z (possibly + RGB and intensity) values for
each point, or a polygonal mesh representation of the point cloud (Slob, Hack 2004).2
Laser light is coherent, which means that a laser beam can propagate over long distances
and can be focused to very small spots. Laser light may be visible, but most lasers actually
emit in other spectral regions, in particular the near-infrared region, which human eyes
cannot perceive. The first working laser was demonstrated in May 1960 by Theodore
Maiman at Hughes Research Laboratories.3 Although laser scanning was developed in the
1960s, it was not used for surveying structures until the late 1990s (SurvTech Solutions
2015). So far, laser scanning has proven to have an essential role in large scale cultural
heritage projects as it provides a highly useful tool for global monitoring and damage
detection (Pieraccini et al. 2001).

Airborne laser scanning (LiDAR)4

Airborne laser scanning (LiDAR = acronym for ‘Light detection and Ranging’, also LIDAR)
is a scanning technique for capturing data on the features of, and objects on, the surface
of the earth. It is an important data source in environmental studies, since it is capable
of mapping topographic height and the height of objects on the surface to a significant
vertical and horizontal accuracy, and over large areas. Airborne laser scanning is an active
remote sensing technology able to rapidly collect data from vast areas. The resulting data-
set can be used as a base in digital surface and elevation models. Airborne laser scanning
is often coupled with airborne imagery; therefore, the point clouds and images can be
fused together, thereby increasing the quality of the final 3D product – the high-quality
3D representation of a landscape (Vosselman, Maas 2010).

2  At present, there are plenty of file formats determined for point cloud data storage (e.g. ASCII, PLY, LAS/LAZ, etc.).
3  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Harold_Maiman.
4  LiDAR per se represents a substantial topic, thus we here provide a very brief outline.
 3D SCANNING 25

Terrestrial laser scanning

Terrestrial laser scanners (TLS) are positioned directly on the ground, or on a platform
placed on the ground, and are normally mounted on a tripod. TLS is, in its essence, an im-
proved version of the laser tachometric measurement toolkit (the so-called total station)
that is based on the combination of distances and angles measured from a fixed point.
Tachometric laser scanners digitise objects of interest with a frequency of 1000 Hz or high-
er. Each point is measured per one oblique distance and, additionally, two orthogonal an-
gles are measured (Vosselman, Maas 2010). Most TLS are long-range devices (see below)
used for 3D documentation of large landscape areas or complex structures. Nowadays, a
great variety of TLS is available with different range and pulse frequencies (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Basic types of terrestrial 3D laser scanners (TLS) – a brief overview.

A: Faro Focus 3DX130, B: Leica C10, C: Riegl VZ serie,
D: Topcon GLS 1500, E: Surphaser 105HSX, F: Stonex X300.

Handheld (portable) laser scanning

There has recently been an increase in the application of handheld scanners. Their basic
advantage is their portability. Scanners that are attached to light portable stands fall in
this category as well, even though they are not ‘handheld’ in the true sense of the word
(Figure 4). Primarily used in reverse engineering, nowadays they are very often employed
in digital documentation of moveable cultural heritage objects (especially objects kept in
museums). Although most handheld scanners are based on structured light technology,
there is an obvious expansion in the usage of laser portable scanners. Most handheld
laser scanners exploit triangulation mechanism (see below), often with the application
of calibration targets attached to the object being scanned.
26 N enad J ončić , J án Z achar

Figure 4. Basic types of portable scanners – a brief overview.

A: Artec Eva, B: Artec Spider, C: David Scanner, D: Sense Scanner, E: Microsoft Kinect,
F: Breuckmann Smart Scanner, G: Faro Scanner Freestyle, H: ZScanner, I: Creaform Go!SCAN.
A-F, I: Structured light scanning (SLS) technology; G,H: Laser technology.

Long- and short-range laser scanning

There is a variety of technologies for digital acquisition of the shape of a 3D object. A
well-established classification recognizes two types: contact and non-contact. Non-contact
solutions can be further divided into two main categories, active and passive. Based on
the principle of technology, in combination with the scale and ranging, the categories
described below can be established.
There are two different types of scanners that are commonly used in long-range 3D laser
scanning: Phase-Shift (PS) and Time-of-Flight (TOF). The TOF method works by sending
a laser pulse of light and then measuring the amount of time it takes to travel from the
scanner to the object and back, allowing the scanner to calculate the distance (Armesto-
González et al. 2010). An essential part of TOF measurement is the detection method for
determining the range and the time of flight. The detector will generate a time-tagged
trigger pulse depending on the implemented criterion. Some detection methods take
characteristic points of the path of the pulse as the decisive factor (Vosselman, Maas
2010, p. 5). The speed of light is precisely known, so if the information on the time it takes
the laser to reach the object and reflects back to the sensor is also known, the location
of the object can be determined. A fundamental property of the light wave is its propa-
gation velocity. In a given medium, light waves travel with a constant but finite velocity.
The measurement itself is represented by time delays (referred to as the ‘time-of-flight’)
created by light travelling in a medium from the source to the reflective target surface,
and back to the source (Vosselman, Maas 2010, p. 3). The advantage of this technology
is the significant increase in the speed of the data capture – currently up to several mil-
lion points per second. TOF is typically used for exterior civil/survey applications such as
 3D SCANNING 27

topographic surveys of roadways and buildings, since the key benefit of this type of laser
scanning technology is its capability of capturing data from a greater distance (from several
hundred up to several thousand metres), while maintaining the accuracy in the order of
centimetres or smaller units (Pieraccini et al. 2001; Yastikli 2007; San José et al. 2011).
PS scanners work by sending out a continuous laser beam with a modulated signal embedded
in the laser. The scanner compares the phase of the signal at the source with the phase of the
laser light once it has travelled to the object and reflected back to the scanner; the change
of phase of the laser light is measured and this allows the scanner to calculate the distances
(Armesto-González et al. 2010; San José et al. 2011). In comparison to TOF scanners, PS
scanners have a lower operational range (80 metres, with some systems reaching up to 120
metres), but can capture more points per second with a higher precision. Generally, PS scan-
ner operates similarly to TOF scanner. The main difference is that PS scanner calculates the
time of flight by measuring the difference in the phase of the laser as it returns to the scanner
(Bhurtha, Held 2007; Armesto-González et al., 2010). Phase-based scanners are typically used
in industrial applications such as plants and refineries, or interior architectural spaces.
While mid- and long-range laser scanners are usually based on TOF technology, systems
designed for measuring distances smaller than 5 metres often use the triangulation princi-
ple. Triangulation systems typically have an operating range from 0.5 metres to few metres
and can collect data with the micron-level accuracy. Short range scanners are used to scan
individual small or middle-sized objects, inscriptions and details of architectural features.
All short-range scanners are, in fact, portable/handheld devices (Remondino 2011).
The principle of triangulation is based on the laser or light (in the case of structured light
scanning) being emitted and returned to a specific location on a CCD array of an inboard
camera (Bohler 2006). Most triangulation systems come with a set of lenses that alter the
field of view of the system. Most triangulation systems also include an internal RGB capture
option, which means that, for accurate colour capture during scanning, a special lighting
setup must be used (Pieraccini et al. 2001). Laser triangulation scanners use either a laser
line or a single laser point to scan across an object. The sensor picks up the laser light that
is reflected off the object and, using trigonometric triangulation, the system calculates the
distance from the object to the scanner. The distance between the laser/light source and
the sensor is known, as well as the angle between the laser and the sensor. The process of
defining these values is called ‘calibration of the device’. The scattered light from that surface
is collected from a vantage point distinct from the projected light beam. This light is focused
onto a position-sensitive detector. The knowledge of both the projection and the collection
angles relative to the baseline determines the dimensions of the triangle and hence the
coordinate of a point on the surface (Vosselman, Maas 2010; Feng et al. 2001).

Workflow notes
Laser scanning is usually carried out by experts, and the customer in most cases gets the
final product. On the other hand, it is always desirable for the technologist to cooperate
on site with a cultural heritage expert (or an archaeologist) in order to achieve satisfactory
results and, especially, not to omit important parts of documented structures (e.g. critical
details) which require higher level of accuracy. This applies especially to TLSs, given that,
in terms of the price, handheld scanners are more accessible to a broader public and are
affordable to cultural heritage institutions.
28 N enad J ončić , J án Z achar

DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING5

The basic requirement for carrying out a project involving TLS documentation is a proper recon-
naissance of the site/structure that is the object of scanning. During this step, basic information
on the terrain configuration (flat land, hilly terrain, open land, trees with extensive canopy,
etc.), as well as the characteristics of the structure (building material, height, type of roof, the
level of occlusion, etc.) is collected. The scanning strategy should be based on the information
acquired through reconnaissance. The core part of the strategy is the proper plan of scan
positions – the so-called ‘stations’. Planning of the stations distribution must accommodate
the demand for the total scan coverage, with as few digital shadows as possible. Some parts of
the site documented may not be accessible to the scanner device (roofs, upper parts of high
buildings, etc.). In such cases, additional technology (like image-based modelling procedure),
with the help of unmanned aerial vehicle or a pole, should be involved. It is always good to
include in the scanning procedure sketching of the stations positions on a plan, which then
helps in orientation in the subsequent scan registration. In this sense, it is advisable to give
names to particular scans according to the applied system, which would indicate their position.6
It is necessary for the scanning procedure to set the scanning accuracy, which is mostly
defined as per distance. The level of accuracy is dependent upon the scale of the project
and the commissioning arrangement. In the case of architectural structures, scanning ac-
curacy should not go below 6 mm per 15 metres. For subsequent registration7 of particular
scans, (ground) control points ((G)CP) have to be captured. These points are marked on
the spot and scanned with the help of a special prism. Then, they are measured with the
total station. The level of the measurement accuracy should not exceed 6-7 mm; otherwise
the final registration of the scans can cause ‘ghosting’ effect.8
Most laser scanners are equipped with an inbuilt camera which can generate composite
photos. The final scans derive RGB information from the photos taken at the same position
where the scan was created. Unfortunately, most scanner cameras have unsatisfactory
sensors, with small resolution, so the final RGB values are of very poor quality.9 In addition,
processing softwares have limited possibilities for managing certain RAW files. Therefore,
it often happens that some parts of the scanned structure have underexposed or over-
exposed RGB values, which are then very difficult to fix during the final texturing (Figure
5). To achieve a good texture, it is necessary to use proper external camera for photo
documentation, which can be afterwards used in texturing the final mesh in external
software.10 Moreover, the possibility of merging laser scan and image based scan data has
recently emerged with the application of Capturing Reality’s RealityCapture software.11
The basic output of laser scanning is a point cloud of a specific density and resolution.
The majority of native scanner processing software can export the point cloud either in

5  This chapter is primarily concerned with TLS since the data acquisition by portable laser scanners is very similar to that
of structured light scanners.
6  If scanning a building, it is advised to name the scans according to the rooms, floors, wings, etc.
7  In scanning technology, the term ‘register’ is used in place of a more general expression ‘align’.
8  Especially in case of flat surfaces (e.g. walls), inaccuracy can generate double structures.
9  This does not involve Riegl scanners, which use standard external DSLR cameras attached to the scanner.
10  The majority of external point cloud processing software packages enable texturing of the mesh using external photos
(e.g. Geomagic Design X, Geomagic Wrap, PolyWorks, MeshLab). The procedure involves manual selection of common
reference points on the photo and on the 3D model.
11  Capturing Reality RC requires laser scan data format PTX as an input, in order to read the scanning positions and align
them with the image data.
 3D SCANNING 29

the scanner’s native file (e.g. FLS – Faro native format, PTZ and PTG – Leica native format,
etc.) or in the generally interchangeable file formats such as PTS, PTX or ASCII.12 Both file
types store point clouds with the topographic information (X, Y and Z coordinates of each
point) and intensity and colour information (R, G and B values of each point). Furthermore,
the PTX file format contains information on the position of particular scanning stations.13
This format contains the above-mentioned data as well, but, due to its structure, it is very
difficult to work with when it contains a large amount of data.14
The first step of scan-data processing is scan registration, i.e. the alignment of all scans
of particular scanning stations into one common point cloud. Scan registration can be
carried out either in the scanner’s native processing software using the measured GCP,
which is the preferable option, or in an external software (commercial or open-source).
External software is predominantly used for the registration of common points in point
cloud pairs which are defined manually, or it applies semi-automatic aligning process
based on fusing common parts of the point clouds (e.g. Autodesk ReCap). In the latter
case, sufficient overlapping between registered point clouds is required.
After all the scans have been registered, the final, aligned point cloud is generated and
this is then subject to further processing. Depending upon the needs of the project, it can
be subsampled. The final step is mesh generation. Most native scanner software packages
are not very good in doing this. Nowadays there are many meshing algorithms included in
a number of software packages, both commercial and open-source. The main drawback
of the majority of software is the limitation in size of the point cloud and the final mesh
they are able to handle.15 Currently, the most common algorithm used for meshing a
point cloud is the so-called ‘Poisson reconstruction’ (for details see Khazdan, Hoppe 2013)
which tends to build watertight mesh by interpolating missing data and giving a smooth
result, while maintaining the surface details. Another option is the basic triangulation with
software-specific variations, which delivers the exact surface structure.
Software License Point cloud registration Meshing algorithm
Geomagic Design X commercial manual, semi-automatic Native, based upon triangulation
Geomagic Wrap commercial manual, semi-automatic Native, based upon triangulation
PolyWorks commercial manual, semi-automatic Native, based upon triangulation
3D Reshaper commercial manual, semi-automatic native
Thinkbox Sequoia commercial manual, semi-automatic native
Capturing Reality RC commercial manual, semi-automatic native
Autodesk ReCap commercial manual, semi-automatic no
CloudCompare open-source manual, semi-automatic Poisson
MeshLab open-source manual Poisson23
VRMesh commercial manual, semi-automatic Native
Table 1. Overview of the most commonly used point cloud editing and meshing software.17

12  In case of airborne LiDAR data, LAS or LAZ file format is the most common.
13  It is also called ‘structured scan file format’ because it enables special forms of visualisation and lighting. PTX files are
usually much larger than PTS files.
14  Notably, opening an ASCII file containing more than 10 million points can, in some cases, be an issue.
15  Most software opackages have problems with meshes containing more than 80 million triangles.
16 Beside Poisson reconstruction, MeshLab also offers other meshing algorithms, e.g. Ball pivoting and VCG, but Poisson
surface reconstruction is the most suitable option in the majority of cases.
17  In open-source software, there can be constraints in the readability of particular RAW files; also, some of the mentioned
editing tools may be missing.
30 N enad J ončić , J án Z achar

STRUCTURED LIGHT SCANNING (SLS)

Structured light scanners use trigonometric triangulation as the basic technological means,
but instead of looking at laser light, these systems project a series of linear light patterns
onto an object using either an LCD projector or another stable light source. Light patterns
are collected, or, rather, recorded with a camera. Then, by examining the edges of each
line in the pattern, the software calculates the distance from the scanner to the object’s
surface. Essentially, the camera sees the edge of the projected pattern and calculates the
distance and size of the scanned object. In order to obtain the structure of the scanned
object, the light source also needs to contain all basic colours, i.e. red, green and blue
(RGB), and emit them towards the object being scanned. The reason for this is the working
principle of RGB cameras as data capturing devices. The SLS technology is very popular,
especially in light portable (handheld) scanners.
There are two components of which SLS typically consists: a light source and a camera.
The light source transmits patterns of the surface scanned. The patterns consisting of
parallel stripes are most commonly used, although many other variants of projection are
as well in use. Displacement of the stripes allows for an exact retrieval of 3D coordinates of
details on the object's surface (Fofi et al. 2004). The light patterns are recorded with RGB
camera. Then, by examining the edges of each line in the pattern, the software calculates
the distance from the scanner to the object’s surface (see above).
Generally, there are two types of these scanners. The first type has the ability to change
the distances between the camera and the light source, which leads to changes in the
angle between the camera and the light source. In this kind of system, the calibration
panel is used to determine the position and the angle of the light source and the camera.
The second type has a fixed light source and a camera. In this case, the distance between
them is constant and does not change through the process. Thus, in this method, it is
necessary to set a good distance between the object and the scanning pair (camera and
light source). In some cases, video projector can be used as a light source.18 Principally, the
stripes generated by display projectors have small discontinuities due to pixel boundaries;
however, these can practically be ignored as they are ironed out by slight defocusing. A
typical measuring assemblage consists of one stripe projector and at least one camera.
Placing two cameras on opposite sides of the projector can also be useful (Fofi et al. 2004).
There has recently been a significant increase in the use of structured light portable/
handheld scanners, especially due to their increasingly accessible price. A number of
projects have demonstrated their possible applications, as well as the limitations of their
use in archaeology and in cultural heritage management in general (Buchón-Moragues et
al. 2016; McPherron et al. 2009). On the other hand, traditional laser scanning approach
usually provides higher accuracy rate.
The following comparison is based upon personal end-user experience and not upon any
scientific analysis.

18  David SLS scanner uses LCD video projector for emitting light patterns.
 3D SCANNING 31

Laser Scanner Method

Advantages Disadvantages
• Can be used in virtually any indoor light- • ‘Speckle-effect’ may sometimes pose
ing condition limitations to the resolution and
• Can be used to scan parts of any mate- accuracy
rial and colour • Higher prices
• Provides excellent depth resolution for
measuring details of features, com-
pound curves, cracks, etc.
• Little noise in point cloud
• Highly reliable accuracy
Structured Light Scanner Method
Advantages Disadvantages
• Fast when measuring objects with many • Sensitive to ambient light.
low-curvature surfaces Best used in a dark room
• Good lateral resolution along the two • Cannot be used to scan shiny surfaces
axes • ‘Occlusion’ effects require taking addi-
• Eye-safe tional images
• Customer-friendly price • Slow when measuring objects with
many intricate details
• In terms of accuracy, usually less reli-
able than laser technology
Table 2. Comparison of light and laser technologies.
As mentioned above, SLS is almost invariably used in handheld or portable scanners
(Figure 4). The structured light-emitting source is either represented by an ‘independent’
device, mostly a projector that is in some way connected to the capturing device, or is
directly integrated into a single device (e.g. Artec scanners: Eva and Spider). Just like in
the case of TLS, SLS’s main task as regards data capturing is to avoid digital shadows and
cover the whole object scanned. This can be a delicate issue, as SLS usually requires a
certain distance from the item being documented. To this end, it may be impossible to
capture occluded parts of the object’s surface with only one SLS scanner type.19 SLS has
limitations in view of the scanning distance, which is reliable up to one metre at the
most; so it is obvious that it is suitable primarily for digital documentation of small- and
medium-sized objects. Therefore, this technology is used mainly in museum collection
documentation. Some SLS devices cannot operate under direct sunlight, which can cause
problems in open-air work. In such cases, portable tents or shelters are required to block
the direct sunshine.

19  In the case of Artec scanners, type Eva operates within longer distances from the object, while the Spider type works
within a closer range and is capable of capturing fine occluded details.
32 N enad J ončić , J án Z achar

SLS technology usually functiones by gathering data with its native software. Hence scan-
ning, in this case, necessitates the use of a notebook or tablet, which enables real-time
preview of the scanning process. Some native scanning software may require specific
notebook/tablet configuration especially concerning the CPU (processor), GPU (graphic
card) and RAM. Unlike TLS, most SLS software carry out complete processing and post-pro-
cessing of the data acquired from the point clouds registration, meshing and texturing,
so there is no need to use external software. Besides native software, most present-day
portable SLS scanners can use Artec Studio for previewing the scanning process as well
as data processing. Artec Studio was designed as native software for Artec scanners and
provides workflow for the entire procedure – from the registration of particular scans to
mesh processing and editing.

Figure 5. Manor house at Žehra, Hodkovce, Slovakia. Point cloud with RGB values showing exposure
inconsistency due to poorly exposed composite photos taken by the native scanner camera (Leica C10).
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY
Seta Štuhec (University of Ljubljana) & Ján Zachar (Via Magna)

According to the basic formal theoretical definition, "photogrammetry is a science dealing

with the reconstruction of shape, size and position of objects displayed on measurement
photogrammetric images. Measurement image, or else the reference model, essentially
forms the basis of photogrammetry as a measurement and mapping technique". It enables
achieving the most precise and fastest depiction of natural and artificial objects on the
Earth’s surface. Under certain conditions, the measurement image can become an exact
central projection of the photographed image, which means that it is a method of optic
measurement. Measurements are taken on photogrammetric images or on the optic
model1 created from the measurement images. Based on these definitions, photogram-
metry can be perceived as a separate geodetic and cartographic method. Photogrammetry
follows the principle of transmitting information from the central projection to orthogonal
projection using graphical, optical or mechanical and analytical tools. This means that
distinct geometric relations that existed between the object and its image during the
time of exposure can be reconstructed on the basis of geometric quantities depicted on
the image (Bitterer 2006).
Recording of measurements on photogrammetric images or on reference models, which
substitutes recording of measurements directly on the object or in the field, represents
the basic specificity of photogrammetry that distinguishes it from the number of other
geodetic methods. This prospect introduces significant benefits that, to a large extent,
make the measurement work easier, save time and, to a certain degree, reduce costs. A
considerable benefit lies also in the fact that measurement on the basis of photogram-
metry is performed without direct contact with the object. Photogrammetry has found

1  http://svf.uniza.sk/kgd/skripta/fotogrametria/kap01.pdf.
34 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

mass application in the era of transition from analogue to digital platform, the process
generally related to the advantages of digital photography as such. ‘Digital photogram-
metry’ is currently widely applicable in many areas and scientific disciplines, especially
due to its diverse potential and the fast development of digital technology. It works with
digital images and mathematical models of analytical photogrammetry. In general, it can
be established that digital photogrammetry provides:
• high resolution of the details measured,
• measurement of objects changing and moving at the time of imaging,
• high accuracy of measurement,
• orthophoto images and 3D models in a computer environment (Bartoš, Fraštia 2011).
It is especially the creation of orthophoto images and 3D models, which forms the focus
of this publication, that is essential from the perspective of practical needs of different
areas of cultural heritage.
Photogrammetry, that is, its different aspects, can be categorised according to various
criteria. From the perspective of sensing position, we distinguish aerial and close-range
photogrammetry.
• Aerial photogrammetry represents one of the techniques of the Earth’s surface re-
mote sensing, which also includes satellite imaging. As the name suggests, aircraft
represents the basic carrier for sensing. Large- or medium-format digital camera is
used as the sensor. An important piece of equipment is the navigation system, as well
as the system for direct orientation of the sensor.
• Close-range photogrammetry deals with the evaluation of measurement image from
fixed terrestrial positions, whereby it utilises several methods that allow obtaining
spatial information about the objects depicted in the image. Thanks to its wide scope
of application, it is one of the most widespread measurement techniques. It is used for
making 2D and 3D documentation of objects and situations by means of non-contact
measurement of their images. The accuracy and geometric resolution depend on
the distance of imaging and the size of the focal length of the objective. Close-range
photogrammetry works with object distances of between 0.1 m - 350 m, where both
the lower and the upper end of the range are not strict.
Photogrammetry (especially close-range) can be classified, from the perspective of the
methodology of collection and processing of the data, into single image photogrammetry,
stereophotogrammetry, convergent photogrammetry and image-based modelling.
• Single-image photogrammetry represents the simplest method that uses one image
of the given object, whereas the position is chosen to have the imaging axis approxi-
mately perpendicular to the measured object. The aim is to import the distorted image
into orthogonal projection through projective transformation. This method is used for
the reconstruction of planar objects; for spatial objects, additional information about
the depth of the object documented is required. It is also used for measuring building
facades and for the creation of photo-plans. Up until the onset of image-based mod-
elling, this was the most frequently used photogrammetric method for documenting
results of archaeological research. Basically, it is the classic 2D photogrammetry.
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 35

• Stereophotogrammetry is a multi-image photogrammetric method used for sensing

spatially uneven objects or structures using stereoscopic perception. It is based on the
correct identification of the same (G)CP on two or more images. In the past, this was
the most efficient photogrammetric method, with benefits including high effectiveness
and also the possibility of application of any photogrammetric system. Its application is
presently declining, especially due to the popularity of image-based modelling.
• Convergent photogrammetry is another multi-image photogrammetric method.
Camera axes are aimed approximately at the centre of the object measured, usually
to have the object depicted in the largest possible area of the image, with the largest
possible overlap. Methodologically, this is an alignment of the beam with the mathe-
matical model of perspective photogrammetry. Nowadays, this method is slowly being
replaced in the documentation practice by the method of image-based modelling.
• Image-based modelling is a method that is based on full automation of the process.
The advantage of this method is in the fact that, instead of the time-consuming manu-
al measurement of points on images, the required level of detail of the modelled areas
can be achieved by choosing sufficient density of the point cloud. This is currently
the most frequently used method due to the automation of the whole process and
its reasonable price (Fraštia 2009).

2D PHOTOGRAMMETRY
2D photogrammetry has already become a regular element of the traditional documen-
tation approach in archaeological excavations. In its essence, it is generally a single image
photogrammetry.2 Photographs are taken from above as vertically as possible using a
ladder or a pole (if possible, an unmanned aviation vehicle (UAV) can also be employed).
The photographs are then rectified and georeferenced using GCP measured by the total
station or a GPS device. The archaeological units captured on such photographs are af-
terward vectorised and the result transferred into an orthophoto plan.
When taking a photograph, the analogue signal that is acquired and turned into a dig-
ital image is degraded in various ways. It has to be taken into account that geometrical
distortions occur in every image because the three-dimensional (3D) properties of the
scene are mapped onto a two-dimensional (2D) sensor plane. The mapping result (i.e. the
final image) is influenced by a wide variety of factors, of which geometric errors induced
by the optics, the tilt of the camera axis and the topographic relief contribute the most
to the image deformations. Compensating for these deformations through some kind of
geometric correction is essential for the extraction of accurate information by means of
vectorisation. In general, there are two ways of dealing with these geometric deforma-
tions: simple rectification and rigorous orthorectification (Verhoeven et al. 2013).
Simple rectification
For tilted images, the scale will vary with direction: the background of tilted photographs
features a scale smaller than the scale of objects in the foreground. The projective
2  The theoretical background derives from the paper Zachar & Štuhec (2015). (Case studies: the Čachtice and Bratislava
castles, Slovakia). The article was prepared within the frame of the CONPRA project.
36 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

transformation of a tilted image to a horizontal plane can remove the contortions caused
by the inclination (and thus scale differences). Such a procedure is called (planar) rectifica-
tion and the result is a rectified photograph. Often, the first and second order polynomials
are also used to obtain (semi-)rectified photographs, although these algorithms differ to
a varying degree from the aforementioned projective transformation.
In the absence of lens distortions and perfect flatness of the imaged scene, the rectified
tilted image will be identical to a vertical image and the result will be a true orthopho-
tograph. However, lens distortions are always present and truly flat surfaces are seldom
found at archaeological excavations. Since differences in height will cause topographic
(or elevation) displacements, any feature lying above or below the horizontal reference
surface will be misplaced in a planar rectification. More advanced algorithms are thus
required if accurate mapping from the photographs is needed (Wolf, Dewitt 2000).
Rigorous orthorectification
When the geometric image correction aims to compensate also for topographically- induced
deformations and lens distortions, this is called orthorectification or differential rectification.
The result of such correction is a planimetrically correct true orthophotograph. Until a
few years ago, true orthophotographs could only be achieved with advanced photogram-
metric packages such as the Trimble INPHO Photogrammetric System. Besides the high
cost, these packages were also of limited use in excavation documentation because the
photogrammetric skills were essential. However, due to the ever-expanding technological
improvements in computer hardware and the significant advances made in the past fifteen
years in the scientific development of computer vision, many cost-effective approaches
exist today. Additionally, they allow for a straightforward workflow and can still produce
metrically accurate true orthophotographs (Verhoeven et al. 2013). One possible solution
is to pre-process the photo prior to the rectification process with the help of an appropriate
image correction software that would compensate for the radial and tangential distortion.3
Practical approach in 2D Photogrammetry
Nowadays there are plenty of tools available for photo rectification. Most commonly used
are the ones implemented in CAD and GIS solutions. Autocad Civil 3D with Raster Design
extension offers several rectification options. The polynomial transformation of the 1st
grade usually turns out to be the most suitable choice. It is characterized by an independ-
ent scaling of x- and y-axis with no local rectification.4 Beside the 1st grade polynomial
transformation, this software offers polynomials of the 2nd and 3rd grade (similarly to the
ArcGIS georeferencing options) as well as the triangular rectification (Figs. 6, 7).
During the triangular rectification, GCP pairs are precisely coupled spatially, and the tri-
angles between them are stretched and squeezed to fit by calculating the polynomial
coefficient of each triangle. This is the most precise method with potential imperfections
only ‘inside’ the triangles. The negative aspect is the fact that space outside triangles is
not included in the final result (raster cropping of the convex hull). In order to check the
accuracy, the root mean square error (RMS) is calculated. CAD software Microstation
enables orthorectification procedure via warping options.

3  It is possible to use software that comes with the camera, or DxO Optics Pro, which compensates for the lens distortion
by using appropriate camera optics module.
4  In the software-related terminology this procedure is referred to as 'rubbersheeting‘.
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 37

As already mentioned above, the basic problem facing 2D photogrammetry is the insufficient
tangential and radial lens distortion correction, which causes insufficient correlation of the
plans of the captured scene characterised by great differences in height. This causes serious
problems in the usage of 2D photogrammetry for documenting masonry structures that have
a significant height distinction between the top and the bottom parts of the walls.

Figure 6. 2D Photogrammetry, orthorectification procedure.

A: ArcMap interface, B: Autodesk Civil 3D + Raster Design interface.
38 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

Figure 7. 2D Photogrammetry, basic workflow. A: georeferencing a photogram according to the

measured ground control points (orthorectification), B: vectorisation of a photogram, C: print layout.

IMAGE BASED MODELLING (lBM)

Image-based modelling (abbreviated as IbM) represents an algorithmic extension of

stereophotogrammetry, especially in the sense of process automation. The algorithmic
basis of IbM is the image correlation of input data (image rasters) that substitutes the
natural stereoscopic view. Such correlation subsequently automatically generates a point
cloud of a certain density, which forms the frame of the future model. Image correlation
(Figure 8) analyses the similarity and the possible match between the two data files. It
is, basically, an assessment of the correspondence between image parts on two or more
images. It concerns comparison of the pixel surroundings on the first image, the so-called
reference comparison matrix, with the surroundings that at least approximately match the
position of the other pixel on the so-called searching matrix. It results in the calculation
of a correlation coefficient in each of the compared positions. The coefficient can range
from 0 to 1, i.e. it can signal absence of any match between the matrices (0) or indicate
a match (1). If the correlation coefficient reaches the maximum value, image coordinates
of the pixel (image elements) can be used for the calculation of the spatial position of
a given point (Maliariková 2011), whereby the mentioned point cloud is created as the
basis of the 3D mesh.
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 39

Figure 8. The principle of optical correlation.

A: reference matrix, B: searching matrix. (Maliariková 2011, Figure 5).
As pointed above, using IbM techniques makes it possible to calculate the 3D location of
points recognizable in two or more photographs. In order to do this, the exact external
(camera position and orientation) and internal camera parameters (focal length, lens
distortion coefficients, principal point) have to be obtained. This can be achieved automat-
ically using mathematical techniques from the field of computer vision called Structure
from Motion (SfM). By using these algorithms, the essential external and internal camera
parameters are extracted, therefore the preliminary camera calibration is not needed.
The first step of the SfM approach is to search for the image-specific feature points – the
so-called ‘key points’ using the principle of the SIFT algorithm.5 Using the description of
the features found, the algorithm matches them across the whole set of photographs (the
bundle adjustment). These matches – the so-called ‘tie points’ – are then used to create
the relative projection geometry (the internal and external parameters). Some software
applications enable determination of a maximum number of key points and tie points in
order to speed up this registration process.6
The result of this step is a sparse point cloud (i.e. a set of points with x, y and z coordinates)
that represents the object’s geometry. Sparse point cloud may in some cases contain a
lot of noisy points resulting from a high re-projection error or uncertainty in the recon-
struction. Most software enable correction of the re-projection error through a specific
refinement process that leads to cleaning of the sparse point cloud. The refinement of
sparse point clouds is a delicate and important process as it significantly determines the
quality of the final mesh.7

5  Scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) is an algorithm in computer vision used to detect and describe local features
in images that are independent of the changes of scale. The description of features is of a vector nature. The algorithm was
published by David Lowe (1999).
6  Besides speeding up the alignment, setting an upper limit value for the generation of tie points filters out the points
with very high re-projection error as well. However, when setting the maximum values for key points and tie points, it is
necessary to keep the ratio of 2:1. Best results are usually achievable with key points: 80,000 and tie points: 40,000 or with
key points: 120,000 and tie points :60,000. Lower values are possible but may result in the loss of surface geometry.
7  It is always necessary to find an optimal balance between a sharp and a noiseless sparse point cloud on one hand, and
not losing too many points by cleaning process on the other hand, as this may lead to disruption of the geometry of the
model.
40 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

The next step is called Multi-View Stereo (MVS) approach and is used to compute a denser
point cloud. Such point cloud can afterward be turned into a mesh and used as a solid 3D
model to which texture can be applied. Textured 3D model can be scaled or georeferenced
according to the measured coordinates of ((G)CP) which are aligned with the markers
detected manually or semi-automatically on photos in uploaded into the program. Most
programs dispose of subsequently generated deliverables such as georeferenced ortho-
photo plans or digital elevation models (DEM) (Figure 9).
It is important to understand the basic principles of the SfM+MVS approach in order to be
aware of its capabilities and limitations. For example, the SfM+MVS approach is useless if
the object lacks distinct texture, which is necessary for the recognition of feature points.
Shiny or glassy objects are also more difficult to reconstruct using these methods, as
their highlights are constantly changing. The best result can, therefore, be achieved with
distinctively coloured and textured objects. Finally, the correct photo capture procedure
is essential to achieve the best possible results.

Software and on-line services

The recent boom in computer vision programs that combine SfM approach with dense
MVS algorithms makes the calculation of 3D data from photographs accessible to
non-professionals. Because of their straightforward workflow and a moderate cost, these
SfM+MVS software packages do not require extensive photogrammetric and computer
vision knowledge of the user, nor the information on geometrical properties of the scenes.
This means that no special preliminary preparation is needed (i.e. camera calibration). As
such, they became a common part of the documentation practice in many research and
commercial fields, including the cultural heritage monitoring and preservation.
The straightforward generation of 3D content by these SfM+MVS tools also finds useful
applications in documenting archaeological excavations, for which accurate and cost-ef-
fective registration techniques are of utmost importance. Besides the advantages of these
accurately scaled digital surface models in presenting the archaeological heritage, georef-
erenced orthophoto plans and vector drawings can also be generated from them. Today
there are plenty of SfM+MVS packages available, ranging from free and open-source to
commercial ones. Some of them (such as ARC3D, 123D Catch, Autodesk ReCap, Autodesk
ReMake) provide an online service that automatically carries out the entire procedure.
These online approaches are very easy to use. All that a user needs to do is to upload
the selected images and wait to receive the 3D model. However, the number of images
is quite limited and, additionally, hardly any manipulation of the parameters is possible,
which represents a significant constraint in the 3D model creation.
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 41

Figure 9. Structure from Motion workflow (software Agisoft Photoscan).

A: bundle adjustment, camera calibration – outer and inner camera orientation definition, B: bundle
adjustment, sparse point cloud generation, C: Multi-View Stereo, dense point cloud generation,
D: mesh creation, E: textured mesh, F: georeferenced orthophoto plan creation, G: georeferenced
digital elevation model creation, H: survey data accuracy, mode resolution and quality report.
42 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

On the other hand, a computer-based softaware package might take a bit more time to
master, but the parameters can be tailored for each specific case. Some of these programs
have also additional functionalities such as scaling, georeferencing, orthophoto plans
extraction, etc. which is, in the case of open-source software, rarely possible. A short list
of some of the programs and online services is provided below.

Software Web License Solution

Photomodeler Scanner http://info.photomodeler.com/ commercial desktop
Agisoft Photoscan http://www.agisoft.com/ commercial desktop
Capturing Reality
https://www.capturingreality.com/ commercial desktop
RealityCapture /RC/
Pix 4D https://pix4d.com/ commercial desktop
Acute3D ContexCapture https://www.acute3d.com/ commercial desktop
3D Zephyr http://www.3dflow.net/ commercial desktop
ARC3D http://www.arc3d.be/ open-source online
Autodesk 123D CATCH http://www.123dapp.com/catch open-source online
Autodesk ReMake https://remake.autodesk.com/ commercial online
http://www.autodesk.com/products
Autodesk ReCap commercial online
/recap-360/overview
Universty of Washington,
ccwu.me/vsfm open-source desktop
Visual SfM
Menci APS http://www.menciSW.com/aps-en commercial desktop
Table 3. Overview of the most commonly used IbM software.

Image-based data collection: Basic rules

Because not a lot of metadata are needed, the above-described approach enables genera-
tion of a 3D content from almost any set of photographs. Nevertheless, in order to gener-
ate a 3D model successfully, one should follow certain rules when taking photographs on
the site (Figure 10). The below listed basic principles of the photo shooting scenario refer
primarily to the position and ‘movement’ of the photographer while taking the photos:
• Every photograph should be taken from a different location. If the photographs are
taken from the same location, problems with alignment might occur.
• A higher ammount of photographs does not necessarily mean a better result. It is,
however, better to take more photographs and make a selection later. Only the feature
visible on the photograph can be reconstructed, that is why it is important to capture
everything.
• The photographs should be taken with a sufficient overlap. There should be at least
a 60 % overlap, although 80 % often works better. A rule of thumb to follow is the
‘rule of three’, which states that each feature should be visible on at least three
photographs.
• Photo sequences should be taken in a way in which the optimized mutual photo axis
orientation is maintained. The angle between the axes of two adjacent photos should
not exceed 25-30 degrees.
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 43

• An important element is also the image quality. Photographs should be sharp and
acquired with good quality optics. If possible, it is advised to take the complete set of
photographs with the same focal length and focus distance, it normally gives better
results. IbM does not set any requirements concerning the image resolution. However,
it is important to remember that the resolution of the input data influences the
quality of the processing results. That is why it is strongly recommended to employ
a camera with at least 5Mpx resolution. If the project’s objective is to produce high
quality/professional orthophoto maps, it is better to opt for a minimum 24Mpx8
resolution photography (sharpness is discussed in detail in the following chapter).
• Some software packages enable alignment, re-alignment and/or georeferencing using
special targets – markers that come with the program and that can be calibrated. In
this case, the targets should be clearly visible in the photographs (to create a texture,
enough photographs without these targets should also be taken). It is possible to use
non-calibrated markers as well. The size of markers should be adequate in relation
to the extent of the project; the only limiting factor is that they should be visible on
the photos. The distribution should be such that the markers cover the whole scene
documented. In case of landscape surveys, it is advisable to measure coordinates of
the markers (in this case GCP) by the total station in order to get as precise coordi-
nates for georeferencing as possible.9
• SfM algorithm estimates the camera calibration parameters automatically; conse-
quently, there is no need to run a pre-calibration procedure manually. However, since
the algorithm in most software applies the Brown model to simulate lens assembly,
automatic calibration works perfectly well only for ‘standard’ optics (that is, with 50
mm focal length (35 mm film equivalent)). Otherwise, if the source data is captured
with a ‘fish eye’ or ultra-wide angle lenses, the operation is likely to fail. If this is
the case, one should enter calibration data into the program for good results of the
reconstruction.
• The final result of 3D IbM can be strongly influenced by the lighting conditions. Best
results are usually achieved under coherent natural diffuse lighting, which is generally
guaranteed in cloudy weather.
As already mentioned, each part of the scene that is to be reconstructed in 3D should
be visible on at least 3 photos. This may be a problem when documenting architectural
structures. In this case, taking photos just from the ground level causes ‘digital shadows’
in upper parts of the architecture. The best way to avoid this is the application of pole
aerial photography or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to reach parts of the structure
that are not accessible from the ground level. Nowadays, especially UAVs (mostly mi-
cro-copters) are becoming a regular part of the data acquisition in IbM as they can fly in
an autonomous mode using integrated GPS/INS, a stabilizer platform and digital cameras
(or even a small range sensor), and which can be used to get data from otherwise hardly
accessible areas.

8  On the other hand, the choice of camera should not depend only on the resolution. The optics, in combination with the
camera sensor, is crucial for a good photo quality.
9  As for the number of GCP, it depends on the scale of the project. The basic rule is that they should build up representative
information on the measurements.
44 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

Figure 10. Photo shooting strategies for Image-based Modelling (IbM).

(Available online at http://www.agisoft.com/pdf/tips_and_tricks
/Image%20Capture%20Tips%20-%20Equipment%20and%20Shooting%20Scenarios.pdf).
Concerning the 'terrestrial’ photo shooting scenario, there are, from the practical point
of view, two basic methods:
• The walk-around method is mainly used for documenting objects outdoors. The meth-
od entails that a photographer moves around the object following the above-men-
tioned rules. In case this method is used for recording of a solitary object in an indoor
environment, it is necessary to do appropriate camera settings with regard to the
indoor lighting conditions (see the following chapter). Photo acquisition is done via
several 360 degrees photo-shooting rings, with approximately 30-50 photos per ring,
depending on the size of the object.
• The turntable method is, on the other hand, based on photo-shooting in a single di-
rection, from a camera mounted on a tripod. The motion is obtained by changing the
position of the object photographed. In most cases, the object is placed on a base
that rotates (either operated manually, or automatically by an electronic device) while
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 45

the camera is taking pictures.10 Of course, the general position of the object has to be
changed manually several times during photo-shooting in order to capture all possible
sides of the object. In this scenario, precise light settings are essential in order to achieve
good diffuse global light. Putting the object in front of a monochrome background is a
good option as well, and it can help substantially in subsequent processing by generating
a clear mesh with as little noise as possible (Figure 11). This shooting method is meant
exclusively for portable object documentation created in internal environment.

Figure 11. Photo-shooting scenario of a solitary object. A: walk-around method,

B: turntable method. (Available online at http://www.tested.com/art/
makers/460142-art-photogrammetry-how-take-your-photos/).

Pre-processing the data (taking and editing photos)

The basic material for IbM consists of source photos. As already outlined in the previous
chapter, the quality of the acquired photos strongly determines the quality of the final 3D
model. Therefore, paying extra attention to the image quality is a key factor for successful
accomplishment of the projects. Since the sufficient number of SIFT points (key points)
detectable on the image is crucial for further workflow, a high resolution, high overall
sharpness and a high contrast of the photo are required.
Based on the experience obtained from the case studies, the best procedure for taking
photos is through the use of a standard DSLR camera with fixed lens.11 Creating RAW files
is preferred to creating JPGs. Although RAW files consume much more SD card memory,
they definitely contain a much higher amount of data that can afterwards be processed
according to particular needs. On the other hand, the processing potential of JPG files is
rather limited. Photographs should be taken in aperture priority mode,12 if possible with
the help of a monopod or tripod stand.
The overall sharpness of the picture is of prime importance, so the aperture should be set
to minimum 5.6 or higher, but should not surpass the ‘sweet spot’ point of the lens, since
too-high aperture values introduce high light diffraction and thus additional noise and blur

10  Nowadays, there are lot of examples of fully automated turntable data acquisition procedure, where rotation of the
turntable and the camera shooting system are controlled by a computer.
11  Transfocal lenses are not excluded, but the best achievable results are guaranteed by the use of fixed lenses.
12  Fully manual mode would, of course, be most desirable, but is usually out of question with respect to the amount of
photos taken (often hundreds, or even several thousands).
46 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

into the imagery.13 In order to keep the noise as low as possible, shooting at low ISO values
is recommended. For the white balance correction, calibrated colour charts should be used.
If shooting outdoors, the most suitable lighting condition is guaranteed by cloudy weather
which generates diffuse light. If the scene or object documented are in sunlight, this can
create big differences in luminance (e.g. sharp shadows) and it may be necessary to use pro-
tective shelter if possible, or create HDR photos (see below) which can be time-consuming.
Afterward, the RAW files are to be processed in specific software in order to enhance the
sharpness and colour information. The following parameters should receive special attention:
• White balance setting enables correction of the white balance according to the
calibrated colour charts or purely manually. This step is important in order to get
the relevant and true colour information on the object/scene documented for the
purpose of texturing of the final 3D model.
• Exposure compensation adjusts the global exposure of the image and thus its overall
brightness/darkness.
• Smart lighting (available only in some software packages) optimizes the global dy-
namic range of the photo by unblocking shadows and/or recovering highlights.
• (Selective) tone mapping allows selective adjustment of the brightness of a given tonal
range (highlights, midtones, shadows, blacks). This is a very important tool used to
recover detail in the highlighted and the dark parts of the image, which is crucial in
case of non-diffuse lighting in the photo shoot. It is usually carried out in a balanced
combination with smart lighting.
• ClearView/Dehaze (available only in some software packages) enables improvement of the
contrast and sharpening of the image by removing the effects of atmospheric haze or fog.
• Within the contrast enhancement option, microcontrast and finecontrast sub-options
are usually available. Microcontrast enhances micro details or softens them, and can
be used to shadow detail recovery.
• In most software, the two tools are merged together as one common tone mapping
function. Within it, especially white clipping point and black clipping point options
can influence the level of highlighting of small details, which is particularly useful
for a textured image or when one needs to compensate for the lack of sharpness.
Finecontrast enhances or softens medium-sized details. Furthermore, in most soft-
ware, there is a possibility to constrain the effect of contrast on highlights, midtones
(e.g. Clarity available in particular software) or shadows.
• For sharpening the image, the unsharp mask or masked sharpening is the most im-
portant tool. The tool adjusts the intensity, which determines the level of sharpening
of the whole image. Radius sets the thickness of the sharpened edges. The threshold
is a masking option of the tool; it sets the level above which details will be sharpened
or, in other words, masks the parts of the image that will thus not be sharpened.14
Values that are too low may give sharper image but, on the other hand, amplify noise.
Software masking can also be applied for determining the level of sharpening.

13  The aperture substantially determines the depth of field (DOF). The bigger the DOF, the higher the overall sharpness
of the image.
14  Some software packages use the term ‘threshold’ and some use the term ‘masking’.
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 47

• Chromatic aberration decreases aberrations introduced by the lenses (i.e. colour

artefact that can appear in the areas of transition between dark and bright zones).
Besides the intensity, the size and purple fringing should also be set. The size adjusts
the width of the fringe to be suppressed. Purple fringing removes the ‘ghost’ in the
form of purple fringe that appears along high-contrast edges of the image.
• Noise reduction is a tool included in all image processing software, but equipped
with different levels of strength. In most cases, luminance (reduces fine grain) and
chrominance (reduces colour artefacts) noise reduction options are offered separately.
In some cases, it is necessary to augment the curvature and plasticity of a structure to the
level that lies far beyond the power of the above-mentioned tools. This may be required
when documenting walls covered with fine, monochromatic plaster. Such structures display
very low colour differentiation and curvature, which hampers SIFT point creation. In such a
situation, HDR (High Dynamic Range) approach is required, which is able to enhance even
very small variations in curvature and colour hue. HDR can be generated in special software
by processing at least three exposure-bracketed photos, or within single RAW photo through
the application of HDR filtering. In the first case, the procedure is based on the fusion of
exposure of several photos taken with different exposure values15 and from the same
position. In the second case, the procedure is based on the fusion of exposure values of the
RAW file generated in a specific photo-editing software.16 The key goal of HDR photography is
to maintain stability by taking bracketed photos in order to avoid blurring during processing.
Platform
Software Web License PC=Windows
Mac=Mac OS
Adobe Photoshop http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.
commercial PC, Mac
Camera RAW html
http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/
DxO Optics Pro commercial PC, Mac
photo-SW/dxo-opticspro
http://www.adobe.com/sk/products/ph
Adobe Lightroom CC commercial PC, Mac
otoshop-lightroom.html
http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acd-see-
ACDSee Ultimate commercial PC, Mac
ultimate
Phase One Capture https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/SW/
commercial PC, Mac
One Pro Capture-One-Pro/
Apple Photos http://www.apple.com/macos/photos/ open-source Mac
Serif Affinity Photo https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/ commercial Mac
ON1 Photo 10 https://www.on1.com/products/photo10/ commercial PC, Mac
MacPhun Creative Kit https://macphun.com/creativekit commercial Mac
RAWTherapee http://RAWtherapee.com open-source PC, Mac,Linux
1. Picasa www.picasa.google.com PC, Mac
2. GIMP www.gimp.org open-source PC, Mac, Linux
3. Paint.NET www.getpaint.net PC
Table 4. Overview of the most commonly used RAW file editing software.17

15  At least 3 photos should be taken, preferably with the help of tripod: one photo with custom exposure, one
underexposed and one overexposed.
16  Most of the currently available photo-editing software enable generation of several exposure values in one RAW file.
17  In case of open-source software, there can be limitations in the readability of particular RAW files, and some of the
editing tools mentioned in the text may be missing.
48 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

Platform
Software Web License PC=Windows
Mac=Mac OS
Aurora HDR http://aurorahdr.com commercial Mac
EasyHDR http://www.easyhdr.com commercial PC, Mac
Photomatix Pro http://www.hdrsoft.com commercial PC, Mac
HDR Projects 4 http://www.projects-SW.com commercial PC, Mac
Oloneo HDR http://www.oloneo.com commercial PC
SNS-HDR http://www.sns-hdr.com commercial PC
Machinery HDR http://www.machineryhdr.com/ commercial PC
Dynamic Photo HDR 5 http://www.mediachance.com commercial PC, Mac
HDR Expose http://pinnacleimagingsystems.com commercial PC, Mac
HDR Efex Pro http://www.google.com/nikcollection commercial PC, Mac
Luminance HDR http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net open-source PC, Mac
Picturenaut http://www.hdrlabs.com open-source PC, Mac
Fusion HDR http://fusion-hdr.com commercial PC
Table 5. Overview of the most commonly used HDR software.

Platform
Software Web License PC=Windows
Mac=Mac OS
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.
Adobe Photoshop commercial PC, Mac
html
http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/photo-
DxO Optics Pro commercial PC, Mac
SW/dxo-opticspro
http://www.adobe.com/sk/products/
Adobe Lightroom CC commercial PC, Mac
photoshop-lightroom.html
http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acdsee-
ACDSee Ultimate commercial PC, Mac
ultimate
Table 6: Overview of the most commonly used software enabling HDR filtering.

All the above-mentioned principles of photo shooting strategy tend to generate RAW
files with the as big depth of field (DOF) as possible within the given lighting conditions.
Processing RAW files should lead to the achievement of a maximum possible level of
contrast without producing artificial unwanted noise. Balancing these two requirements
is a key factor in mastering the processing procedure (Figs. 12, 13).
After processing the RAW files, it is necessary to save it in common readable file, either
JPG, PNG or TIFF. The best solution is to opt for TIFF file, which can contain former un-
compressed photo resolution.
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 49

Figure 12. Processing RAW files. An example of an image before and after correction.
DxO Optics Pro interface.

Data processing and post-processing: software applications

Every software package has its own characteristics. Nevertheless, there are several basic
rules that apply to all software solutions. In the first step, all edited photographs prepared
to be processed should be finally checked for sharpness and image quality artefacts (e.g.
hot pixels or bending) and in the case of poor quality, they should be eliminated. Most
software enables this through the native procedure.
After loading photos to working directory or working interface, it is always desirable
to check for camera calibration parameters. Most software use automatic calibration
procedure according to available EXIF data of particular photos. Refinement of calibration
is done through alignment of photos when the inner camera (principal point, radial, and
tangential lens distortion coefficient), as well as outer camera orientation (position of the
camera in space), is calculated. In the case of wide angle lenses or the absence of EXIF
data whole calibration information should be done manually according to the particular
workflow of a given software. Masking photos is an optional step. It is used to eliminate
the background or other features that might cause alignment errors (e.g. the wind can
cause some movement in the background which may disable the alignment). However,
background features are usually useful for the alignment. Masking itself can be done
either in a native IbM software or in a third- party software18 (e.g. in Adobe Photoshop)
and imported as an alpha channel.
Distribution of sparse point cloud as a product of photos alignment step can be refined
through optimization of re-projection error parameters19 as well as through ((G)CP) with
exact coordinates measured either by total station or differential GPS GNSS RTK rover.

18  Masking may be very useful when digitising portable artefacts, e.g. a museum collection. In this case, it is usually
necessary to outline sharply the edges of an artefact against the background.
19  It is reasonable to achieve a RMS re-projection error of under 1px. The refinement procedure should be carried out
carefully in order not to delete too many points by lowering the mean re-projection error value as this may disrupt coherency
of the whole alignment.
50 S eta Š tuhec , J án Z achar

Measured data are put into adequate markers detected or manually created on particular
photos. Via (G)CP application and the correct coordinate reference system assignment,
the global georeferencing and scaling of the scene is carried out. If no coordinates are
known but some distance values are available, these can be used for scaling the scene by
markers as well. The final step includes dense cloud generation and subsequent meshing
and texturing. The whole process is done via software’s native algorithm. Most software
usually enable basic editing of the mesh and texture (above all decimation20). It is however
highly recommended to perform mesh editing in third party software.
Post processing strategy can be divided with reference to demands on the final output of
the project. It can be 2D vector output, 2.5D digital elevation data (DEM) or fully 3D solid
model. In the first two cases, 3D data are used as a mean for the extraction of 2D/2.5D
data. Most IbM software offer additional functionalities such as scaling, georeferenc-
ing, georeferenced orthophoto plans and DEM extraction, which can be done in an easy
straightforward manner. Once setting appropriate coordinate system and subsequent
assignment of measured GCP to model or photos in IbM native software, georeferenced
orthophoto plans with word file as well as georeferenced GeoTiff containing DEM are
automatically exported with the given parameters (mainly resolution). These data can
be subsequently put into GIS or CAD software for further processing (vectorisation, cross
section generation) or visualisation. DEM creation is widely applicable in landscape survey
while georeferenced orthophoto plans and their CAD vectorisation are broadly used in
architectural and archaeological documentation.
In case that final output is a solid 3D model either in mesh or NURBS form, it is necessary
to edit mesh in external software. The main aspects of such editing are cleaning, denois-
ing, simplification in sense of decimation21, holes filling and finally retopologisation. Mesh
retopology is usually a quite sophisticated procedure that is carried out by professionals.
Its basic goal is to achieve selective simplification of the mesh while maintaining all the
necessary details. Optionally it can involve transferring the triangulated mesh into quad
variant which can be more precisely converted into NURBS, it means CAD friendly file
format.
Custom UV22 texture map creation is very often part of retopology workflow as well.
Most native IbM software generates texture parameterization which is very fragmented
and thus not suitable for further editing like unwrapping or changing colour hue and
saturation. Therefore, it is convenient to create UV map in special modeling software and
import it back into IbM where texture information can be projected upon newly created
parameterized UV map. Once a cleaned and retopologised mesh optionally converted into
NURBS is created, it can be used as a source for wide range of virtual reality applications.

20  I.e. reduction of the size of the mesh by reducing the number of triangles it contains.
21  Decimation (reduction of triangles) of the produced mesh is the crucial operation, since the mesh usually contains up
to tens of millions of triangles which is difficult to deal with in any software.
22  UV is used as an alternative expression for X and Y coordinates.
 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY 51

Custom
Software Web License Retopology
UV map
Geomagic http://www.rapidform.com/products/xor/
commercial yes no
Design X overview/
http://www.geomagic.com/en/ products/
Geomagic Wrap commercial yes no
wrap/overview
PolyWorks http://www.innovmetric.com/ commercial yes no
ZBrush https://pixologic.com/ commercial yes yes
www.autodesk.com/products/maya/
Autodesk Maya commercial yes yes
overview
Autodesk 3DS www.autodesk.com/products
commercial yes yes
Max /3ds-max/overview
Autodesk www.autodesk.com/products
commercial yes no
MudBox /mudbox/overview
MeshLab meshlab.sourceforge.net/ open-source yes yes49
Blender https://www.blender.org/ open-source yes yes
3D Coat 3dcoat.com commercial yes yes
https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/
Modo commercial yes yes
modo/
https://github.com/wjakob/instant-
Instant Meshes open-source yes No
meshes
Table 7. Commonly used mesh editing software.

Figure 13. Processing RAW files. An example of an image before and after correction. Detail.
DxO Optics Pro interface.

23 The custom UV map creation inside MeshLab has very limited control parameters compared to the other software.
3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE
Ján Zachar & Milan Horňák (Via Magna)

Within the framework of the preventive archaeology concept, the documentation of

archaeological cultural heritage plays a crucial role. Until recently, the sphere of cultural
heritage was dominated by tools of traditional 2D documentation, which were gradually
expanded with modern geodetic tools such as the total station (TS) and differential GPS.
However, these tools did not present any essential breakthrough in the documentation
practice. It was basically an extrapolation of 2D documentation from analogue to the dig-
ital sphere. The real turning point came only with the mass expansion of 3D technologies
into individual industrial sectors. The change was in the different concept of reality percep-
tion for the needs of the documentation practice. Recently, 3D documentation procedures
have started to be applied more significantly also in the area of rescue archaeology.
One of the project CONPRA objectives was to test possibilities of application of 3D tech-
nologies in the recording practice of archaeological research, i.e. to verify their potentials
and limits. It is especially the preventive archaeological research with its demands for
tight time and budget schedules where suitable preconditions for the application of state-
of-the-art technologies are created, especially from the perspective of the possibility to
shorten the recording works in the excavation process. 3D technology also provides a
significant improvement as to the accuracy of the documentation. On the other hand,
general limiting factors of 3D documentation must be also taken into the account and
problematic aspects of their utilisation, difficulties related to the application of individual
procedures, as well as possibilities of dealing with the said in practice, must be also
pointed out.
Archaeological cultural heritage is an internally structured category. However, for the
purpose of the documentation practice, we can basically speak about the documentation
54 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

of ongoing archaeological research, whether rescue or so-called scientific, or about the

documentation of partially preserved archaeological locality adjusted or secured for the
purposes of tourism (e.g. archaeoparks). It is equally important in both cases to determine
the morphological structure of the cultural monument; for example, whether it is domi-
nated by a pedological component or by architectural elements (in case of documentation
of ongoing archaeological research), or what terrain adjustments need to be conducted
(e.g. in case of archaeo-parks). Each one of the mentioned aspects affects in its own way
the work methodology and the results.
Here we present a selection of case studies with the aim to demonstrate possibilities and
limits of 3D documentation in the context of various site situations. The presented models
are mainly related to the conditions typical for Central Europe. All case studies were pro-
cessed in a workstation with the following components: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v2@
2,10 GHz, RAM 128 GB, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 3GB, OS W7; or in notebook Lenovo
Y50 with these components: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7- 4710HQ CPU@ 2,50 GHz, RAM 16 GB,
GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M, OS WIN 8. In the case of TLS application, the resolution
was always set to 6 mm per 10 metres. For IbM, two types of software were used: Agisoft
Photoscan and CapturingReality RC.1 In Photoscan the following parameters were set for
the batch processing workflow: step – align photos (high accuracy with the key point limit
of 40,000 points and the tie point limit of 20,000 points); step – refinement of alignment
(decreasing of global re-projection error to at least 1px); step – build dense point cloud
(medium quality, aggressive depth filtering); step – build mesh (arbitrary surface type,
dense point cloud as source data, interpolation enabled, custom face count: various val-
ues); and step – build texture (generic mapping mode, texture from all cameras, blending
mode Mosaic, texture size 8192, texture count 1, and no colour correction). In case of
RC software, the parameters were as follows: step – align photos (+ laser scans) (max.
feature per image 120,000, pre-selector feature 60,000, image overlap medium, detector
sensitivity medium, max. re-projection error 2px); step – reconstruction (normal detail);
step – build texture (Guter 3, texture resolution 8192, large triangle removal threshold
10, maximal texture count style, visibility based texture style).

SITES WITH SOIL LAYERS AND SEDIMENTED DEPOSITS

Situations in which the pedological component is the dominant are a product of archaeo-
logical investigations that expose anthropogenic soil sediments. These are usually cultural
layers which can represent or contain remains of former lowland or hilltop settlements,
open or fortified, with buildings and other structures made of stone, wood and/or earth.
These localities display only a low value of local micro-elevation. From the perspective of
local morphology, this can either be flat, horizontal or inclined surfaces. The exception
are hilltop-fortified settlements – hill-forts – where possibly significant local elevation can
be present due to the existence of a fortification system (e.g. rampart).
This type of localities is currently a frequent area of research of preventive archaeology
performed outside the settlement area. After the top vegetation layer is removed by
mechanisation, individual anthropogenic layers are gradually excavated. Before the onset
1  The application was chosen on the grounds of the license availability.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 55

of 3D technologies, the said type of localities was documented by means of drawing

archaeological situations, features and objects, or was recorded with the total station or
differential GPS.

Radoľa, Koscelisko
Site type: Mound
Location: Radoľa (Žilina district Žilina, NW Slovakia); location Koscelisko
Dating: Late Bronze Age
Research type: Research for scientific and documentation purposes
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX), TS,
GNSS RTK Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.2.6, AutoCad Civil 3D 2016 student version
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans
(Figs.14-16).
Short description: The archaeological site was documented solely by IbM. The research was
initially performed using test pits, which were then enlarged in order to
expose the whole ground plan of the site composed of a stone ring of the
original mound and a centrally located urn. In addition to the final stage
of the research, the documentation also captured individual stages of the
excavation. A handheld camera was used for the collection of data.

Figure 14. Radoľa, Koscelisko (Slovakia). Burial mound, Bronze Age.

IbM (180 photos, 24 Mpx). Textured 3D model.
56 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 15. Radoľa, Koscelisko (Slovakia). Burial mound, Bronze Age. IbM. Shaded 3D model.

Figure 16. Radoľa, Koscelisko (Slovakia). Burial mound, Bronze Age. An example of 2D documentation
deliverables – vectorisation of the georeferenced orthophoto plan derived from the 3D model.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 57

Rajec, Charubina
Site type: Settlement
Location: Rajec (district Rajec), location – Charubina, NW Slovakia
Dating: Late Bronze Age, Middle Ages (12th – 13th century)
Research type: Preventive research
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX), TS,
GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: IbM
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans
(Figs. 17, 18).
Short description: The excavated site probably represents a large settlement from the
Late Bronze Age and High Middle Ages. A residential structure with
remains of a wall with external cladding was revealed, as well as several
locations with significant accumulations of ceramics, scree and charred
material. The excavations revealed a flat micro-relief, i.e. without any
elevations. Individual stages of the excavation of the remaining traces
of housing from the Bronze Age, as well as the individual accumulations
of ceramic fragments were documented using IbM. No monopod stand
or an UAV were used for the collection of raw data. TS was used for the
measurement of GCP.

Figure 17A. Rajec, Charubina (Slovakia). Remains of dwellings from the Bronze Age. 3D model. IbM
(193 photos, 12Mpx). Position of the cameras during data acquisition, B: textured 3D model, C:
shaded 3D model.
58 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 17B. Rajec, Charubina (Slovakia). Remains of dwellings from the Bronze Age. 3D model IbM
(193 photos, 12Mpx). Textured 3D model. C: shaded 3D model.

Figure 17C. Rajec, Charubina (Slovakia). Remains of dwellings from the Bronze Age. 3D model. IbM
(193 photos, 12Mpx). Shaded 3D model.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 59

Figure 18. Rajec, Charubina (Slovakia). Remains of dwellings from the Bronze Age.
An example of 2D documentation. A: digital elevation model (DEM), B: georeferenced orthophoto
plan derived from the 3D model, C: vectorisation of the georeferenced orthophoto plan.
60 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Mošovce, Hinterland of the residential area

Site type: Settlement and its surroundings
Location: Mošovce (district Turčianske Teplice), NW Slovakia
Dating: Late La Tène period through later Roman period
Research type: Preventive research
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX),
Nikon D90, TS, GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.2.6, AutoCad Civil 3D 2016 student version
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans
(Figs.19, 20).
Short description: Although the site is situated in a considerably dynamic landscape, with
significant elevation differences, the archaeological excavation revealed a
flat micro-relief. The research included recording of the area disturbed by
present-day logging. IbM was aimed at capturing profiles of the current
road communication within partially disturbed settlement structures
and cultural layers, as well as for a smaller area showing evidence of
prehistoric metallurgical activities.

Figure 19. Mošovce (Slovakia). Remains of an Early Roman industrial area. An example of 2D
documentation. A: DEM, B: georeferenced orthophoto plan derived from the 3D model.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 61

Figure 20A-C. Mošovce (Slovakia). Remains of an industrial zone, early Roman period.
IbM (78 photos,12Mpx). A: position of the cameras, B: textured 3D model, C: shaded 3D model.
62 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Bratislava, Castle
Site type: Castle and settlement area
Location: Northern terrace of the Bratislava Castle, SW Slovakia
Dating: 10th-12th century A.D.
Research type: Preventive excavation
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Sony Nex 7, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), TS, GNSS Rtk Rover
(differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0.0, CloudCompare, AutoCAD Civil 3D 2016 student
version.
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans
(Figure 21).
Short description: Bratislava castle was subject of preventive excavations between 2008 and
2014. In the years 2013 and 2014, 3D recording of the excavated areas was
the main method of recording the general and partial ground plans and
sections. The area of the northern terrace contained several significant
architectural remains. The site contained abundant anthropogenic
evidences also in the soil which were also investigated. They consisted of a
sequence of cultural layers and imprints of structures, indicating an open
settlement dated to the 10th-12th century AD. The recording was performed
by IbM. An UAV was used for collecting the raw data (vertical low-flight
level photos). Due to flat terrain morphology the vertical images were not
complemented by oblique photos.

Figure 21. Bratislava, Castle, northern terrace. Remains of the open settlement,
partly destroyed by a later quarry, 10-12th century. 3D model. IbM (352 photos, 12Mpx).
A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model, C: georeferenced orthophoto plan.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 63

SITES WITH ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS

Archaeological sites with significant architectural remains are typical for urban areas,
where they represent the product of urbanisation process. They are characterised by
a high level of local micro-elevation, the degree of which is determined by the level of
preservation of the masonry. Some specific examples of these are castles, where signifi-
cant quantities of debris occur, in addition to the compact components of the masonry.
Archaeological research of the sites of this type is usually performed in close cooperation
with the research on the history of construction. Particular attention is paid to capturing
mutual relationships of the masonry and the anthropogenic soil deposits (designated
backfill areas, walking surfaces, cultural layers, etc.), which should reveal general aspects
of the historical development of the construction. Previously, a frequently used method
of documentation of this type of sites was 2D photogrammetry, which enabled capturing
the complex structure of the surface with individual details of the architecture. However,
its substantial disadvantage is the radial and tangential distortion of the 2D orthophoto
plans, especially in the case of a significant elevation of masonry constructions compared
to the level of the surrounding ground; this can markedly reduce the accuracy of the
geodetic plan of the site.
64 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Senec, Synagogue
Site type: Synagogue and its immediate surroundings
Location: Senec town, District of Senec, SW Slovakia
Dating: 19th century
Research type: Research for scientific and documentation purposes
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX), TS,
GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.2.6, AutoCad Civil 3D 2016 student version,
CloudCompare 2.8
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans and
cross-section views (Figs. 22-24).
Short description: The production-related part of the synagogue was seen in a significantly
destroyed architecture consisting of brick walls with cladding, a preserved
furnace and a ritual bath (mikveh). IbM was used for documenting the
process of research by recording the individual stages of cleaning of
different spatial segments. The overall model was created by joining
models of the parts using refential GCP. Since high monopod stand
or drone were not used for the collection of the data, the crowns of
higher walls have, in some places, digitisation shadows. However, the
rate of coverage and capturing with the 3D model is relatively high with
regard to the tools used (a simple ladder). Moreover, special attention
was paid to the 3D documentation of the furnace, which was planned
for dismantling and relocating. Cross- and longitudinal sections were
made for this purpose, which subsequently served as an input for the
creation of paper models at 1:1 scale used for the reconstruction of
furnace at the original scale. Exterior and interior of the furnace were
separately recorded (IbM). A torch was used for the collection of raw
data of the interior.51 The use of torch was not a markedly limiting factor
in the processing of data, and the resulting 3D model did not show any
significant deviation in terms of clarity of the surface geometry. In terms
of the texture, it is understandable that the colour scale of the input data
(i.e. photos) shifted chromatically (torch light), which also rendered the
colour texture of the 3D model of the furnace interior artificial. The use
of torch can thus be considerd as a partially limiting factor. The 3D model
of the furnace exterior was connected with the 3D model of its interior
(common reference points defined arbitrarily in Agisoft Photoscan). The
sections were made in CloudCompare and were subsequently saved for
further processing of the architectural model in native CAD format (dwg).

2 The use of torch is generally not recommended in photo-shooting for the image based modelling, but given the absence
of any other light source, this was the only possible solution in this case. Moreover, it provided an opportunity for testing the
flash usage and its effect in the subsequent data processing.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 65

Figure 22. Senec, Synagogue (Slovakia). Remains of the economic section of the synagogue,
with an oven and a mikveh, 19th century. IbM (1452 photos, 24 Mpx).
A, B: textured 3D model, C, D: shaded 3D model.

Figure 23. Senec, Synagogue (Slovakia). Remains of the economic section of the synagogue.
Cross-section documentation derived from the 3D model.
66 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 24. Senec, Synagogue (Slovakia). Remains of the economic section of the synagogue – detail
of the oven, 19th century. IbM. A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 67

Skalka nad Váhom, Monastery

Site type: Monastery complex (Benedictines; Jesuits from the 17th century)
Location: Skalka nad Váhom (district Trenčín), location – outside municipal/
residential area
Dating: 14th-18th century
Research type: Preventive research
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equpiment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX), TS,
GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan, AutoCad Civil 3D 2016 student version,
CloudCompare 2.8
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans (Figs.
25, 26).
Short description: The premises of the Benedictine (later Jesuit) monastery are situated
under a high rocky overhang. The research was focused on the
significantly destroyed area of the western part of the former convent,
whose one side leaned against the rock whereas the other side was open
to the area of viridarium. The convent area is significantly affected by
destruction of the masonry and the debris infills. The 3D documentation
was performed in a sequence that followed the stages of research. The
complete 3D model was created by connecting individual parts of the
models, according to their georeferences, within a single coordinate
system based on the GCP. Special attention was paid to the medieval
hypocaust (underfloor heating). A drone or monopod stand was not used
for the collection of the data.

Figure 25A. Skalka nad Váhom (Slovakia). Remains of a medieval monastery, 14th-17th century.
Textured 3D model combining the results from two archaeological seasons (see also Figure 25B)
that focused on uncovering the west wing of the clausura. IbM (425 photos, 12+24Mpx).
68 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 25B. Skalka nad Váhom (Slovakia). Remains of a medieval monastery, 14th-17th century.
Textured 3D model combining the results from two archaeological seasons (see also Figure 25A) that
focused on uncovering the west wing of the clausura. IbM (425 photos, 12+24Mpx).

Figure 25C. Skalka nad Váhom (Slovakia). Remains of a medieval monastery, 14th-17th century.
Textured 3D model – detail of medieval hypocaust.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 69

Figure 26. Skalka nad Váhom (Slovakia). Remains of a medieval monastery, 14th -17th century.
Examples of 2D documentation derived from the 3D model.
70 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Čachtice, Castle
Site type: Castle
Location: Čachtice, Nové Mesto nad Váhom District, W Slovakia
Dating: 13th-16th century
Research type: Preventive research
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D90 and Sony Nex 7, UAV (drone), TS, GNSS Rtk Rover
(differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0.0, AutoCad Civil 3D 2016 student version,
ArcGIS 10.0
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans.
Georeferenced DEM, cross-section views (Figs. 27 - 29).
Short description: The excavation at Čachtice Castle was conducted in 2012 and 2013 and
was primarily focused on the north castle wing, which was planned
for structural reinforcement. Many elements of the former historical
structures were revealed, such as the partly destroyed residential area
and the basement area with partially preserved vaulted roof. The 3D
documentation was performed with a high monopod stand and an UAV.
Individual parts of the uncovered architecture were documented and
processed as linked spatial segments.

Figure 27. Čachtice (Slovakia). Medieval castle, 13th-16th century. 3D model of the eastern palace
during the restoration process. IbM (250 photos, 12Mpx). Top – section through the interior of the
eastern portion of the structure, bottom – isometric view of the same area.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 71

Figure 28. Čachtice (Slovakia). Medieval castle, 13th-16th century. Archaeological trench K25 in the
eastern palace. IbM (65 photos, 12Mpx). A: ground plan of the castle with indicated location of the
documented trench, B: solid 3D model of the trench with the texture map, C: DEM with different
forms of visualisation (analytical hillshading and hypsometry), D: orthophoto plan, E: cross-sections.
72 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 29. Čachtice (Slovakia). Medieval castle, 13th-16th century. Archaeological trench S3 in
the eastern palace. IbM (30 photos, 12Mpx) A: location of the trench within the castle, B: solid 3D
model of the trench with the texture map, C: DEM with different forms of visualisation (analytical
hillshading and hypsometry), D: orthophoto plan of the layout and the profiles, E: cross-sections.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 73

Brazda, Ancient sepulchral architecture

Site type: Tomb
Location: Brazda, Republic of Macedonia
Dating: 5th-3rd centuries BC
Research type: Documentation of an archaeopark
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equiment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX), TS,
GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0.0, AutoCad Civil 3D 2016 student version, ArcGIS
10.0
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans.
Georeferenced DEM, cross-sectional views (Figs. 30-32).
Short description: The 5th century BC tomb is situated at the foot of a fortified hillfort
Brazda, some 15 km to the north from Skopje. The overall structure of
this probable princely tomb represents a unique example of its kind in
the wider Balkan area. It contains a rectangular chamber (9.8 x 6.6 m)
with a long dromos, which slopes steeply for 20 m towards the chamber
entrance. The walls of the underground chamber were built of massive
travertine blocks of an average weight of 500-1500 kg. The site was
investigated in the 1990s and is nowadays part of a small archaeological
park. The 3D documentation was prepared without a drone or a
monopod stand. The elevation of the structure is small in relation to the
ground on which it was erected, and the majority of photos were taken
at a relatively acute angle. The absence of images taken perpendicularly
to the structure subsequently caused a high level of noise in the software
processing. The level of noise was also increased by the dense vegetation
growing on the tomb.

Figure 30. Brazda, Archaeopark (Macedonia). Remains of the stone-built tomb, 5th century BC.
DEM derived from the 3D model. A: analytical hillshading, B: hypsometry, C: contours.
74 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 31. Brazda, Archaeopark (Macedonia). Remains of the stone-built tomb, 5th century BC.
3D model. IbM (476 photos, 24 Mpx). A,B: nadir view, C-F: isometric views.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 75

Figure 32. Brazda, Archaeopark (Macedonia). Remains of the stone-built tomb, 5th century BC.
Examples of 2D documentation derived from the 3D model.
76 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Bratislava, Castle
Site type: Castle area, settlement area from the 1st century B.C., built-up area from
the 16th century
Location: Bratislava Castle, northern terrace, SW Slovakia
Dating: Late La Tène period (1st century BC), 13th-17th century AD
Research type: Preventive excavation
Recording technology: IbM, TLS
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX), TLS
Faro Focus X130, TS, GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0.0, Faro Scene, CapturingReality RC, CloudCompare,
AutoCad Civil 3D 2016 student version, ArcGIS 10.0 trial version
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans.
Georeferenced DEM, cross-section views (Figs. 33-36).
Short description: The investigations in the area of the castle were carried out periodically
between 2008 and 2014. The 3D documentation of archaeological
situations was used as the basic recording type in the period 2013-2014
and as a sole method for creating plans and profiles of the entire site.
Special attention was paid to the architectural remains discovered in
the northern courtyard. These included foundations of two buildings
constructed in the Roman style and dated to the 1st century BC. The
main structural axis of the Building 1 formed two parallel masonry
components, which, at their south end, were subsequently damaged by
digging the moat for the medieval castle. The main axis was completed
with two pillars with well-preserved elements of the above-ground
structure and of the foundations. In the Building 2, cladding over the
foundation walls, the cast mortar floor and two lines of four pillars along
the main longitudinal axis were partially preserved.
Some architectural remains related to the utilisation of the area in
the 16th-18th century were also revealed. Especially remarkable was a
16th‑century built-up area, located in place of an infilled medieval quarry.
It consisted of structures made of stones bound by clay mortar. Here, a
relatively well-preserved bread (?) oven was discovered. Remains of the
18th century Baroque garden were also discovered.
All discovered structures were documented by IbM and using an UAV.
However, the UAV was not used for recording of the 16th century built-
up area and the remains of the medieval quarry. In these two cases,
only oblique photographs were made. Terrestrial 3D scanning was used
for the Roman-style buildings (TLS Faro Focus X130). Data from TLS
documentation as well as from IbM were merged in the processing phase
in CloudCompare and CapturingReality RC.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 77

Figure 33. Bratislava, Castle, northern terrace. Roman-style Building 2, 1st century BC.
3D model. Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) in combination with IbM.
A, B: textured 3D model, C, D: shaded 3D model.

Figure 34. Bratislava, Castle, northern terrace. Remains of a residential structure, 16th century.
3D model. IbM (534 photos, 12Mpx).
A: distribution of measured ground control points (GCP), B, C: textured 3D model.
78 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 35. Bratislava, Castle, north terrace. Remains of a residential structure, 16th century.
A, B: DEM derived from the 3D model, C: Georeferenced orthophoto plan derived from the 3D model.

Figure 36. Bratislava, Castle, northern terrace. Roman-style Building, 1st century BC. Examples of 2D
documentation deliverables derived from the 3D model. View of the cross-section.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 79

Považská Teplá, Castle

Site type: Castle
Location: Považská Teplá - Považský castle (district Považská Bystrica), W Slovakia
Dating: 16th-17th century
Research type: Preventive research
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX), TS,
GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.2.0, CloudCompare, AutoCad Civil 3D 2016 student
version
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans,
cross-section views (Figs. 37, 38).
Short description: The subject of 3D documentation was the northern wing, revealed
during the excavations in 2016. This was a rectangular structure with
four columns in the corners placed on stone bases probably built from
the secondarily used stone blocks. Effective collection of the data was
hindered by the fact that the interior space did not allow to always
obtain sufficient distance for taking the photos. Moreover, given the
significant local elevation defined by the capitals, it was very difficult to
capture the upper part of the structure from a sufficient number of sides.
As the surrounding walls were considerably destroyed, they could not be
used as an elevated platform. The top of the structure was possible to
capture only by oblique photos taken from the west side. The absence
of vertical photos of the top part of the structure resulted in a smeared
colour of the texture in this part of the 3D model.

Figure 37. Považský Castle (Slovakia). North palace structure, 16th century. IbM (366 photos, 24Mpx).
A, B: textured 3D model, C, D: shaded 3D model.
80 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 38. Považský Castle (Slovakia). North palace structure, 16th century.
Examples of 2D documentation deliverables derived from the 3D model.
A: groundplan orthophoto, B: profile orthophoto.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 81

DISCUSSION

The experience from the presented case studies shows that IbM is the most suitable
method for 3D digitisation of archaeological cultural heritage. Its advantage lies in the
speed of the data collection, which is highly important in the rescue research. Moreover,
compared to TLS, IbM represents a better alternative in terms of the total cost, because
the only costly items are the camera and the high-performance computer. In the case of
archaeological situations in which the largest part of the documented area is situated
at the level of the surrounding terrain, and where vertical structures are represented
only by sporadic and largely destroyed architectural elements, the application of TLS is
significantly limited. This is because TLS scanners usually have limited manoeuvring ability
of the sensor when placed vertically in relation to the terrain.
When photographing extensive flat areas of archaeological sites for the IbM documenta-
tion, it is suitable to use an UAV (drone) or a high monopod stand, which enable taking
photos from above and from an adequate distance. In case a drone is used, it is recom-
mended to limit the flight distance (flight level) in order to maintain the sufficient image
resolution. In the case of structures with parts preserved up to a certain height (e.g.
masonry preserved to a height exceeding 1 m), it is necessary to complete the vertical
photography with oblique photo documentation. In many cases, it is required to combine
aerial documentation with terrestrial photography, whereby the scanning circuits must
be merged in a respective software using GCP.
For georeferencing a 3D model and the creation of basic 2D and 2.5D documentation
products (georeferenced orthophoto plan and DEM), it is necessary to distribute, and sub-
sequently measure, GCP in space. Depending on the size of the area documented, and the
planned distance of the camera from the photographed space (especially as regards the
expected flight level), GCP should be sufficiently large to be visible on individual images.
The distribution of points should include the whole area. Although it is not required to
distribute GCP over a grid, certain regularity is welcome (Figure 34: A). If calibrated coded
reference markers are used, some software packages (e.g. Agisoft Photoscan and Pix 4D)
have the option of automatically conducting their identification (Figure 40). In addition to
calibrated coded markers, standardised markers can be also used, such as bicolour squares
placed diagonally or with overlapping angles; they can, depending on the software used,
also be identified on the images using a semi-automatic method.
Given that archaeological sites usually have significantly structured geometry of the
surface, as well as rich texture, the SfM algorithm has no problem to detect a sufficient
number of SIFT points on the input photos without a significant ‘dead zone’. The resulting
3D model is thus clean and sharp. A problem can occur if the structure is also captured
by vertical photography and if its surface is documented only with oblique photos made
at an acute angle (see the case study of Brazda) from various sides. In such a case, a
high re-projection error can occur in the process of ‘bundle adjustment’; this can result
in high noise as well as in the occurrence of ghosting effect in the process of creation of
a dense point cloud. If this cannot be prevented by using a drone or a high monopod,
the re-projection error must be thoroughly and precisely reduced in the given software
environment (ideally, to below 1px) (Figure 39).
82 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

In addition to the digitisation of ground plans, the concept of IbM is also suitable for doc-
umenting complex profiles, especially those of large length or composed of several layers
created by diverse architectonic elements. In addition to the creation of a 3D information
database, the main significance of 3D digitisation of archaeological finds, especially in the
case of rescue archaeological research, lies in the fact that it represents extraordinarily
effective method of generating 2D documentation in the form of georeferenced ortho-
photo plans and digital elevation models (DEM). These are necessary elements of the
research documentation. From the perspective of practical utilisation of 3D digitisation
by professional archaeologists, 2D documentation still prevails. Nevertheless, a tendency
has appeared towards the application of 3D mesh for the purpose of 3D vectorisation,
subsequently interconnected with the database model in 3D GIS solution. However, it
characterises mainly long-term research projects that hire professional research teams.
 3D RECORDING IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE 83

Figure 39. Bratislava Castle. A: broader area documented only with oblique photos, B: without
verticals, resulting in a noisy sparse cloud, C: with large number of points with a high re-projection
error that needs refinement in the iterative process.
84 J án Z achar , M ilan H orňák

Figure 40. A: Types of calibrated coded and non-coded targets, B: the process of automatic
recognition of coded and non-coded targets in Agisoft Photoscan.
(Available at: http://www.agisoft.com/pdf/tips_and_tricks/CHI_Calibrated_Scale_Bar_Placement_
and_Processing.pdf).
3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE
Ján Zachar (Via Magna) & Perica Špehar (University of Belgrade)

Comprehensive digitisation of complex architectural forms usually represents the most

demanding tasks within the framework of documentation of cultural heritage. Spatial and
elevation variations, together with often very hard-to-access elements, require thorough
planning of the data collection, as well as their systematisation and the nomenclature,
for the purpose of smooth processing. Various lighting and spatial conditions offered by
exterior and interior of the context in many cases require the application of different
techniques of data collection, and the subsequent effective merging of the results.
Architectural structures of different sizes and different levels of complexity of exterior
and interior elements were selected as the case studies within the framework of the
CONPRA project. TLS and IbM methods were tested by using UAVs or monopod stands in
order to assess the usefullness and effectiveness of the technological solutions in these
particular cases.
The case studies were selected with a view of demonstrating possibilities and limits of
3D documentation in the context of various types of architecture. All case studies were
processed in a workstation with the following parameters: Intel Xeon CPU E5-2620 v2@
2,10 GHz, RAM 128 GB, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 3GB,OS W7. In the case of TLS
application, the resolution was always set to 6 mm per 10 meters. For IbM, two types of
software were used: Agisoft Photoscan and CapturingReality RC (the latter was chosen
based on the licence availablility). In Photoscan, the following parameters were set for
the batch processing workflow: step – align photos (high accuracy with the key point
limit of 80,000 and the tie point limit of 40,000 points); step – refinement of alignment
(decreasing of global re-projection error to max. 1px); step – build dense point cloud (me-
dium quality, aggressive depth filtering); step – build mesh (arbitrary surface type, dense
86 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

point cloud as source data, interpolation enabled, custom face count: various values); and
step – build texture (generic mapping mode, texture from all cameras, blending mode
Mosaic, texture size 8192, texture count 1, and no colour correction). In the application
of CapturingReality RC software, the parameters were as follows: step – align photos
(+ laser scans) (max. feature per image 120,000, pre-selector feature 60,000, image
overlap medium, detector sensitivity medium, max. re-projection error 2px); step – re-
construction (normal detail); step – build texture (Guter 3, texture resolution 8192, large
triangle removal threshold 10, maximal texture count style, visibility based texture style).

Jazernica, Medieval church

Site type: Church
Location: Jazernica, Turčianske Teplice District, NW Slovakia
Dating: 15th century
Recorded parts: Exterior, roof
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Cameras Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX) and
Sony Nex7, UAV
Software: DxO Optics Pro 10.0, Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CloudCompare 2.7,
AutoCAD Civil 3D 2016 student version
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans
(Figure 41)
Short description: The structure is situated within the residential area, in the area modified
into a provisional park. It represents a single-aisle Gothic building with
a semi-circular plan of the shrine and the sacristy in the north. On the
outside, the shrine gradually extends into to the aisle, without any
offset in the wall alignment. Three windows with simple tracery are
installed on the south side of the aisle and the semi-circular shrine.
The roof is covered with metal sheets. The church is a simple building
without much diversity in the spatial configuration or the height. These
are favourable conditions for the collection of raw data. The collection
was also facilitated by the placement of the church in a relatively open
space of the park. However, the accessibility for documenting was
limited on the northern side of the sacristy, which is partially covered
with a low shrubbery and is located in proximity of the fence that
separates plots of land. Documentation of the facades was performed
by a handheld camera. For collection of the data of the roof, an UAV was
used. Navigation of the drone was complicated on the northern side
of the building due to the high poles carrying high voltage lines. The
data was collected in sunny weather with a high index of sunlight. The
absence of diffuse lighting conditions caused significant contamination
of the resulting texture with shadows of trees. Intensive sunlight also
complicated documentation of the roof covering whose surface was very
shiny (metal sheets).
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 87

Figure 41. Jazernica, Medieval church, 15th century. IbM (586 photos, 12+24 Mpx).
A: distribution of cameras, B: dense point cloud, C,D: textured 3D model – isometric view,
E and F: textured 3D model – ortho-view of the facades.
88 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Rajec, Historical Town Hall

Site type: Architecture
Location: Rajec, Rajec District, NW Slovakia
Dating: 16th -17th century
Recorded parts: Exterior, roof
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D 90
Software: DxO Optics Pro 10.0, Agisoft Photoscan 1.2.0, CapturingReality RC,
CloudCompare 2.7, AutoCAD Civil 3D 2016 student version
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh), scaled orthophoto plans (Figs. 42, 43)
Short description: The Renaissance town hall in Rajec is a two-floor block building in the
central part of a rectangular square. The ground floor is lined with an
arcade. The high hip roof is covered with roof shingles. At the time of
the recording, smooth white plastering covered the exterior facades.
The walls and roof were not visually obstructed by other structures. The
walls were photographed by a handheld camera. Photographs of the
roof were taken from a larger distance using zooming of transfocal lens
to capture the majority of its surface features with sufficient resolution.
Certain problems appeared in processing of the raw data due to the
glass inserts in the arches on the ground floor whose surface could not
be captured with sufficient accuracy due to the transparency, reflectivity
and shininess. Data processing proved problematic also for some parts of
the monochromatic smooth facade plaster. The absence of plasticity as
well as texture did not create good conditions for generating a sufficient
number of SIFT points, consequently causing a higher level of noise with
sparse and dense point cloud and surface deformations in the 3D mesh.
Input photos needed to be edited prior to processing in order to optically
highlight the surface structure as well as the colouring (DxO Optics Pro).

Figure 42. Renaissance Town Hall in Rajec, Slovakia. IbM (576 photos, 12Mpx).
A: camera positions, B: sparse point cloud before reprojection C: sparse point cloud after the
reprojection, D: dense point cloud, E: meshed 3D model, E: textured 3D model.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 89

Figure 43. Rajec, Renaissance Town Hall, 16th century. IbM.

A: textured 3D model – isometric view, B: textured 3D model – ortho-view of the facade.
90 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Sazdice, medieval church

Site type: Church
Location: Sazdice (district Levice), south-central Slovakia
Dating: 14th-15th century
Recorded parts: External walls (facades)
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX)
Software: DxO Optics Pro 10.0, Agisoft Photoscan 1.2.0, CapturingReality RC,
CloudCompare 2.7, AutoCAD Civil 3D 2016 student version
Record: Scaled 3D model, scaled orthophoto plans (Figs. 44-46)
Short description: The church is situated in the central part of the village located on a
sloping terrain. Spacious but compact, the church was built in the Early
Gothic style (ca. 1330) as a single-aisle building with the square-in-plan
presbytery, to which the sacristy was added on the northern side. The
structure was modified according to the Late Gothic style (end of the
15th c.) and was later subject to Baroque modifications (mainly of the
interior) at the turn of the 17th to the 18th c.. The building was partially
repaired in 1932 when an anteroom was added to the western facade.
The recording was focused on the facades, which were subject to the
reconstruction and required orthophoto plans to a specific scale in order
to capture the condition of the brickwork. A scaled complete 3D model
of the church exterior was used for making orthophoto plans to the
required scale. The recording was performed with a handheld camera.

Figure 44. Sazdice (Slovakia). Medieval church, 14th century. IbM (249 photos, 24Mpx).
A: distribution of cameras, B: sparse point cloud, C: sense point cloud, D: meshed 3D model.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 91

Figure 45. Sazdice (Slovakia). Medieval church, 14th century. IbM.

Textured 3D model – isometric view.
92 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 46. Sazdice (Slovakia). Medieval church, 14th century. IbM. Textured 3D model – isometric
view. Examples of 2D documentation deliverables derived from the 3D model – ortho-view of the
facades.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 93

Žehra, Hodkovce, Manor house

Site type: Manor house
Location: Žehra, Hodkovce, Spišská Nová Ves District, E Slovakia
Dating: 18th-19th century
Recorded parts: exterior (facades), roof, interior
Recording technology: IbM, TLS
Recording equipment: Cameras Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX) and
Sony Nex7, TLS Leica C10, UAV, TS, GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: DxO Optics Pro 10.0, Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CapturingReality RC,
CloudCompare 2.7, Microstation V8i trial version, Cyclone
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans and
cross-section views (Figs. 47-52).
Short description: 3D recording of the manor complex in Žehra, Hodkovce was completed
in 2014. The recording included the manor house, adjacent park with
a garden, a farm building and 2 other structures (church and garden
architecture) situated in the forested part of the park. The whole
complex is situated on a slope descending in W-E direction. The manor
house is a four-wing single-floor building with internal courtyard/garden.
The ground floor has the entrance side facing the park; the facade is
divided by elongated windows lined with bands organised into lesene
(pilastre-strip) frames. There are two windows in the centre of the east
wing facade that has pilasters on the sides and a cornice on the wall;
stucco ornaments were moulded in a semi-circular pediment above the
windows. There is a large gable above them, originally with vases on
the sides. The elevated terrace in front of the facade is accessed by two
staircases with conical railing. In the east wing corners there are towers
with elevated storied pavilions with garrets. The west wing was added in
the 19th c. The central part of the west wing consists of an open arcade
set with Prussian arches and with strips in between the arches; it enabled
access from the west part of the park to the manor's internal courtyard.
The arcade is flanked (the north and south) with stylised square bastions,
which are elevated one floor up and topped with stylised crenellation.
The ground floors of individual wings are covered with saddle roof made
of an artificial material. The open area of the garden in the park extends
along the west and south sides of the manor. A pathway runs directly in
front of the east facade. To the north, fence delimits the park area.
The exterior of the manor was recorded with TLS (Leica C10), IbM
methods, and using an UAV. The recording for IbM was difficult due
to unfavourable weather with bad lighting conditions and occasional
rainfall. Since the roof was not recorded with TLS, the only source of
data was IbM. TLS data were processed in the Cyclone and IbM data in
Agisoft Photoscan and Capturing Reality RC. Data from both digitising
technologies were merged by registration in CloudCompare. The interior
of the manor was documented solely with TLS. With regard to the
elaborate interior structuring, a large number of camera positions was
required. The digitisation of narrow and spatially complex rooms was
very difficult because the scanner had to be moved many times and thus
the number of positions grew. Registration of the data was carried out
by the total station used for measuring the GCP.
94 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 47. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS (1520 photos 24Mpx, 41 TLS stations).
Distribution of cameras and stations. A: outer facades, B: inner courtyard.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 95

Figure 48. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model.
96 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 49. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 97

Figure 50. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Ortho-views of the facades.

Figure 51. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), interior – 3 levels.
TLS (168 TLS stations). Shaded 3D model.
98 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 52. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
A: example of 2D vectorisation of ortho-rectified east facade, B: example of 2D documentation
derived from the 3D model – cross-section.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 99

Žehra, Hodkovce, Neo-Gothic church

Site type: Church
Location: Žehra, Hodkovce, Spišská Nová Ves District, E Slovakia
Dating: 19th century
Recorded parts: Exterior (facades), roof, interior
Recording technology: IbM, TLS
Recording equipment: Cameras Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX) and
Sony Nex7, TLS Leica C10, UAV, TS, GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: DxO Optics Pro 10.0, Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CapturingReality RC,
CloudCompare 2.7, Microstation V8i trial version, Cyclone
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans and
cross-section views (Figs. 53-59)
Short description: The neo-Gothic church building is located in a park, in a densely forested
area on undulating terrain. The church is oriented in the E-W direction,
with the west end sitting on significantly elevated terrain. The transition
between the single-aisle building and the semi-circular sanctuary is
smooth and without breaks in the facade. There is a marked neo-Gothic
portal on the west side. The width of the aisle and the sanctuary is
greater in the east section, which gives the building an asymmetrical
ground plan, with extension in the east part. The narrow, polygonal
tower is situated to the west from the aisle and its roof is covered with
sheet metal; the tower significantly exceeds the height of the saddle
roof over the church aisle, also covered with sheet metal. The west part
of the structure consists of a funeral chapel with neo-Gothic portal at
the west end and a saddle roof covered with sheet metal. The external
facades were documented by TLS (Leica C10) and IbM. The roofs
were documented by IbM using an UAV. The usage of the drone was
considerably complicated by the dense trees. The relatively low amount
of light during the documentation process required subsequent detailed
editing of the photos prior to their processing in the selected software
environment. The absence of plasticity and texture of the smooth,
monochromatic plastering of external facades caused a low number
of SIFT points in the bundle adjustment in the software processing
of IbM data and, consequently, high level of noise in the creation of
the point cloud. This could be partially improved by HDR filtration of
the photos in the phase of editing of the raw photographic material.
The church interior was documented solely by TLS. The TLS data were
registered in Cyclone. IbM data were processed in Agisoft Photoscan and
CapturingReality RC. The DxO Optics Pro was used for basic editing of the
photographic material. The processed and TS-georeferenced TLS data
and outputs from IbM were merged in CloudCompare.
100 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 53. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS (713 photos 24Mpx, 10 TLS stations).
Distribution of cameras and stations.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 101

Figure 54. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model.
102 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 55. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 103

Figure 56. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Ortho-views of the facades.

Figure 57. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), interior.
TLS (9 TLS stations). Dense point cloud.
104 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 58. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), interior.
Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 105

Figure 59. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
Example of 2D vectorisation of ortho-rectified south facade.
106 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Žehra, Hodkovce, Neo-Gothic architecture

Site type: Park architecture
Location: Žehra, Hodkovce, Spišská Nová Ves District, E Slovakia
Dating: 19th century
Recorded parts: Exterior (facades), roof, interior
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Cameras Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX) and
Sony Nex7, UAV, TS, GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Adobe Photoshop CC, Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans and
cross-section views (Figure 60)
Short description: A fine piece of neo-Gothic park architecture is situated on the south-west
end of the green area of the park. It is a block building open on all four
sides, with opennings topped with pointed arches. It has a simple saddle
roof with front (east) and rear (west) gable bearing stucco neo-Gothic
ornaments. The structure is visually partially obstructed by trees and low
plants growing along the west and the south side. The method of IbM
was solely used for the digitisation of the building, whereas the roof area
was documented by UAV. The data processing was complicated since
smooth, white plastering that did not create sufficiently marked texturing
elements. Thorough editing of the raw photos was necessary prior to
their final processing (application of HDR filter in Adobe Photoshop CC).
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 107

Figure 60. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic park architecture (19th century), exterior.
IbM (325 photos 24Mpx). Isometric views of the textured 3D model.
A: visualisation with normals, B: visualisation without normals.
108 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Žehra, Hodkovce, Farm building

Site type: Farmhouse and auxiliary buildings
Location: Žehra, Hodkovce, Spišská Nová Ves District, E Slovakia
Dating: 19th century
Recorded parts: Exterior (facades), roof
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Cameras Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX) and
Sony Nex7, UAV, TS, GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Adobe Photoshop CC, Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans
(Figure 61)
Short description: The farm building is located on the eastern side of the park. It is a block
single-floor building, with the longer axis orientated in the east-west
direction. It is located on a slope gradually rising to the west. A high
chimney rises from the central part. The structure has a saddle roof
covered with sheet metal. The easter and western walls are shorter and
topped with gables. The western gable masonry is interrupted with a
neo-Gothic pointed arch. Both longitudinal facades are completed with
a row of rectangular glazed windows. The structure was documented
by the method of IbM with the application of an UAV. The photos were
shot under unfavourable lighting conditions (low luminosity), as a
result of which the photo documentation from the UAV also contained
insufficiently sharp images due to the low value of aperture (the
f-number). The low level of luminosity required setting of the aperture
value of the camera to below F 5.6; otherwise, the high f-number could
result in the longer time of exposure and this would produce highly
blurred photos due to the drone movement. Increasing the ISO value
was not a solution in this case, as it would mean additional layering of
the noise level. Recording of the longitudinal facades from the level of
the surrounding terrain was complicated due to fenced areas for animals
in the close proximity. The problems with detection of the sufficient
number of SIFT points on the images of the facades, which are flat and
covered with smooth white plastering, again appeared. Photo editing was,
therefore, necessary (Adobe Photoshop CC by applying the HDR filter).
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 109

Figure 61. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Farm building (19th century), exterior.
IbM (472 photos, 24Mpx). A: dense point cloud, B: Example of 2D documentation
derived from the 3D model – view of the facade.
110 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Žehra, Hodkovce, Park

Site type: Park with garden
Location: Žehra, Hodkovce, Spišská Nová Ves District, E Slovakia
Dating: 19th century
Recorded parts: Ground plan
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Sony Nex7, UAV, TS, GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Adobe Photoshop CC, Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans
(Figure 62)
Short description: The park has an elongated shape and stretches in the east-west
direction. It is divided into two approximately equally large parts, with
the centrally placed manor house. The area adjacent to the western
wing of the manor house represents a French garden with a central
fountain and pathways covered with gravel. Other parts of the park are
of a more ‘casual’ nature, including areas occupied by deciduous and
coniferous trees. A large part of the eastern half of the park is currently
used as anopen space for keeping horses and other farm animals. The
part under trees, to the west, is on a considerably undulating terrain,
upwardly sloping towards the west. The 3D digitisation was conducted
by IbM with an UAV. Vertical images of the whole park area were made
from a relatively constant height. The garden area with fountain was
recorded from a much smaller flight height (to capture a higher level of
details). The flight sequences were processed separately and were later
merged. The GCP, measured with TS, were printed in A2 format in order
to be visible from the greater flight height. In the meshing stage of the
data processing, it became obvious that, in the case of data collected
from a greater hight, branches of smaller trees could not be captured
with sufficient resolution. Thus, although the point cloud captured the
majority of trees in a compact manner, it was not dense enough to
allow creating of a compact mesh of branches of smaller trees. In such a
case, it is necessary to complete the data with images made from lower
heights in order to capture individual branches as well.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 111

Figure 62. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Park, 19th century. IbM (800 photos 24Mpx).
A: distribution of cameras, B: nadir view of the textured D model.
112 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Banská Belá, mine

Site type: Mining tunnels
Location: Banská Belá, Banská Štiavnica District, Central Slovakia
Dating: 15th century
Recorded parts: Interior of mining tunnels
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equiment: Camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX),
Software: DxO Optics Pro 10, Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CloudCompare 2.7,
AutoCAD Civil
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh), scaled orthophoto plans (Figs. 63-65)
Short description: The unfinished mining structure (a two-arm mining tunnel) is situated
near the former town hall (?) building. The opening is in the area of
the first above-ground floor; the tunnel extends perpendicularly to the
mass of the rock where it turns at makes an almost right angle and leads
to the basement of a medieval burgess house. One part of the tunnel
was cut off while another part was blown up by gunpowder. There are
beam holes on the tunnel walls, probably remaining from the wooden
formwork supporting the ceiling. The collection of data was done with a
handheld camera. A camera stand could not be used due ti the limited
space, and resetting of the camera and re-compositioning of the photos
would be slow and would significantly increase the working time. The
most important principle followed during the photographic recording was
to take care of the lighting to avoid shadows, which would cause artificial
shadows in digitising. In practice, the best method was to place a halogen
lamp perpendicularly to the selected part of the wall and two lamps at
a certain distance from it, at 45 degrees angle to the centre of the part
of the wall documented. This prevented creation of shadows in the rock
crevices and, at the same time, maintained the sense of plasticity. In
this way, it was possible to obtain the relevant input data with sufficient
light parameters, which, after the basic editing (DxO Optics Pro), could
be processed in software for IbM with high-quality output and without
a non-standard/high level of noise. In order to define the scale of the 3D
model and of the output derived from the 3D documentation, maximum
distances between ad-hoc indicated GCP (cross-shaped marks drawn by
a chalk because standard markers could not be fixed properly on damp
walls) were measured by means of a laser meter. The measurements
were entered manually as distance parameters of manually defined
markers in the relevant software during processing.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 113

Figure 63. Banská Belá (Slovakia). Mining site, 15th century. IbM (691 photos 24Mpx).
Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model.

Figure 65. Banská Belá (Slovakia). Mining site, 15th century.

Example of 2D documentation derived from the 3D model.
114 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 64. Banská Belá (Slovakia). Mining site, 15th century. IbM.
Isometric views A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 115

Rajec, Burgess house

Site type: Burgess house, basement
Location: Rajec, Rajec District, N Slovakia
Dating: 17th century
Research type: Interior
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D90 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX)
Software: DxO Optics Pro 10, Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans (Figs.
66-69)
Short description: The Burgess house (nowadays a museum) is situated in a row of buildings
on the southern side of the central historical square. Its northern
(front) side has an entrance recess area slightly inclining to the street
demarcating this side of the square. The object of 3D documentation
was the basement which is situated under the right/west section
of the burgess house. The basement can be accessed by a staircase
from the central corridor of the ground floor. The staircase leads to a
small central room, from which entrances lead into the southern and
northern room. The ceiling of the southern room is represented by a
compressed barrel vault with two pairs (one on each long side) of parallel
pentagonal lunettes intersecting the vault. There is a vent opening in the
southern wall leading to the inner courtyard. The northern room has a
simple compressed barrel vault. Two vent openings are situated in the
northern wall of this room, leading to the street delimiting the square.
The documentation was created by the IbM. Data collection was done
with a handheld camera without the stand. The area was lighted with
two halogen lamps. One of them had a fixed position at the level of the
underlying terrain, the other one was manipulated by the supporting
assistant and always lighted one specific area, with the beam directed
perpendicularly to the centre of the area. The rooms were documented
and processed separately and were later merged in the single
coordinate system. Although the wall and vault surfaces are covered
with monochromatic white plastering, thanks to the thorough editing of
individual photos prior to their processing (DxO Optics Pro), a sufficient
number of SIFT points was identified on the images. The resulting 3D
model thus contains only a minimum level of noise.
116 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 66. Rajec (Slovakia). Burgess house (16th century), cellar. IbM (217 photos 12Mpx).
A: example of raw photos with markers indicating control points, B: distribution of cameras.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 117

Figure 67. Rajec (Slovakia). Burgess house (16th century), cellar. IbM modeling.
Depiction of the alignment of cellar rooms processed individually through the control points.

Figure 68. Rajec (Slovakia). Burgess house (16th c.). IbM, Isometric view of the cellar interior.
118 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 69. Rajec (Slovakia). Burgess house (16th century), cellar.

IbM. Isometric views of the exterior. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 119

DISCUSSION

Depending on the basic requirements of a digitisation project and the complexity and
structuring of the architecture documented, it is necessary to define the strategy of 3D
documentation, including the selection of digitising technologies and technical aids and
tools. It is advisable to prepare a general digitisation scenario for more complex objects
on the grounds of thorough reconnaissance of the area in question. Such scenario should
determine the time schedule of tasks and the types of technology applied in relation to
individual parts of the structure, as well as associated technical tools. In many cases, the
project budget also needs to be prepared. It is recommended to make sketch drawings of
the positions and the process of documentation and to mark GCP during data collection in
the field. The obtained data should be saved in order to enable their simpler and clearer
manipulation during the processing stage.1
The experience from the presented case studies suggests that, in the case of 3D digitising
of interiors, it is better (although more cost-demanding) to use TLS than IbM from the
perspective of accuracy requirements. Securing appropriate lighting in interiors tends to
be much more demanding (more unfavourable) than in open space. This does not cause
problems in the case of TLS with priority regard to the accuracy of surface geometry and
not to the texture, but causes substantial complications in the case of IbM.
The basic precondition for successful digitisation of interior by means of IbM is an empha-
sis on optimal lighting of the documented area and usage of camera stand in combination
with adequate setting of the camera (low ISO value, high f-number value nearing the
‘sweet spot’, correct setting of white balance etc.), which should provide the largest possi-
ble depth of field. The whole procedure of data collection is thus very slow and logistically
demanding operation. Understandably, demands grow with the growth of complexity and
structuring of the documented interior. Moreover, if IbM is applied one must take into
account the higher noise level in the data processing than in the case of TLS, and also that
the level of noise grows significantly in interior spaces. Interior structuring can lead to
problems with registration of the data and often causes significant digitisation shadows.
Documentation of parts of a facade around window openings poses a large problem in
IbM. These parts have a sharp border, i.e. a break between different lighting parameters;
in the case of photo-documentation, this leads to a situation where one part of the image
is in overly bright colour or strongly under-exposed in shades of black, whereas the other
part of the same image is at the correct exposure. The source data obtained in this way
tend to cause digitisation shadows or noise during processing. In such cases, it is necessary
to apply HDR processing of images, where exposures of 3 (or more) images with various
EV values are merged into one image.
A factor significantly limiting the application of TLS in interior space is the structuring
of the area, which may require frequent shifting of the scanner and thus increases the
number of positions. A complication is also encountered when measuring (G)CP used
for the registration and georeferencing, as they must be interconnected with the points
measured in the exterior. However, the greatest disadvantage of TLS is the weak optical

1  Data should be saved with utmost transparency, especially in the case of multi-floor manor houses with many rooms,
where both IbM and TLS methods are applied; otherwise, it can later be very difficult to associate individual datasets with
specific spaces.
120 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

sensor for making composite images, which serve for the generation of RGB values of the
point cloud and are often the only source for texturing the final 3D model. The lighting
conditions of internal areas are inadequate and of poor quality and this significantly
devalues the texture of the resulting model. The only effective solution is to texture the
model, on the grounds of TLS data, in external software using the images made with DSLR.
IbM indisputably proved to be the effective method for 3D digitisation of external facades
and roofs. A high monopod stand or an UAV are usually required for the documentation of
roof areas and upper floors. The application of TLS is significantly limited in such cases.2
The experience from the case studies shows that, the crucial advantage of applying IbM for
documenting architectonic exterior (as well as interior) is, from the perspective of accuracy
and quality of the resulting model, the quality and sufficient depth of field of the images.
These aspects often depend considerably on the light parameters of the environment in
which the documentation takes place. Although unfavourable weather conditions can
partially be compensated by editing RAW files prior to their processing, sometimes the
quality of final images cannot be improved sufficiently to create a ‘clean’ 3D model.
The structure of the documented surface can also represent a problem. The basis for a
clean resulting 3D model with good resolution is the sufficient number of SIFT points3 de-
tected on input images at the stage of bundle adjustment of the SfM process. Insufficient
number of SIFT points (or else ‘key points’) has, as a consequence, noise of the dense
point cloud and substantial errors in the resulting 3D model (Figs. 70, 71). The number
of captured SIFT points is, to a significant degree, determined by geometry and texture
of the surface of the structure documented (Figure 72). The experience from the case
studies demonstrates that, flat facades with smooth, monochromatic plastering do not
have sufficient amount of texture components and curvature of the surface for detecting
the necessary number of SIFT points and the successful final product – the accurate and
clean, high-resolution 3D model. As it turns out, standard editing of the input data – the
individual images – solves the problem only partially (Figure 73). Apparently, the best
solution is to apply strong HDR filtration, which will highlight on the images even very
small colour hues as well as minimum irregularities of the surface; this will give texture and
plasticity to individual images (Figure 74). However, the increase of plasticity and texture
structuring of an image comes at the cost of authenticity of the colour spectrum.4 Thus,
HDR-filtered images cannot be used for texturing of the resulting 3D model.5
The documentation of the premises of the manor house in Žehra, Hodkovce showed that,
the combination of TLS and IbM is ideal from the perspective of achieving the highest
possible accuracy. TLS guarantees calibrated accuracy of the data measured and, espe-
cially, a low level of noise, which is very important in the case of smooth surfaces (such
as building walls). IbM enables capturing elevated parts of the structures (such as upper
floors and roofs) through the use of an UAV and, at the same time, can be a source of
quality texturing of the resulting 3D model.

2  Examples of connecting a TLS to a movable platform of an UAV have occurred recently, but this approach is still in its
developmental stage and not common.
3  SIFT points can be identified with key points defined in Agisoft Photoscan,
4  HDR creates false colour spectrum of images.
5  The original images without HDR toning must be used for texturing. They should have the same name as the images
used for creation of the model itself. It is sufficient to change the folder of source images in the stage of texturing.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 121

Figure 70. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church, exterior. Example of a noisy mesh resulting
from insufficient number of SIFT points detected on unedited photos. A: clean mesh derived from TLS
data, B: noisy mesh resulting from IbM using unedited photos.
122 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 71. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house, exterior, tympanon. Example of noisy data
resulting from insufficient number of SIFT points. A: insufficient number of SIFT points, B: sparse tie
points with the lack of surface geometry, C: dense point cloud with the noisy part magnified, D: mesh
with the distorted part of the surface magnified.

Figure 72. Distribution of SIFT points (key points) detected by bundle adjustment.
A: raw stone structure, B: flat facade covered with single-colour fine plaster.
 3D RECORDING OF ARCHITECTURE 123

Figure 73. Examples of photo editing as a part of the pre-processing of raw data.
Software DxO Optics Pro. A: raw photo, B: edited photo.
124 J án Z achar , P erica Š pehar

Figure 74. Example of HDR filtering/toning of photos leading to better quality of the final 3D model
(mesh) on one hand, and false colour information on the other. A: mesh built from photos with
default settings, B: mesh built from HDR-toned photos.
3D RECORDING OF CASTLES
Ján Zachar (Via Magna) & Marko A. Janković (University of Belgrade)

Architectural remains of castles are quite distinctive compared to other types of buildings
regarding the degree of preservation and the landscape in which they are located. Both
factors significantly influence the digitisation strategy. As already stated in the case of
‘standard’ architecture, the spatial organisation and height considerably increase demands
on the digitising techniques. This applies even more to castle architecture. The remains
of castle buildings are often found in various stages of destruction and thus structures
have complex forms. Given the predominantly vertical elements, the effective collection
of data is even more complicated, especially in terms of recording upper floors. Moreover,
the majority of castle ruins is situated in an environment characterised by irregular terrain
and often with dense low or high vegetation. This creates natural obstacles and shadows
in the photo-documentation and can be a highly limiting factor for the performance of
techniques and tools used in the collection of data, such as an UAV.
Two castle complexes were selected as case studies within the framework of the CONPRA
project. They are different, especially in terms of the natural landscape in which they are
situated. The environment of Čachtice castle is composed of relatively open space with
small areas under forest and a relatively regular terrain around the castle premises. On the
contrary, Dobrá Voda castle is situated in a densely forested area with marked elevations
of the terrain underlying different parts of the castle complex.
All case studies were processed in a workstation with the following parameters: Intel Xeon
CPU E5-2620 v2@ 2,10 GHz, RAM 128 GB, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 3GB, OS W8.
In the case of TLS application, the resolution was always set to 6 mm per 10 meters. For
IbM, Agisoft Photoscan software was used with the following parameters set for the batch
processing workflow: step – align photos (high accuracy with the key point limit of 40,000
126 J án Z achar , M arko A. J anković

and the tie point limit of 20,000 points); step – refinement of alignment (decreasing of
global re-projection error to max. 1px); step – build dense point cloud (medium quality,
aggressive depth filtering); step – build mesh (arbitrary surface type, dense point cloud
as source data, interpolation enabled, custom face count: various values); and step –
build texture (generic mapping mode, texture from all cameras, blending mode Mosaic,
texture size 4096, texture count 1, and no colour correction). In case of CapturingReality
RC, the parameters were as follows: step – align photos (max. feature per image 80,000,
pre-selector feature 40,000, image overlap medium, detector sensitivity medium, max.
re-projection error 2px); step – reconstruction (normal detail); step – build texture (Guter
3, texture resolution 8192, large triangle removal threshold 10, maximal texture count
style, visibility based texture style).
 3D RECORDING OF CASTLES 127

Čachtice, Castle
Site type: Castle
Location: Čachtice, Nové Mesto nad Váhom District, W Slovakia
Dating: 13th-16th century
Recorded parts: Complete castle area
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Sony Nex 7, UAV
Software: CapturingReality RC, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh) (Figs. 75, 76)
Short description: The Čachtice castle is situated on the top of a limestone peak in Malé
Karpaty mountains. The former frontier castle served as a control point
at the border between the Myjava and the Váh valleys. The oldest part
of the castle, dated to the 13th century, is the main pentagonal tower
situated at a prominent point of the terrain. During the 14th and the 15th
century, intensive building activity resulted in a new built area north of
the main tower. New fortification features (cannon bastions), parts of
the lower ward and some wall sections were added to the construction
at the end of the 15th century. The final major building activities are
dated to the 16th century when a complete reconstruction of the upper
part of the castle was conducted and new architectural features were
added to the lower ward (Plaček, Bóna 2007, p. 91-93). The project’s
aim was to digitise the complete historical landscape setting before the
reconstruction works commenced (in 2013). The recording was carried
out by IbM, which was facilitated by the relative openness of the area,
with only few obstacles to the visibility of the architecture. The raw data
was collected with an UAV (light sailplane equipped with a camera).

Figure 75. Čachtice (Slovakia). Castle, 13th-17th century. IbM (148 photos 12Mpx).
Distribution of cameras during photo taking.
128 J án Z achar , M arko A. J anković

Figure 76. Čachtice (Slovakia). Castle, 13th-17th century. Isometric views of the textured 3D model.
 3D RECORDING OF CASTLES 129

Dobrá Voda, Castle

Site type: Castle
Location: Dobrá Voda, Trnava District, W Slovakia
Dating: 13th-17th century
Recorded parts: Complete castle area
Recording technology: TLS, IbM
Recording equipment: TLS Leica C10, camera Nikon D5200 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED
VR DX), TS, GNSS Rtk Rover (differential GPS)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.1.0, CloudCompare 2.7, Microstation V8i trial
version, Cyclone
Record: Georeferenced 3D model (mesh), georeferenced orthophoto plans and
cross-section views (Figs. 77-79)
Short description: The castle is situated on the top and SW slopes of a limestone ridge. The
oldest part (13th c.) is represented by two towers and a palace in between.
Two late medieval extramural settlements are located to the east and
the west from the core area of the castle. The far end of the eastern
settlement marks a polygonal building (chapel?). At the southern edge
of the western settlement lie a tower gate and cylindrical bastion. The
third settlement was built in the 16th c. south from the castle, with walls
connected with the castle and three cylindrical bastions and and entrance
gate. The entire castle area was recorded. The terrain configuration has
significant ondulations; also, dense forest cover created shadowed many
parts of the architecture. Individual castle buildings were in various stage of
degradation. In such circumstances, TLS (Leica C10) was used as the main
recording equipment, occasionally completed with IbM for more complex
architectural elements. Data from TLS and IbM were registered separately
and subsequently merged in CloudCompare. Georeferenced GCP measured
by TS were the basis for common registration.

Figure 77. Dobrá Voda castle, 13-16th century. TLS (150 TLS stations).
Isometric views of the shaded 3D model.
130 J án Z achar , M arko A. J anković

Figure 78. Dobrá Voda (Slovakia). Castle, 13-16th century. TLS. A: nadir view of the 3D model
of the castle’s ground plan, B: isometric view of the model of the castle complex.
 3D RECORDING OF CASTLES 131

Figure 79. Dobrá Voda (Slovakia). Castle, 13-16th century. TLS. A: isometric view of the 3D model
of the outer walls of the upper castle, B: view of the inner facade of the upper palace.
132 J án Z achar , M arko A. J anković

DISCUSSION

Castle architecture represents a special category of buildings determined by the landscape

context and the nature of their construction; this places specific requirements on the dig-
itisation process. As in the case of 3D documentation of building structures, documenting
the remains of castles requires thorough reconnaissance of the terrain and an elaborate
digitising scenario as well as a thorough plan of the work procedure. It is likely that a
castle cannot be processed within a single set, especially in the case of more extensive
complexes. Therefore, the collection and processing of the data should focus on smaller
sections or individual structures of the castle complex. This places high demands on the
general data management.
It turns out that the key determinant for the choice of digitisation strategy is the degree
of elevation (terrain configuration) in different parts of the castle area and the extent
and density of forest around the castle. Dense forest represents a substantial limiting
factor to the application of basic IbM tools. This is especially true in the case of use of an
UAV, which is necessary for the collection of data on vertical architectural elements. The
example of Dobrá Voda castle shows that an UAV cannot be fully substituted by a high
monopod stand in complex terrain with significant elevation variations combined with
high structures. High density of trees made the use of TLS also difficult. The shadows
created over, and by, the architecture required frequent change of scanner positions, as
well as GCP, used for the registration of individual scans and their general georeferencing.
Moreover, the positions of the surface scanner caused digitisation shadows on higher
floors of individual structures, especially in areas of windowsills and linings of the windows
or gun port openings. These elements usually cannot be captured by laser signal sent from
the surface of the surrounding terrain.
Since UAV cannot be used for the photo documentation, most of the images were made
from the ground level; the upper parts of the structures are thus captured from a highly
oblique perspective. The lack of a sufficient number of perpendicular or almost perpendic-
ular photos devalues the resulting texture, as the texture map is created by defining GCP
between the 3D model (mesh) and the individual images. If part of the architecture is, in
this work procedure, captured only at a very oblique angle, false perspective is created
after such images are layered in the 3D model.
The situation is considerably simpler in the case of castles located in environments with
little forest vegetation. Depending on the size and complexity of the castle area, only
IbM or IbM in combination with TLS can be used. The potential of an UAV can be used
in full, which is indispensable for the documentation of extensive castle ruins. Rough
masonry (without any surface treatment) is characterised by a high degree of plasticity
and texture structuring. This enables generating sufficient number of SIFT points in the
process of bundle adjustment, which is the basic condition for a clean 3D model without
much noise.
3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS
Ján Zachar (Via Magna) & Nenad Jončić (University of Belgrade)

The main characteristic of the digitisation of sculptures and movable items of cultural
heritage, that distinguishes it from the documentation of buildings and archaeological
sites, is the size of the documented item. It usually does not exceed the size of the human
body, if we do not count monumental sculptures that were not subject to research.1 A
special category of cultural heritage includes museum objects, historical sacral furniture
and outdoor historical sculptures. The digitisation of an object performed in the interior
poses a specific problem from the perspective of light parameters and parameters of the
available space.
The case studies were processed in notebook Lenovo Y50 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4710HQ
CPU@ 2,50 GHz, RAM 16 GB, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M, OS W8). In the case of SLS
application, Artec Eva with Artec Studio 10 software was used. Artec Studio enables the
whole workflow pipeline, from scanning through fine registration of particular scans, their
alignment and subsequent global registration, up to the fusion encompassing removal of
outliers and mesh generation with sharp or smooth fusion algorithm. The final step refers
to the mesh simplification and its texturing (Figure 80).
For IbM, Agisoft Photoscan softwarwe was used with the following parameters set for
the batch processing workflow: step – align photos (high accuracy with the key point
limit of 40,000 and the tie point limit of 20,000 points); step – refinement of alignment
(decreasing of global re-projection error to max. 1px); step – build dense point cloud (me-
dium quality, aggressive depth filtering); step – build mesh (arbitrary surface type, dense

1  Large monumental statues, high plague columns and monuments fall into the category of immovable objects; the
principles defined in the chapter about the digitisation of architectural objects also apply to these.
134 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

point cloud as source data, interpolation enabled, custom face count: various values), and
step – build texture (generic mapping mode, texture from all cameras, blending mode
Mosaic, texture size 4096 texture count 1, and no colour correction) (Figure 81). When
using CapturingReality RC, the parameters were as follows: step – align photos (max.
feature per image 120,000, pre-selector feature 60,000, image overlap medium, detector
sensitivity medium, max. re- projection error 2px); step – reconstruction (normal detail);
step – build texture (Guter 3, texture resolution 8192, large triangle removal threshold
10, maximal texture count style, visibility based texture style) (Figure 82.).

Figure 80. Workspace of Artec Studio with the settings used for processing scans.
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 135

Figure 81. Workspace of Agisoft Photoscan.

Figure 82. Workspace of CapturingReality RC.

136 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

Sculptures of St. John of Nepomuk and St. Florian, Beckov

Location: Church of St. Stephen the King, Beckov, Nové Mesto nad Váhom District
Object: Sculptures of St. John of Nepomuk and St. Florian
Material: Stone without surface treatment (sandstone)
Dating: 18th century
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D90 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0.0, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh) (Figs. 83-85)
Both Baroque sculptures sit on pillars flanking the entrance gate leading
Short description: to the Church of St. Stephen the King. Their rendering represents a good
example of the regional Baroque artwork. The pictures were taken by
handheld camera (from folding lader). Background masking was not used
for the processing in Agisoft Photoscan.

Figure 83. Sculptures of St. John Nepomuk and St. Florian, IbM. Positions of the cameras during
photo taking. A: St. Florien (186 photos 24Mpx), B: St. John Nepomuk (269 photos 24Mpx).
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 137

Figure 84. Sculpture of St. John Nepomuk. A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model.

Figure 85. Sculpture of St. Florian. A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model.

138 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

Sculpture of the Virgin, Nové Mesto nad Váhom

Location: Premises of the Virgin Mary Prepositure, Nové Mesto nad Váhom, W
Slovakia
Object: Sculpture of the Virgin Mary
Material: Stone without surface treatment (limestone)
Dating: 18th century
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D90 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0.0, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh) (Figs. 86, 87)
Short description: The Baroque limestone sculpture of the Virgin Mary is situated on
the premises of the Virgin Mary Prepositure on the lawn in front of
the northern wall of the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary.
It represents a sophisticated piece of Baroque art with an emphasis
on the dynamic folds of the drapery and the expressive gestures.
Iconographically, it represents a specific type with elements of ‘Regina
Coeli’ (the motif of a crown and a sceptre) and ‘Immaculata’ (the motif of
Earth with a serpent underfoot). The sculpture was made in a life size. The
ladder was used for capturing upper parts of the crown. The photographs
for IbM were taken by the ‘walk-around method’. Background masking
was not used for processing of the data in Agisoft Photoscan.

Fig. 86. Nové Mesto nad Váhom

(Slovakia). Sculpture of the Virgin Mary,
18th century. IbM (184 photos 12Mpx).
Distribution of cameras
during photo taking.
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 139

Figure 87. Sculpture of the Virgin Mary, Nové Mesto nad Váhom (Slovakia), 18th century.
A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model visualised in the ambient occlusion mode,
C: shaded 3D model – detail.
140 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

Altar sculptures, Church of St. Barbara, Žilina

Location: Church of St. Barbara, Žilina, NW Slovakia
Object: Altar sculptures; figure of an angel, figure of St. Joachim
Material: Polychrome wood (the polychrome is recent)
Dating: 18th century
Recording technology: SLS
Recording equipment: Artec Eva Scanner
Software: Artec Studio 10, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh) (Figs. 88-90)
Short description: The sculptures form part of the main altar decoration of the early 18th
century Franciscan Church of St. Barbara in Žilina. They are attributed to
the Baroque artist Anton Weissmann. The sculptures were made in a life
size and they bear typical features of the so-called Gothicising Baroque,
especially visible in the carving of St. Joachim’s face, which has markedly
sunken cheeks and ‘Gothicising’ line of the forehead and cheekbones.
On the other hand, the drapery is depicted in a dramatic movement in
line with the principles of dynamic rhythm of the Baroque. The altar
was under comprehensive reconstruction at the time of recording, and
parts of it were dismantled. The sculptures were recorded by TLS Artec
Eva in the sacristy, without any special lighting, and by using only the
local light source. The distance of Artec Eva was between 40 cm and
100 cm from the surface of the sculptures. For this reason, it was rather
complicated to capture the inward-facing parts of the drapery folds since
they remained outside the range of the structured light created by the
primary motion of the scanner. This produced undesirable digitisation
shadows. The repeated attempts at capturing these parts of the
sculptures consequently multiplied the number of partial scans and this,
eventually, prolonged the data processing stage.
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 141

Figure 88. Altar sculptures, church of St. Barbara, Žilina. SLS Artec Eva.
Visualisation of particular scans (each scan is depicted with a unique colour) in Artec Studio.
A: St. Joachim. 30 scans, B: Baroque angel, 29 scans.
142 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

Figure 89. Altar sculptures, church of St. Barbara, Žilina. SLS Artec Eva. 3D model of the Baroque
angel. A: textured model, B: shaded model with ambient occlusion filter applied.

Figure 90. Altar sculptures, church of St. Barbara, Žilina. SLS Artec Eva. 3D model of St. Joachim.
A: textured model, B: shaded model with ambient occlusion filter applied.
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 143

Copy of the sculpture of Virgin Mary, Žilina,

Location: Monuments Board Office, Žilina, NW Slovakia
Object: Copy of the sculpture of the Virgin Mary
Material: Plaster
Dating: 15th century (original)
Recording technology: SLS
Recording equipment: Artec Eva Scanner
Software: Artec Studio 10, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh) (Figs. 91, 92)
Short description: The recorded sculpture of the Virgin Mary is a life-size replica of the
medieval original from Levoča. Scanning using the SLS Artec Eva took
place in the interior of an office, using the available lights and without
any special lighting.

Figure 91. Plaster copy of the Virgin Mary sculpture (15th century, original), Žilina. SLS Artec Eva.
A: visualisation of particular scans (each scan depicted with a unique colour)
in Artec Studio (20 scans), B: visualisation of the final mesh (3D model) in Artec Studio.
144 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

Figure 92. Plaster copy of the Virgin Mary sculpture (15th century, original), Žilina. SLS Artec Eva.
Shaded model with ambient occlusion filter applied.
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 145

Ceramic pot
Site: Bratislava Castle, south-western Slovakia
Object: Pot
Material: Ceramics
Dating: 9th century
Recording technology: SLS, IbM
Recording equipment: Artec Eva Scanner, camera Nikon D90 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6
ED VR DX)
Software: Artec Studio 10, Agisoft Photoscan Pro1.0.0, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh) (Figure 93)
Short description: Both IbM and SLS (Artec Eva) were used in the digitisation. For IbM,
monochromatic background was used and images were taken by the walk-
around method. After the upper part and the inside of the vessel were
photographed, the vessel was turned over for photographing the lower part
and the bottom. The sequences of images from both sets of photographs
were processed at the same time. No special lighting was used.

Figure 93. Clay vessel, 9th century,

Bratislava Castle. SLS Artec Eva.

A: visualisation of particular scans

(each scan is depicted with a unique
colour) in Artec Studio (13 scans).

B: visualisation of the textured

final mesh (3D model) in
Artec Studio.

C: visualisation of the shaded final

mesh (3D model) in Artec Studio.
146 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

Architectural elements, fragment of a vault rib

Site: Prepositure of the Virgin Mary, Nové Mesto nad Váhom, SW Slovakia
Object: Fragment of a vault rib
Material: Stone
Dating: 14th-15th century
Recording technology: SLS
Recording equiment: Artec Eva Scanner,
Software: Artec Studio 10, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh) (Figs. 94, 95)
Short description: Fragment of a vault rib was found during the archaeological research
of the premises of the Prepositure of the Virgin Mary (2014). Individual
fragments of the collapsed vault were found in the debris of the building
interior. The scanning was performed by SLS Artec Eva in the interior of
the structure and without any special lighting.

Figure 94. Fragment of a vault rib,

14th-15th century. Nové Mesto nad
Váhom. SLS Artec Eva.

A: Visualisation of particular scans

(each scan depicted with a unique
colour) in Artec Studio (3 scans).

B: Visualisation of the textured

final mesh (3D model) in
Artec Studio.

C: Visualisation of the shaded final

mesh (3D model) in Artec Studio.
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 147

Figure 95. Fragment of a vault rib, 14th-15th century, Nové Mesto nad Váhom. SLS Artec Eva.
Cross-section generation in Artec Studio software.
148 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

Prehistoric sculptures
Site: Vinča, Serbia
Object: Prehistoric sculptures
Material: Ceramics
Dating: Neolithic
Recording technology: IbM
Recording equipment: Camera Nikon D5100 (optics AF-S Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR DX)
Software: Agisoft Photoscan Pro1.0.0, CloudCompare 2.7
Record: Scaled 3D model (mesh) (Figs. 96 - 98)
Short description: Outdoor recording in IbM (‘turntable method’, natural light; camera placed
on a stand, photos were taken by remote control). The movement (SfM
principle), was provided by manual rotation of the object. The object was
photographed in several 360 degree-rotation sequences to capture all of
its parts. Since the photos were taken with a monochromatic background,
they did not have to be de-masked during the processing stage. Processing
of all photographed sequences was done at the same time.

Figure 96. Positions of photographs taken within the IbM ‘turntable method’.
Software: Capturing Reality RC. Although the camera was static and the object was turned on the
turntable, software treats the whole procedure as SfM, i.e. as if the camera was moving.
Left window – nadir view, right window – side view. A: ritual object made of clay (46 photos 12Mpx),
B: ritual object made of clay (113 photos 12Mpx).
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 149

Figure 97. Clay prosopomorphic lids, Neolithic period. IbM, turntable method.
A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model.

Figure 98. Clay object, Vinča, Neolithic period. IbM, turntable method.
A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model.
150 J án Z achar , N enad J ončić

DISCUSSION

The application of both IbM and SLS methods for the 3D documentation of sculptures
and movable objects is a valid approach, whereby each method has its specific benefits
and problems. The SLS of Artec Eva type currently represents probably the most widely
used type of portable handheld scanner utilising the technology of structured light with
declared point accuracy of 0.1 mm and the 3D resolution of 0.5 mm. The most frequent
and most effective application is in the documentation of objects of small to medium size
in interior spaces.
The Artec Eva instrument operates at the distance range of 40-100 cm from the docu-
mented object. This limits its usefulness for capturing very small objects, where it is more
suitable to apply another type of the Artec series – Artec Spider, which can capture the
surface already from the distance of 17 cm, thus allowing recording of very fine details.
The ideal solution is to use both types of scanners (Eva for general views and Spider for
intricate details). If only Artec Eva is used, it must be taken into account that some details
of the documented surface can be accessible from the operational distance only with
difficulty (e.g. inward-facing surface of folds of draperies in sculptures, etc.) and that it is
necessary to scan them repeatedly from various positions. It is also necessary to practice
scanning in order to successfully use and manoeuvre Artec Eva. This mainly relates to the
method of tracking (capturing frames), which requires smooth and slow but at the same
time continuous movement of the scanner. Too rapid movements, as well as non-com-
pliance with the recommended distance from the object, can lead to the loss of tracking.
The course of scanning can be followed through the interface of native software (Artec
Studio) on a notebook or tablet to which the scanner is connected. This presupposes
mastering simultaneous tracking of own movement around the documented object and
observing the display of the notebook/tablet.
A substantial benefit of SLS application for indoor documentation is the fact that the
process can also take place under unfavourable light conditions without the need for
any special lighting. On the other hand, the application of SLS in an external space is
significantly limited, as the system does not work in (intensive) sunlight.
The most effective way of data collection for IbM in the exterior is the walk-around meth-
od, in which the person scans the whole surface of the object by moving around it in
several sequences. The number of sequences depends on the height and the general
appearance of the object. This procedure is particularly well-suited for 3D documentation
of historical sculptures. If IbM is used for the documentation of movable objects in the
interior, it is better to use the turntable method because, in order to obtain sharp and
high-quality images, the object of documentation must be well-illuminated. In the walk-
around method, the light equipment needs to be constantly shifted and the documenter
needs to move around the object; this can represent a significant obstacle if the space
available for documenting is limited. Further, lighting of the object documented must
be of diffuse nature in order to prevent the creation of strong shadows, which, from the
perspective of 3D documentation, represent a ‘dead zone’. Diffuse lighting can be best
achieved by two oppositely placed light sources whose beams are aimed at the centre
of the area documented, whereby the emitted light beams are diffused by a transparent
material (translucent sheet, crepe paper, etc.) placed between the object and the light
 3D RECORDING OF SCULPTURES AND SMALL OBJECTS 151

sources. The movement is created by manually or automatically rotating platform on

which the object is placed. The images are taken by means of a remote-controlled camera
placed on a stand. Several image sequences are made from all sides of the object. When
one sequence is completed, the object is manually turned to allow taking images of a
previously obscured part of the surface. It is advisable to make images with the monochro-
matic background, since it enables very efficient masking of the background based on the
principle of colour difference between pixels.2 In many cases, uniform monochromatic
background enables simultaneous registration of individual image sequences in a single
file within bundle adjustment in IbM processing. In case the software application does
not have the option to align such images, or in case the process of registration in one
file fails, the images need to be processed within individual sequences and subsequently
aligned according to GCP.

2  Technically, the simplest method of masking, using the principle of difference between pixels in the raster, is to use
specialised software (e.g. Adobe Photoshop) and subsequently export the masking layer together with the respective raster
as an alpha channel. The majority of IbM software is able to identify the alpha channel of a raster and thus automatically
import the masking layer of individual images.
SUMMARY
Milan Horňák (Via Magna)

3D digitisation is gradually becoming a standard geodetic method applied in the creation

of technical documentation within the research on archaeological and historical buildings.
It is especially useful for the transformation of a 3D model into 2D space, whereby orthog-
onal projections of 3D structures, such as ground plans of archaeological sites, different
views and cross-sections of facades of historical or other structures, are generated. Various
specific views, plans and cross-sections generated from a 3D model are of high accuracy.
Moreover, it is possible to capture in 3D models the exact distribution of surface colours,
thanks to the recorded texture – for instance, in case of wall paintings, mosaics, etc. 3D
digitisation represents a significant progress in attaining accuracy when compared to 2D
photogrammetry, especially because it can correct the radial and tangential distortion of
conventional photogrammetry. This allows accurate measurement of archaeological sites
and findings, even of those relatively high and large in size/area (especially architectural
remains). The ortho-view thus also enables presentation of complex surfaces, such as
vaults with wall paintings and ornaments, and realisation of this in an advanced form,
within individual areas and without any distortion due to the projection of light onto
curved surface of a vault or uneven surface of archaeological finds, or due to the height
of some structured in height, etc.
The 3D model as such can be utilised in a wide range of applications from virtual presenta-
tions within cultural tourism or education through simulations of spatial relationships and
interference in planned reconstructions up to simulations within the framework of crisis
management in calculations of flood water risks etc. Repeated 3D digitisation can also
capture a construction development of an object, or changes in structural conditions (e.g.
shifts, cracks, etc.), so the technology can be used also for monitoring of the conditions
154 M ilan H orňák

of historical building structures. The procedure of archaeological research can be in this

way also “tangibly” recorded in the process of exploitation of individual surface levels.
Terrestrial laser scanning remains to be the most reliable method from among individual
technologies of 3D documentation. This is related especially to the verifiable calibra-
tion-conditioned guarantee of accuracy as well as with the process of data collection,
which by its technologic nature minimises the level of noise in the resulting model. On
the other hand, TLS has also many negative factors. Probably the most significant is the
price, which can be the main obstacle for wider application in the field of cultural heritage.
Limited manipulation on elevated platforms also limits more extensive possibilities of
application in the recording of high structures, where digitisation shadows can form in
places of important structural elements. The resulting texture of model surface also poses
a problem, as TLS scanners usually have weak photo sensors. The technology of structured
light, which is close to the method of IbM, has been recently started to be applied espe-
cially in the case of portable scanners. Scanners equipped with this technology find wide
application in the documentation of movable objects or immovable objects not exceeding
2 – 3 m. They can be used in the field of the cultural heritage especially for documentation
of museum exhibits or movable findings and historical sculptures. The digitisation can be
performed in the interior without the usage of any special lighting.
Currently, the method of IbM experiences the biggest boom in use. The recent rapid devel-
opment of low-cost or open-source software for the creation of spatial models from series
of images pushed IbM up the list of choices of the methods of recording in the process of
preparation for the reconstruction of buildings, documentation of archaeological research,
as well as overall monitoring and protection of historical heritage. This technology is ver-
satile and has a range of possible applications. It can be equally useful for the digitisation
of extensive archaeological sites and historical building complexes, as well as for small,
movable findings. The mass expansion of this technology is also considerably facilitated by
the user-friendly interface of the majority of software packages, as well as by the option
to use supporting tools for the collection of data (monopod stand, microcopter). When
using this documentation technology, it is necessary to scrutinise the quality of the input
data, i.e. photos. The photo-documentation and its processing require special attention,
because it is their quality that determines the success of the entire digitisation project.
In the CONPRA project we have, hopefully, demonstrated that all the technologies used
and described and our papers became highly accessible and user friendly. Prior the pro-
ject, none of the authors could be cosidedered expert in these fields, however, soon they
started to master new technologies and use them in their routine work.
 List of abbreviations 155

List of abbreviations:

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange, file Format read-
able in many software,
BIM Software for building information modelling, process involving the gen-
eration of digiral representations of places, BIM files
CAA International organization of specialists in computer sciences in
archaeology
CAD Computer aided drawing
CCD Charged-coupled device, integrated circuit on silicon surface forming
light sensitive pixels
CPU Computer processing unit, colloquially “computer processor”
DEM Digital elevation model (3D representation of terrain surface with a prime
intention of elevation visualisation)
DSLR Digital single lens reflex camera
DOF Depth of field (one of the basic camera settings)
DWG AutoCad native file format
EXIF Exchangeable image (file) format
FLS Farp software native file format
GCP Ground control points (reference points measured by TS or GNSS Rtk
Rover using to georeference 3D model)
GIMP GNU Image manipulation program (open-source software for image
editing)
GNSS Global navigation satellite system
GPU Graphic processing unit, colloqially “computer graphic card”
EV Exposure values (one of the basic camera settings)
HDR High dynamic range (technique used in imaging and photography to
create a greater dynamic range of luminosity than it is possible with
standard digital imaging techniques)
IbM Image-based modeling (scanning technology using photos as raw
data, sometimes referred to as 3D photogrammetry)
ISO (values) Values for measuring the sensitivity of the image sensor in camera
ISPRS International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
LAS File format, freequently for storing the LIDAR data, similar as LAZ
LAZ see LAS
LCD Liquid cristal display
156 List of abbreviations

LIDAR Light Imaging and Ranging

MVS Multi-view stereo (part of IbM processing workflow)
NURBS Non-uniform rational basis spline (type of 3D model)
PS Phase-shift (type of laser scanning technology)
PNG Portable network graphics, file format freequently used for recording
images
PTG Leica native file format
PTS Interchageable file format
PTX Interchangeable file format
PTZ Leica native file format
RAM Random access memory
RAW Digital image file format, containing minimum processed data from the
image sensor in camera
RGB Red - green - blue, basic colours in computer colour model
RTK (rover) Real time kinetic rovers, used for satellite navigation
SIFT (algorhitm) Scale invariant feature transform, algorhitm for describing local features
in digital image
SfM Structure for motion, photogrammetric imaging technique for estimating
3D objects, basic procedure within IbM
SIFT Scale-invariant feature transform (technology used for key points
detection on particular photos during IbM processing step - Bundle
adjustment)
SLS Structured light scanning (scanner) (scanning using structured/gridded
light as a technological mean)
TIFF (geoTIFF) Tagged image file format, one of standard file formats for digital images
TLS Terrestrial laser scanning (scanner) (scanning using laser as a technology
mean)
TS Total station, electronic theodolite
TOF Time of flight
UAV Unmanned aerial vehicle (remote controlled light aerial devices (e.g.
copters, drones) with mounted camera used within IbM procedure for
taking picture)
UV Ultra violet
 List of figures and tables 157

List of figures and tables

Figure 1. 3D model surface types: A: mesh-quads, B: mesh-quads, smoothed, C: NURBS.
(Available at: https://andrewevs92.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/127/). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Figure 2. 3D mesh-triangles with different resolution (3D Modelling for programmers.
Available at: https://cathyatseneca.gitbooks.io/3d-modelling-for-programmers/content
/3ds_max_basics/3d_ representation.html. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Figure 3. Basic types of terrestrial 3D laser scanners (TLS) – a brief overview.
A: Faro Focus 3DX130, B: Leica C10, C: Riegl VZ serie, D: Topcon GLS 1500,
E: Surphaser 105HSX, F: Stonex X300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 4. Basic types of portable scanners – a brief overview.
A: Artec Eva, B: Artec Spider, C: David Scanner, D: Sense Scanner, E: Microsoft Kinect,
F: Breuckmann Smart Scanner, G: Faro Scanner Freestyle, H: ZScanner, I: Creaform Go!SCAN.
A-F, I: Structured light scanning (SLS) technology; G,H: Laser technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 5. Manor house at Žehra, Hodkovce, Slovakia. Point cloud with RGB values
showing exposure inconsistency due to poorly exposed composite photos
taken by the native scanner camera (Leica C10). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Figure 6. 2D Photogrammetry, orthorectification procedure. A: ArcMap interface,
B: Autodesk Civil 3D + Raster Design interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Figure 7. 2D Photogrammetry, basic workflow. A: georeferencing a photogram
according to the measured ground control points (orthorectification),
B: vectorisation of a photogram, C: print layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Figure 8. The principle of optical correlation. A: reference matrix, B: searching matrix.
(Maliariková 2011, Figure 5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Figure 9. Structure from Motion workflow (software Agisoft Photoscan).
A: bundle adjustment, camera calibration – outer and inner camera orientation definition,
B: bundle adjustment, sparse point cloud generation, C: Multi-View Stereo, dense point cloud
generation, D: mesh creation, E: textured mesh, F: georeferenced orthophoto plan creation,
G: georeferenced digital elevation model creation, H: survey data accuracy, mode resolution
and quality report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Figure 10. Photo shooting strategies for Image-based Modelling (IbM). (Available online at
http://www.agisoft.com/pdf/tips_and_tricks/Image%20Capture%20Tips%20-%20Equipment
%20and%20Shooting%20Scenarios.pdf). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 11. Photo-shooting scenario of a solitary object. A: walk-around method,
B: turntable method. (Available online at http://www.tested.com/art/makers/
460142-art-photogrammetry-how-take-your-photos/). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 12. Processing RAW files. An example of an image before and after correction.
DxO Optics Pro interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Figure 13. Processing RAW files. An example of an image before and after correction.
Detail. DxO Optics Pro interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Figure 14. Radoľa, Koscelisko (Slovakia). Burial mound, Bronze Age.
IbM (180 photos, 24 Mpx). Textured 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Figure 15. Radoľa, Koscelisko (Slovakia). Burial mound, Bronze Age. IbM. Shaded 3D model. . . . . 56
Figure 16. Radoľa, Koscelisko (Slovakia). Burial mound, Bronze Age.
An example of 2D documentation deliverables – vectorisation of the georeferenced
orthophoto plan derived from the 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Figure 17A. Rajec, Charubina (Slovakia). Remains of dwellings from the Bronze Age.
3D model. IbM (193 photos, 12Mpx). Position of the cameras during data acquisition,
B: textured 3D model, C: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Figure 17B. Rajec, Charubina (Slovakia). Remains of dwellings from the Bronze Age.
3D model. IbM (193 photos, 12Mpx). Textured 3D model. C: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . .58
158 List of figures and tables

Figure 17C. Rajec, Charubina (Slovakia). Remains of dwellings from the Bronze Age.
3D model. IbM (193 photos, 12Mpx). Shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Figure 18. Rajec, Charubina (Slovakia). Remains of dwellings from the Bronze Age.
An example of 2D documentation. A: digital elevation model (DEM), B: georeferenced orthophoto
plan derived from the 3D model, C: vectorisation of the georeferenced orthophoto plan. . . . . . . 59
Figure 19. Mošovce (Slovakia). Remains of an Early Roman industrial area. An example of
2D documentation. A: DEM, B: georeferenced orthophoto plan derived from the 3D model. . . . . .60
Figure 20A-C. Mošovce (Slovakia). Remains of an industrial zone, early Roman period.
IbM (78 photos,12Mpx). A: position of the cameras, B: textured 3D model, C: shaded 3D model. . .61
Figure 21. Bratislava, Castle, northern terrace. Remains of the open settlement,
partly destroyed by a later quarry, 10-12th century. 3D model. IbM (352 photos, 12Mpx).
A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model, C: georeferenced orthophoto plan. . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Figure 22. Senec, Synagogue (Slovakia). Remains of the economic section of the synagogue,
with an oven and a mikveh, 19th century. IbM (1452 photos, 24 Mpx).
A, B: textured 3D model, C, D: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Figure 23. Senec, Synagogue (Slovakia). Remains of the economic section of the synagogue.
Cross-section documentation derived from the 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Figure 24. Senec, Synagogue (Slovakia). Remains of the economic section of the synagogue
– detail of the oven, 19th century. IbM. A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 25A. Skalka nad Váhom (Slovakia). Remains of a medieval monastery, 14th-17th century.
Textured 3D model combining the results from two archaeological seasons (see also Figure 25B)
that focused on uncovering the west wing of the clausura. IbM (425 photos, 12+24Mpx). . . . . . .67
Figure 25B. Skalka nad Váhom (Slovakia). Remains of a medieval monastery, 14th-17th century.
Textured 3D model combining the results from two archaeological seasons (see also Figure 25A)
that focused on uncovering the west wing of the clausura. IbM (425 photos, 12+24Mpx). . . . . . .68
Figure 25C. Skalka nad Váhom (Slovakia). Remains of a medieval monastery, 14th-17th century.
Textured 3D model – detail of medieval hypocaust. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Figure 26. Skalka nad Váhom (Slovakia). Remains of a medieval monastery, 14th -17th century.
Examples of 2D documentation derived from the 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Figure 27. Čachtice (Slovakia). Medieval castle, 13th-16th century. 3D model of the eastern palace
during the restoration process. IbM (250 photos, 12Mpx). Top – section through the interior of the
eastern portion of the structure, bottom – isometric view of the same area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Figure 28. Čachtice (Slovakia). Medieval castle, 13th-16th century. Archaeological trench K25
in the eastern palace. IbM (65 photos, 12Mpx). A: ground plan of the castle with indicated
location of the documented trench, B: solid 3D model of the trench with the texture map,
C: DEM with different forms of visualisation (analytical hillshading and hypsometry),
D: orthophoto plan, E: cross-sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 29. Čachtice (Slovakia). Medieval castle, 13th-16th century. Archaeological trench S3 in the
eastern palace. IbM (30 photos, 12Mpx) A: location of the trench within the castle,
B: solid 3D model of the trench with the texture map, C: DEM with different forms of visualisation
(analytical hillshading and hypsometry), D: orthophoto plan of the layout and the profiles,
E: cross-sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Figure 30. Brazda, Archaeopark (Macedonia). Remains of the stone-built tomb, 5th century BC.
DEM derived from the 3D model. A: analytical hillshading, B: hypsometry, C: contours. . . . . . . . 73
Figure 31. Brazda, Archaeopark (Macedonia). Remains of the stone-built tomb, 5th century BC.
3D model. IbM (476 photos, 24 Mpx). A,B: nadir view, C-F: isometric views. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Figure 32. Brazda, Archaeopark (Macedonia). Remains of the stone-built tomb, 5th century BC.
Examples of 2D documentation derived from the 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
 List of figures and tables 159

Figure 33. Bratislava, Castle, northern terrace. Roman-style Building 2, 1st century BC.
3D model. Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) in combination with IbM.
A, B: textured 3D model, C, D: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
Figure 34. Bratislava, Castle, northern terrace. Remains of a residential structure, 16th century.
3D model. IbM (534 photos, 12Mpx).
A: distribution of measured ground control points (GCP), B, C: textured 3D model. . . . . . . . . . .77
Figure 35. Bratislava, Castle, north terrace. Remains of a residential structure, 16th century.
A, B: DEM derived from the 3D model, C: Georeferenced orthophoto plan
derived from the 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Figure 36. Bratislava, Castle, northern terrace. Roman-style Building, 1st century BC.
Examples of 2D documentation deliverables derived from the 3D model.
View of the cross-section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Figure 37. Považský Castle (Slovakia). North palace structure, 16th century.
IbM (366 photos, 24Mpx). A, B: textured 3D model, C, D: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
Figure 38. Považský Castle (Slovakia). North palace structure, 16th century.
Examples of 2D documentation deliverables derived from the 3D model.
A: groundplan orthophoto, B: profile orthophoto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 39. Bratislava Castle. A: broader area documented only with oblique photos,
B: without verticals, resulting in a noisy sparse cloud, C: with large number of points
with a high re-projection error that needs refinement in the iterative process. . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 40. A: Types of calibrated coded and non-coded targets, B: the process of automatic
recognition of coded and non-coded targets in Agisoft Photoscan.
(Available at: http://www.agisoft.com/pdf/tips_and_tricks/CHI_Calibrated_Scale_Bar
_Placement_and_Processing.pdf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 41. Jazernica, Medieval church, 15th century. IbM (586 photos, 12+24 Mpx).
A: distribution of cameras, B: dense point cloud, C,D: textured 3D model – isometric view,
E and F: textured 3D model – ortho-view of the facades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
Figure 42. Renaissance Town Hall in Rajec, Slovakia. IbM (576 photos, 12Mpx).
A: camera positions, B: sparse point cloud before reprojection C: sparse point cloud
after the reprojection, D: dense point cloud, E: meshed 3D model, E: textured 3D model. . . . . . .88
Figure 43. Rajec, Renaissance Town Hall, 16th century. IbM.
A: textured 3D model – isometric view, B: textured 3D model – ortho-view of the facade. . . . . . . 89
Figure 44. Sazdice (Slovakia). Medieval church, 14th century. IbM (249 photos, 24Mpx).
A: distribution of cameras, B: sparse point cloud, C: sense point cloud, D: meshed 3D model. . . . . 90
Figure 45. Sazdice (Slovakia). Medieval church, 14th century. IbM.
Textured 3D model – isometric view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Figure 46. Sazdice (Slovakia). Medieval church, 14th century. IbM.
Textured 3D model – isometric view. Examples of 2D documentation deliverables
derived from the 3D model – ortho-view of the facades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Figure 47. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS (1520 photos 24Mpx, 41 TLS stations).
Distribution of cameras and stations. A: outer facades, B: inner courtyard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 48. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model. . . . . . 95
Figure 49. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model. . . . . . 96
Figure 50. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Ortho-views of the facades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Figure 51. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), interior – 3 levels.
TLS (168 TLS stations). Shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
160 List of figures and tables

Figure 52. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house (18-19th century), exterior. . . . . . . . . . . . 98
A: example of 2D vectorisation of ortho-rectified east facade, B: example of 2D documentation
derived from the 3D model – cross-section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Figure 53. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS (713 photos 24Mpx, 10 TLS stations).
Distribution of cameras and stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 54. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model. . . . . 101
Figure 55. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model. . . . . 102
Figure 56. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
IbM in combination with TLS. Ortho-views of the facades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 57. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), interior.
TLS (9 TLS stations). Dense point cloud. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 58. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), interior.
Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 59. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church (19th century), exterior.
Example of 2D vectorisation of ortho-rectified south facade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 60. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic park architecture (19th century), exterior.
IbM (325 photos 24Mpx). Isometric views of the textured 3D model.
A: visualisation with normals, B: visualisation without normals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 61. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Farm building (19th century), exterior.
IbM (472 photos, 24Mpx). A: dense point cloud, B: Example of 2D documentation
derived from the 3D model – view of the facade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 62. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Park, 19th century. IbM (800 photos 24Mpx).
A: distribution of cameras, B: nadir view of the textured D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Figure 63. Banská Belá (Slovakia). Mining site, 15th century. IbM (691 photos 24Mpx).
Isometric views. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 65. Banská Belá (Slovakia). Mining site, 15th century.
Example of 2D documentation derived from the 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 64. Banská Belá (Slovakia). Mining site, 15th century. IbM.
Isometric views A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 66. Rajec (Slovakia). Burgess house (16th century), cellar. IbM (217 photos 12Mpx).
A: example of raw photos with markers indicating control points, B: distribution of cameras. . . . 116
Figure 67. Rajec (Slovakia). Burgess house (16th century), cellar. IbM modeling.
Depiction of the alignment of cellar rooms processed individually through the control points. . . . 117
Figure 68. Rajec (Slovakia). Burgess house (16th c.). IbM, Isometric view of the cellar interior. . . . 117
Figure 69. Rajec (Slovakia). Burgess house (16th century), cellar.
IbM. Isometric views of the exterior. A: shaded 3D model, B: textured 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . 118
Figure 70. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Neo-Gothic church, exterior. Example of a noisy mesh
resulting from insufficient number of SIFT points detected on unedited photos.
A: clean mesh derived from TLS data, B: noisy mesh resulting from IbM using unedited photos. . . 121
Figure 71. Žehra, Hodkovce (Slovakia). Manor house, exterior, tympanon. Example of noisy data
resulting from insufficient number of SIFT points. A: insufficient number of SIFT points,
B: sparse tie points with the lack of surface geometry, C: dense point cloud with the noisy part
magnified, D: mesh with the distorted part of the surface magnified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 72. Distribution of SIFT points (key points) detected by bundle adjustment.
A: raw stone structure, B: flat facade covered with single-colour fine plaster. . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
 List of figures and tables 161

Figure 73. Examples of photo editing as a part of the pre-processing of raw data.
Software DxO Optics Pro. A: raw photo, B: edited photo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 74. Example of HDR filtering/toning of photos leading to better quality of the final
3D model (mesh) on one hand, and false colour information on the other.
A: mesh built from photos with default settings, B: mesh built from HDR-toned photos. . . . . . . 124
Figure 75. Čachtice (Slovakia). Castle, 13th-17th century. IbM (148 photos 12Mpx).
Distribution of cameras during photo taking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Figure 76. Čachtice (Slovakia). Castle, 13th-17th century.
Isometric views of the textured 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 77. Dobrá Voda castle, 13-16th century. TLS (150 TLS stations).
Isometric views of the shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 78. Dobrá Voda (Slovakia). Castle, 13-16th century. TLS. A: nadir view of the 3D model
of the castle’s ground plan, B: isometric view of the model of the castle complex. . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 79. Dobrá Voda (Slovakia). Castle, 13-16th century. TLS. A: isometric view of the 3D model
of the outer walls of the upper castle, B: view of the inner facade of the upper palace. . . . . . . . 131
Figure 80. Workspace of Artec Studio with the settings used for processing scans. . . . . . . . . . 134
Figure 81. Workspace of Agisoft Photoscan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure 82. Workspace of CapturingReality RC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure 83. Sculptures of St. John Nepomuk and St. Florian, IbM. Positions of the cameras during
photo taking. A: St. Florien (186 photos 24Mpx), B: St. John Nepomuk (269 photos 24Mpx). . . . . 136
Figure 84. Sculpture of St. John Nepomuk. A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . 137
Figure 85. Sculpture of St. Florian. A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 86. Nové Mesto nad Váhom (Slovakia). Sculpture of the Virgin Mary, 18th century.
IbM (184 photos 12Mpx). Distribution of cameras during photo taking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure 87. Sculpture of the Virgin Mary, Nové Mesto nad Váhom (Slovakia), 18th century.
A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model visualised in the ambient occlusion mode,
C: shaded 3D model – detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Figure 88. Altar sculptures, church of St. Barbara, Žilina. SLS Artec Eva.
Visualisation of particular scans (each scan is depicted with a unique colour) in Artec Studio.
A: St. Joachim. 30 scans, B: Baroque angel, 29 scans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Figure 89. Altar sculptures, church of St. Barbara, Žilina. SLS Artec Eva. 3D model of the Baroque
angel. A: textured model, B: shaded model with ambient occlusion filter applied. . . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 90. Altar sculptures, church of St. Barbara, Žilina. SLS Artec Eva. 3D model of St. Joachim.
A: textured model, B: shaded model with ambient occlusion filter applied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 91. Plaster copy of the Virgin Mary sculpture (15th century, original), Žilina. SLS Artec Eva.
A: visualisation of particular scans (each scan depicted with a unique colour)
in Artec Studio (20 scans), B: visualisation of the final mesh (3D model) in Artec Studio. . . . . . . 143
Figure 92. Plaster copy of the Virgin Mary sculpture (15th century, original), Žilina. SLS Artec Eva.
Shaded model with ambient occlusion filter applied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Figure 93. Clay vessel, 9th century, Bratislava Castle. SLS Artec Eva. A: visualisation of
particular scans (each scan is depicted with a unique colour) in Artec Studio (13 scans),
B: visualisation of the textured final mesh (3D model) in Artec Studio.
C: visualisation of the shaded final mesh (3D model) in Artec Studio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Figure 94. Fragment of a vault rib, 14th-15th century. Nové Mesto nad Váhom. SLS Artec Eva,
A: Visualisation of particular scans (each scan depicted with a unique colour) in Artec Studio
(3 scans), B: Visualisation of the textured final mesh (3D model) in Artec Studio,
C: Visualisation of the shaded final mesh (3D model) in Artec Studio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
162 List of figures and tables

Figure 95. Fragment of a vault rib, 14th-15th century, Nové Mesto nad Váhom. SLS Artec Eva.
Cross-section generation in Artec Studio software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Figure 96. Positions of photographs taken within the IbM ‘turntable method’. Software: Capturing
Reality RC. Although the camera was static and the object was turned on the turntable, software
treats the whole procedure as SfM, i.e. as if the camera was moving. Left window – nadir view,
right window – side view. A: ritual object made of clay (46 photos 12Mpx),
B: ritual object made of clay (113 photos 12Mpx). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Figure 97. Clay prosopomorphic lids, Neolithic period. IbM, turntable method.
A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Figure 98. Clay object, Vinča, Neolithic period. IbM, turntable method.
A: textured 3D model, B: shaded 3D model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Table 1. Overview of the most commonly used point cloud editing and meshing software. . . . . . .29
Table 2. Comparison of light and laser technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Table 3. Overview of the most commonly used IbM software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Table 4. Overview of the most commonly used RAW file editing software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Table 5. Overview of the most commonly used HDR software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 6: Overview of the most commonly used software enabling HDR filtering. . . . . . . . . . . .48
Table 7. Commonly used mesh editing software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
 Bibliography 163

Bibliography
Abbott, Marcus; Anderson-Whymark, Hugo (2012), Stonehenge laser scan: Archaeological
analysis report. Research Report Series 32-2012. With assistance of Dave Aspden,
Anna Badcock, Tudur Davis, Mags Felter, Rob Ixer, Mike Parker Pearson, Colin Richard.
ArchHeritage; English Heritage. Available online at: http://services.english-heritage.
org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/032_2012web.pdf, checked on 1/13/2013.
Aitchison, Kenneth (2009): Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: transnational report.
Institute of Archaeologiosts 2009. Available online at: http://www.discovering- ar-
chaeologists.eu/DISCO_Transnational_Report.pdf. Check also the links to individual
national reports.
Aitchison Kenneth et all. (2014): Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2012-14:
Transnational Report. York Archaeological Trust 2014. Available online at: http://www.
discovering-archaeologists.eu/national_reports/2014/transnational_report.pdf. Check
also the links for individual national reports: http://www.discovering-archaeologists.
eu/2014/09/all-national-reports-published.html.
Arias, P.; Herraez, J.; Lorenzo, H.; Ordonez, C. (2005): Control of structural problems in
cultural heritage monuments using close-range photogrammetry and computer meth-
ods. In: Computers & Structures, 83(21-22), pp. 1754-1766.
Armesto-González, J.; Riveiro-Rodríguez, B.; González-Aguilera, D.; Rivas-Brea, M. (2010):
Terrestrial laser scanning intensity data applied to damage detection for historical
buildings. In: Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(12), pp. 3037-3047.
Arnold, C. J.; Huggett, J.; Reilly, P.; Springham, C. (1989): Mathrafal: a Case Study in the
Applications of Computer Graphics. In S. Rahtz (Ed.): Computer Applications and
Quantitative methods in Archaeology 1989. CAA89. Computer Applications and
Quantitative methods in Archaeology. Oxford: B.A.R. (BAR International Series,
548), pp. 147-156. Available online at: http://proceedings.caaconference.org/
paper/15_arnold_et_al_caa_1989/.
Athanassopoulos, Effie F.; Shelton, Kim (2015): Ceramics and 3D Technology: A Medieval
Assemblage from Nemea, Greece. In Gabriele Guidi, Roberto Scopigno, Juan Carlo
Torres, Holger Graf (Eds.): 2015 Digital Heritage International Congress. Analysis &
Interpretation Theory, Methodologies, Preservation & Standards Digital Heritage
Projects & Applications. 2015 Digital Heritage International Congress. Granada,
Spain, 28. September - 2. October. 21st International Virtual systems and multimedia
(VSMM), 13th Eurographics GCH, pp. 215-220.
Barbaro, Cecilia C.; Malinverni, Eva S.; Tassetti, Anna N.; La Marca, Chiara (2014): The
Archaeological Excavation of the Early Neolithic Site of Porthonovo as a Case Study for
Testing a 3D Documentation Pipeline. In F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati, S.
Robert (Eds.): Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications
and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology - CAA 2014 - 21st Century Archaeology.
42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology. Paris, France, 22. 4. - 25. 4.: Archaeopress, pp. 593-602.
Bartoš, P. ; Fraštia, M. (2011): Fotogrametria I.: Vybrané state z analytickej fotogrametrie.
Bratislava: STU v Bretislave,2011. 134s. ISBN 978-80-227-3374-9.
164 Bibliography

Biek, L. (1974): Progess with LERNIE. In J. D. Wilcock, S. Laflin (Eds.): Proceedings of the
Annual Conference on Computer Applications in Archaeology. Computer Applications
in Archaeology, January. Birmingham: Computer Centre, University of Birmingham,
pp. 59-63.
Biek, L. (1976): LERNIE - Phase III. In S. Laflin (Ed.): Proceedings of Annual Conference
on Computer Applications in Archaeology. Computer Applications in Archaeology.
Birmingham, January. University of Birmingham. Birmingham: Computer Centre,
University of Birmingham, pp. 65-71.
Biek, L. (1978): LERNIE - Phase V. In S. Laflin (Ed.): Proceedings of the Annual Conference
on Computer Applications in Archaeology. Computer Applications in Archaeology.
Birmingham, January. University of Birmingham, pp. 53-60.
Biek, L. (1985): LERNIE XIV. In E. Webb (Ed.): Proceedings of the Conference on Quantitative
Methods. Computer Applications in Archaeology. London, 29. 3. - 30. 3. University of
London. London: Institute of Archaeology, University of London, pp. 1-35.
Biek, L. (1986): LLERNIE XIV: Comparology and Stereovideo. In E. Webb (Ed.): Computer
Applications in Archaeology 1985. Proceedings of the Conference on Quantitative
Methods. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. University
of London, 29-30 March 1985. London: University of London, pp. 1-35.
Biek, L.; Hawker, B.; Lindsay, N. E.; Lupton, G. N. (1981): LERNIE VIII. In I. Graham, E.
Webb (Eds.): Proceedings of the Conference on Quantitative methods. Computer
Applications in Archaeology. London, 21. 3. - 22. 3. University of London. London:
Institute of Archaeology, University of London, pp. 8-19.
Billen, N.; Auer, M.; Loos, L.; Agugiaro, G.; Zipf, A. (2013): MayaArch3D: An integrative
analytical platform for 3D archaeological data. In : Book of Abstracts. SCCH 2013
4th Conference Scientific Computing and Cultural Heritage. Heidelberg, Germany,
18. 11. - 20.11. Heidelberg Academy of Science and Humanities, pp. 10-12.
Bitterer, L. (2006): Základy Fotogrametrie: Internetový učebný text pre študentov odboru
geodézia a kartografia. Žilina, 2006 Available online at: http://svf.utc.sk/KGD/skriptá/
Fotogrametria.
Bohler, W. (2006): Comparison of 3D laser scanning and other 3D measurement tech-
niques. In W. Boeheler (eds.): Recording, Modelling and Visualization of Cultural
Heritage. London: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 89-100.
Bozóki-Ernyey, Katalin (Ed.) (2007): European Preventive Archaeology. Papers of the EPAC
Meeting, Vilnius 2004. National Office of Cultural Heritage, Hungary – Council of
Europe 2007.
Buchón-Moragues , Fernando; Bravo, José María; Ferri , Marcelino; Redondo, Javier;
Sánchez-Pérez, Juan Vicente (2016): Application of Structured Light System Technique
for Authentication of Wooden Panel Paintings. In: Sensors 2016, 16(6), 881. Available
online at: http://www.mdpi.com/1424- 8220/16/6/881/htm.
 Bibliography 165

Burrer, F. (2013): Pattern Recognition in Ancient Numismatics - The Coinage of the

Thessalian League in Imperial times - Project Report. In : Book of Abstracts. SCCH 2013
4th Conference Scientific Computing and Cultural Heritage. Heidelberg, Germany,
18. 11. - 20.11. Heidelberg Academy of Science and Humanities.
Carrasco-Ochoa, Jesús Ariel; Martínez-Trinidad, José Francisco; Sossa-Azuela, Juan
Humberto; Olvera López, José Arturo; Famili, Fazel (Eds.) (2015): Pattern Recognition.
Cham: Springer International Publishing (9116).
Cheng, H.-M.; Yang, W.-B.; Yen, Y.-N. (2015): BIM applied in historical building documenta-
tion and refurbishing. In: The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,XL-5/W7, pp. 85-90. DOI: 10.5194/isprsar-
chives-XL-5-W7-85-2015. Available online at: http://www.int-arch-photogramm-re-
mote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XL- 5- W7/85/2015/isprsarchives-XL-5-W7-85-2015.pdf.
Cirulis, Arnis; Paolis, Lucio Tommaso De; Tutberidze, Mikheil (2015): Virtualization of
Digitalized Cultural Heritage and Use Case Scenario Modeling for Sustainability
Promotion of National Identity. In: Procedia Computer Science 77, pp. 199-206.
DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.384.
Cooper, M.; Robson, S. (2001): Theory of close range photogrammetry. In K. B. Atkinson
(Ed.): Close range photogrammetry and machine vision. [New ed.]. Caithness: Whittles,
pp. 9-51.
Cosmas, John; Itegaki, Take; Green, Damian; Grabczewski, Edward; Weimar, Fred; van Gool,
Luc et al. (2001): 3D MURALE: A Multimedia System for Archaeology. In N. Tsirliganis,
G. Pavlidis, A. Koutsoudis, D. Papadopoulou, Tsompanopoulos, A. Tsompanopoulos
et al. (Eds.): Integrated documentation of cultural heritage through 3D imaging and
multimedia database. VAST. New York: ACM, pp. 297-306.
D’Andrea, A.; Fernie, K. (2013): CARARE 2.0: a metadata schema for 3D Cultural Objects.
In : Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage).
With assistance of Federating the 19th Int’l VSMM, 10th Eurographics GCH, &
2nd UNESCO Memory of the World Conferences, plus special sessions from CAA,
Arqueologica 2.0, Space2Place, ICOMOS, ICIP & CIPA, EU projects, et al. 2013
Digital Heritage Congress. Marseille, France, 28. 10. - 1. 11. International Conference
on Virtual Systems and MultiMedia; Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural
Heritage. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp. 137-143.
Available online at: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/719/art%253A10.1007
%252Fs00799-014-0125- z.pdf?auth66=1415879371_a86e692add517dcece1b2b11b-
cde912f&ext=.pdf.
De Padova, Maria Doriana (2015): Re-shaping the excavation - The use of Computer Vision
to bring back to life everyday tools and burial contexts. In : Keep the Revolution
Going. 43rd Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Annual
Conference. Siena, Italy, 30. 3. - 3. 4.: University of Siena.
De Reu, Jeroen; De Smedt, Philippe; Herremans, Davy; van Meirvenne, Marc; Laloo, Pieter;
De Clercq, Wim (2014): On introducing an image-based 3D reconstruction method
in archaeological excavation practice. In: Journal of Archaeological Science 41, pp.
251-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.08.020.
166 Bibliography

Dellepiane, Matteo; Dell’Unto, Nicolò; Callieri, Marco; Lindgren, Stefan; Scopigno, Roberto
(2013): Archeological excavation monitoring using dense stereo matching techniques.
In: Journal of Cultural Heritage 14 (3), pp. 201–210. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2012.01.011.
Doneus, Michael; Briese, Christian; Kühtreiber, Thomas (2008): Flugzeuggetragenes
Laserscanning als Werkzeug der archäologischen Kulturlandschaftsforschung.
Das Fallbeispiel “Wüste” bei Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, Niederösterreich. In
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 38 (1), pp. 137-156.
Doneus, Michael; Neubauer, Wolfgang (2006): Laser Scanners for 3D Documentation of
Stratigraphic Excavations. In E. P. Baltsavias, M. Baltsavias, A. Gruen, L. van Gool, M.
Pateraki (Eds.): Recording, Modeling and Visualization of Cultural Heritage: Taylor &
Francis, pp. 193-203.
Doneus, Michael; Verhoeven, Geert Julien Joanna; Fera, Martin; Briese, Christian; Kucera,
Matthias; Neubauer, Wolfgang (2011): From deposit to point cloud – A study of low-
cost computer vision approaches for the straightforward documentation of archaeo-
logical excavations. In: Geoinformatics 6 (XXIIIrd International CIPA Symposium), pp.
81-88. Available online at: http://geoinformatics.fsv.cvut.cz/pdf/geoinformatics-fce-
ctu-2011-06.pdf, checked on 9/30/2011.
Dvořáková, V.; Krása, J.; Stejskal, K. (1978): Středověká nástěnná malba na Slovensku.
Odeon/Tatran, Praha/Bratislava.
Engel, Joakim (2011): 3D applications in museological context. Master. The Royal Danish
Academy of Fine Arts; The Natural History Museum of Denmark, checked on
10/11/2013.
Fai, S.; Graham, K.; Duckworth, T.; Wood, N.; Attar, R. (2011): Building information mod-
elling and heritage documentation. In K. Pavelka (Ed.): XXIIIrd International CIPA
Symposium. Prague, Czech republic (XXIIIrd International CIPA Symposium).
Feng, Hsi-Yung; Yixin Liu; Xi Fengfeng. (2001): Analysis of digitizing errors of a laser scanning
system. In: Precision Engineering 25(3), pp. 185-191.
Forte, M.; Siliotti, A. (1997): Virtual archaeology. Re-creating ancient worlds. New York:
Harry N. Abrams.
Fraštia, M. (2009): Fotogrametria v procese dokumentácie pamiatok. In: Bardkontakt 2009,
pp 30-36. Available online at: http://www.bardejov.sk/images/stories/o_meste/une-
sco/problematika_mest_pam_centier/zbornik_pred nasok_bardkontakt_20010.pdf.
Fregonese, Luigi; Achille, Christiana; Adami, Andrea; Fassi, Francesco; Spezzoni, Anna;
Taffurelli, Laura (2015): Bim: an integrated model for planned and preventive main-
tenance of architectural heritage. In Gabriele Guidi, Roberto Scopigno, Juan Carlo
Torres, Holger Graf (Eds.): 2015 Digital Heritage International Congress. Analysis &
Interpretation Theory, Methodologies, Preservation & Standards Digital Heritage
Projects & Applications. 2015 Digital Heritage International Congress. Granada,
Spain, 28. September - 2. October. 21st Int’l VSMM, 13th Eurographics GCH, pp. 77-80.
Fryer, J. G. (2001): Introduction. In K. B. Atkinson (Ed.): Close range photogrammetry and
machine vision. [New ed.]. Caithness: Whittles, pp. 1-9.
 Bibliography 167

Granier, Xavier; Vergne, Romain; Pacanowski, Romain; Barla, Pascal; Reuter, Patrick
(2015): Enhancing surface features with the Radiance Scaling Meshlab Plugin. In:
Archaeology in the Digital Era. Volume II. E-Papers from the 40th Conference on
Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA 2012), (2),
Amsterdam University Press, pp. 417-421. Available online at: http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/
arno/show.cgi?fid=545855
Grosman, Leore (2013): A comparative study of Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblages
based on computerized 3D Analysis. In : Book of Abstracts. SCCH 2013 4th Conference
Scientific Computing and Cultural Heritage. Heidelberg, Germany, 18. 11. - 20. 11.
Heidelberg Academy of Science and Humanities, p. 21.
Guermandi, Maria Pia; Rossenbach Kai Salas (2013): Twenty years after Malta: preventive
archaeology in Europe and in Italy.Istituto per i Beni Artistici, Culturali e Naturali della
Regione Emilia Romagna – IBC. Published by IBC, Bologna, Italy.
Hess, M.; Robson, S. (2012): 3D imaging for museum artefacts: a portable test object for
heritage and museum documentation of small objects. In Mark R. Shortis, J. Mills
(Eds.): Proceedings of the XXII ISPRS Congress. Technical Commission V. Imaging a
Sustainable Future. Melbourne, Australia, 25 August - 01 September, 2012. ISPRS:
ISPRS (ISPRS Archives, Volume XXXIX-B5), pp. 103–108. Available online at: http://
www.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XXXIX-B5/103/2012/
isprsarchives-XXXIX-B5-103-2012.pdf.
Hookk, Daria; Pikov, Nikita; Rumyantsev, Maxim; Vishniakova, Maria; Kizhner, Inna (2015):
Touching an Ancient Stone: 3d Modeling and Augmented Reality Techniques for
Collection of Petroglyphs from State Hermitage Museum. In Gabriele Guidi, Roberto
Scopigno, Juan Carlo Torres, Holger Graf (Eds.): 2015 Digital Heritage International
Congress. Analysis & Interpretation Theory, Methodologies, Preservation & Standards
Digital Heritage Projects & Applications. 2015 Digital Heritage International
Congress. Granada, Spain, 28. September - 2. October. 21st Int’l VSMM, 13th
Eurographics GCH, pp. 739-740.
Humer, F.; Pregesbauer, M.; Vermeulen, F.; Corsi, Ch; Klein, M. (Eds.) (2010): 3D culture
database Carnuntum. EUROMED.
ICOMOS (2013): The Burra Charter.
Ilic, S. (2005): Implicit meshes: unifying implicit and explicit surface representations for
3D reconstruction and tracking. PhD, Luasanne.
Khazdan, Michael; Hoppe, Hugues (2013): Screened Poisson Surface Reconstruction . In:
Transaction in Graphics, 2013, Vol.32, Nr.3, pp 1-13. Available online: http://www.
cs.jhu.edu/~misha/MyPapers/ToG13.pdf.
Klinkenberg, Viktor (2014): Are we there yet? 3D GIS in archaeological research, the
case of Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. In Hans Kamermans, Wieke de Neef, Chiara Piccoli,
Axel Posluschny, Roberto Scopigno (Eds.): The three dimensions of archaeology.
Proceedings of the XVII UISPP world congress. Volume 7/Sessions A4b and A12. XVII
UISPP World Congress. Burgos, Spain, 1. Sep - 7. Sep: Archeopress Publishing LTD
(UISPP Proceedings series), pp. 39-47.
168 Bibliography

Koller, D.; Fischer, B.; Humphreys, G. (2009): Research challenges for digital archives of 3D
cultural heritage models. In: ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 2 (3).
Available online at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1658346.1658347.
Kolomenkin, Michael; Shimshoni, Ilan; Tal, Ayellet (2011): Prominent Field for Shape
Processing and Analysis of Archaeological Artifacts. In: International Journal of
Computer Vision 94 (1), pp. 89-100. DOI: 10.1007/s11263-010-0386-y.
Kontogianni, G.; Georgopoulos, A. (2015): Exploiting Textured 3D Models for Developing
Serious Games. In: The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-5/W7, pp. 249–255. DOI: 10.5194/
isprsarchives-XL-5-W7-249-2015.
Lowe, David G. (1999): Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, Corfu, Greece
(September 1999), pp. 1150-1157. Available online at: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/
papers/iccv99.pdf.
Maliariková, M. (2011): Aplikácia digitálnej fotogrametrie v archeológii. Bakalárska práca.
STU v Bratislave, Stavebná fakulta - Katedra geodézie. Available online at: http://
is.stuba.sk/lide/clovek.pl?zalozka=13;id=10066;studium=60093;zp...prace=1.
Masini, Nicola; Coluzzi, Rosa; Lasaponara, Rosa (2011): On the Airborne Lidar Contribution
in Archaeology: from Site Identification to Landscape Investigation. In Chau-Chang
Wang (Ed.): Laser Scanning, Theory and Applications, pp. 263-290, checked on
5/2/2013.
McPherron , Shannon P.; Gernat, Tim Jean; Hublin, Jacques (2009): Structured light scan-
ning for high-resolution documentation of in situ archaeological finds. In: Journal of
Archaeological Science, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2009, pp. 19-24.
Menard, C.; Sablatnig, R. (1996): Pictoral, Three-Dimensional Acquisition of Archaeological
Finds as Basis for an Automatic Classification. In H. Kamermans, K. Fennema (Eds.):
Interfacing the Past. CAA95. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods
in Archaeology. II. Leiden: Institute of Prehistory, University of Leiden (Analecta
Praehistorica Leidensia, 28), pp. 415-428. Available online at: http://proceedings.
caaconference.org/paper/48_menard_sablatnig_caa_1995/.
Mortara, Michela; Catalano, Chiara Eva; Bellotti, Francesco; Fiucci, Giusy; Houry-Panchetti,
Minica; Petridis, Panagiotis (2014): Learning cultural heritage by serious games. In:
Journal of Cultural Heritage 15 (3), pp. 318-325. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2013.04.004.
Muller, Antoine; Clarkson, Chris (2014): Estimating original flake mass on blades using 3D
platform area: problems and prospects. In: Journal of Archaeological Science 52, pp.
31-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.025.
Nehab, Diego; Rusinkiewicz, Szymon; Davis, James; Ramamoorthi, Ravi (2005): Efficiently
Combining Positions and Normals for Precise 3D Geometry. In: ACM Transactions
on Graphics (Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH 2005) 24(3). Available online at: http://gfx.
cs.princeton.edu/pubs/Nehab_2005_ECP/NehEtAl05.pdf.
 Bibliography 169

Neubauer, Wolfgang; Doneus, Michael; Trinks, Immo (2012): Advancing the documentation
of buried archaeological landscapes. In Mark R. Shortis, J. Mills (Eds.): Proceedings
of the XXII ISPRS Congress. Technical Commission V. Imaging a Sustainable Future.
Melbourne, Australia, 25 August - 01 September, 2012. ISPRS: ISPRS (ISPRS Archives,
Volume XXXIX-B5), pp. 547-552.
Novaković, Predrag, Hornak Milan (2016): Introduction. From rescue to preventive archae-
ology: 25 years of difficult journeys. In: Predrag Novaković, Milan Horňák, Maria Pia
Guermandi, Harald Stäuble, Pascal Depaepe & Jean-Paul Demoule (eds.) (2016): Recent
Developments in Preventive Archaeology in Europe. Znanstvena založba Filozofske
fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts) Ljubljana 2016.
Predrag Novaković, Milan Horňák, Maria Pia Guermandi, Harald Stäuble, Pascal Depaepe
& Jean-Paul Demoule (eds.) (2016): Recent Developments in Preventive Archaeology
in Europe. Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana
University Press, Faculty of Arts) Ljubljana 2016.
Opgenhaffen, Loes; Revello Lami, Martina (2015): Pottery goes digital. 3D laser scan-
ning technology and the study of archaeological ceramics. In : Keep the Revolution
Going. 43rd Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Annual
Conference. Siena, Italy, 30. 3. - 3. 4.: University of Siena.
Plaček, Miroslav; Bóna, Martin (2007): Encyklopédia slovenských hradov. Bratislava Slovart.
Pieraccini, M.; Guidi, G.; Atzeni, C. (2001): 3D digitizing of cultural heritage. In: Journal
of Cultural Heritage, 2(1), pp. 63-70.
Pollefeys, M.; Koch, R.; Vergauwen, Maarten; van Gool, Luc (2000): Automated reconstruc-
tion of 3D scenes from sequences of images. In: ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing 55 (4), pp. 251-267. DOI: 10.1016/S0924-2716(00)00023-X.
Pollefeys, Marc; Koch, Reinhard; Vergauwen, Maarten; van Gool, Luc (1998): Virtualizing
Archaeological Sites. In : Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Virtual
Systems and Multimedia (VSMM) 98. Available online at: http://www.cs.unc.
edu/~marc/pubs/PollefeysVSMM98b.pdf, checked on 4/24/2011.
Pollefeys, Marc; van Gool, Luc; Vergauwen, Maarten; Cornelis, Kurt; Verbiest, Frank; Tops,
Jan (2001): Image-based 3D acquisition of archaeological heritage and applications.
In David B. Arnold, Alan Chalmers, Dieter W. Fellner (Eds.): Proceedings of the 2001
Conference on Virtual Reality, Archaeology, and Cultural Heritage. Glyfada, Greece,
November 28-30, 2001. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 255-262.
Available online at: http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/pomarc/pubs/PollefeysVAST01a.
pdf, checked on 6/26/2012.
Reilly, P. (1991): Towards a Virtual Archaeology. In S. Rahtz, K. Lockyear (Eds.): CAA90.
Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1990. Oxford:
Tempus Reparatum (BAR International Series, 565), pp. 132-139.
Remondino, F. (2011): Heritage Recording and 3D Modeling with Photogrammetry and 3D
Scanning. In: Remote sensing, 3(12), pp. 1104-1138.
170 Bibliography

Richardson, Ariella; Smilansky, Uzy (2013): Geometrical Characterization of Cuneiforms

– A Computer- based Approach. In : Book of Abstracts. SCCH 2013 4th Conference
Scientific Computing and Cultural Heritage. Heidelberg, Germany, 18. 11. - 20. 11.
Heidelberg Academy of Science and Humanities, p. 41.
San José Alonso, J.I.; Martínez Rubio, J.; Fernández Martín, J.J.; García Fernández, J. (2011):
Comparing time-of- flight and phase-shift. The survey of the Royal Pantheon in the
Basilica of San Isidoro (León). In: International Archives of the Photogrammetry,
Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XXXVIII-5/W16, 2011
ISPRS Trento 2011 Workshop, 2-4 March 2011, Trento, Italy., pp. 377-385. Available
online at: http://www.int-arch- photogramm-remote- sens-spatial- inf-sci.net/XXXVIII-
5-W16/377/2011/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-5-W16-377-2011.pdf.
Schlanger, Nathan (2010): Postscript: on dead canaries, guinea-pigs and other Trojan hors-
es. In: N. Schlanger and K. Aitchison (Eds.): Archaeology and the global economic crisis.
Multiple impacts, possible solutions, p. 108.
Slob, Siefko; Hack, Robert (2004): 3D Terrestrial Laser Scanning as a New Field Measurement
and Monitoring Technique. In Robert Azzam, Charlie Rafig, Robert Hack (eds.):
Engineering Geology for Infrastructure Planning in Europe. A European Perspective.
Berlin - Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 179-189.
Staiger, Rudolf (2003): Terrestrial Laser Scanning Technology, Systems and Applications. In:
2nd FIG (Fédération Internationale des Geometres). Regional Conference Marrakech,
Morocco, December 2-5, 2003. Available online at: https://www.Figurenet/resources/
proceedings/fig_proceedings/morocco/proceedings/TS12/TS12_3_staig er.pdf.
SurvTech Solutions. (2015): History of Laser Scanning. Retrieved May 24, 2015, from SurvTech
Solutions: http://floridalaserscanning.com/3d-laser-scanning/history-of-laser-scanning/.
Szeliski, Richard (2011): Computer vision. Algorithms and applications. New York:
Springer (Texts in Computer Science). Available online at: http://www.worldcat.org/
oclc/697491948.
Štuhec, Seta (2012): Dvoinpolrazsežnostna (2,5D) in trirazsežnostna (3D) vizualizacija ar-
tefaktov. Master. Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana. Oddelek za Arheologijo, checked on
10/9/2014.
Štuhec, Seta; Aspöck, Edeltraud; Masur, Anja; Andorfer, Peter; Zaytseva, Ksenia (2016):
Putting 3D models into context - Schachermeyr pottery collection and the DEFC app.
In : Proceedings of the 8th Proceedings of 8th International Congress on Archaeology,
Computer Graphics, Cultural Heritage and Innovation ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0’. Valencia,
Spain, 5. - 7. Sept, pp. 449-451. Available online at: http://ocs.editorial.upv.es/index.
php/arqueologica20/arqueologica8/paper/viewFile/4155/2288.
Štular, Benjamin; Štuhec, Seta (2015): 3D Archaeology. Early Medieval Earrings from Kranj.
Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU.
 Bibliography 171

Teddy, D.; Romain, J.; Aladine, C.; Sylvie, T.; Matthieu, E.; Lionel, M.; Sebastien, J. (2015):
Automatic pattern recognition on archaeological ceramic by 2D and 3D image analysis:
A feasibility study. In Jennane Rachid (Ed.): 5th International Conference on Image
Processing, Theory, Tools and Applications 2015. IPTA 2015. Orléans, France, 10. - 13.
Nov., International Conference on Image Processing, Theory, Tools and Applications;
IPTA. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 224-228.
Tobler, R. F.; Maierhofer, S. (2006): A mesh data structure for rendering and subdivi-
sion. In : Proceedings of WSCG. The 14th international conference in Central Europe
on computer graphics, visualisation and computer vision. Plzen, Czech Republic,
31. Jan - 2. Feb: University of West Bohemia, pp. 157-162.
Vaughan, William (2012): [digital] MODELING. Berkeley, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Vergne, Romain; Pacanowski, Romain; Barla, Pascal; Granier, Xavier; Schlick, Christophe
(2010): Radiance Scaling for Versatile Surface Enhancement. I3D ’10: Proc. symposium
on Interactive 3D graphics and games, Feb 2010, Boston, United States. ACM, 2010.
Available online at: https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00449828/file/RadianceScaling.pdf.
Verhoeven, Geert Julien Joanna (2011): Taking computer vision aloft - Archaeological
three- dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with PhotoScan. In:
Archaeological Prospection 18 (1), pp. 67-73. DOI: 10.1002/arp.399.
Verhoeven, Geert (2016): Mesh is more: Using all geometric dimensions for the archaeolog-
ical analysis and interpretative mapping of 3D surfaces. In: Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 2016. Article not assigned to an issue (online first articles), pp.
1-35. DOI:10.1007/s10816-016-9305-z.
Verhoeven, G.; Sevara, Ch.; Karel, W.; Ressl, C.; Doneus, M. and Briese, Ch. (2013):
Undistorting the Past: New Techniques for Orthorectification of Archaeological
Aerial Frame Imagery. In Corsi, Ch.; Slapšak, B. and Frank Vermeulen (Eds.): Good
Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics. Natural Science in Archaeology. Cham: Springer
International Publishing , pp. 31-67.
Verykokou, Styliani; Ioannidis, Charalabos; Kontogianni, Georgia (2014): 3D Visualization
via Augmented Reality: The Case of the Middle Stoa in the Ancient Agora of Athens. In
Marinos Ioannides, Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann, Eleanor Fink, Roko Žarnić, Alex-Yianing
Yen, Ewald Quak (Eds.): Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation,
Preservation, and Protection. EuroMed 2014, LNCS 8740. 5th International Conference
on Digital Heritage. Limassol, Cyprus, 3. 11. - 8. 11. 2014. Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing (8740), pp. 279-289.
Vetrivel, Anand; Gerke, Markus; Kerle, Norman; Vosselman, George (2015): Identification
of damage in buildings based on gaps in 3D point clouds from very high resolution
oblique airborne images. In: ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
105, pp. 61-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.03.016.
Volk, Rebekka; Stengel, Julian; Schultmann, Frank (2014): Building Information Modeling
(BIM) for existing buildings — Literature review and future needs. In Automation in
Construction 38, pp. 109-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.023.
172 Bibliography

Vosselman, George; Maas, Hans-Gerd (2010): Airborne and Terrestrial Laser Scanning.
Dunbeath: Whittles Publishing.
Whittlesely, J. H. (1966): Photogrammetry for the Excavator. In: Archaeology 19 (4), pp.
273-276.
Wolf, R. and Dewitt, A. (2000) Elements of photogrammetry with applications in GIS. 3rd.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Yastikli, N. (2007): Documentation of cultural heritage using digital photogrammetry and
laser scanning. In: Journal of cultural heritage, 8(4), pp. 423-427.
Zachar, Ján ; Štuhec, Seta (2014): Old versus new – introducing image-based 3D modeling
into the general documentation workflow of archaeological rescue excavations. (Case
studies: the Čachtice and Bratislava castles, Slovakia). In F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa,
P. Moscati, S. Robert (Eds.): Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology - CAA 2014 - 21st Century
Archaeology. 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology. Paris, France, 22. 4. - 25. 4.: Archaeopress, pp. 529-540.
Zeppelzauer, Matthias; Poier, Georg; Seidl, Markus; Reinbacher, Christian; Breiteneder,
Christian; Bischof, Horst; Schulter, Samuel (2015): Interactive Segmentation of Rock-
Art in High-Resolution 3D Reconstructions. In Gabriele Guidi, Roberto Scopigno,
Juan Carlo Torres, Holger Graf (Eds.): 2015 Digital Heritage International Congress.
Analysis & Interpretation Theory, Methodologies, Preservation & Standards
Digital Heritage Projects & Applications. 2015 Digital Heritage International Congress.
Granada, Spain, 28. September - 2. October. 21st Int’l VSMM,13th Eurographics GCH,
pp. 37-44.
 SUBJECT INDEX 173

Subject Index

2D Agisoft Photoscan 19, 41, 42, 54, 55, 60,

drawing 20 62, 64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 81, 84-86,
derivates 20 88, 90, 93, 99, 106, 108, 110, 112,
documentation 34, 53, 56, 59, 60, 69, 115, 120, 125, 129, 133, 135, 136,
75, 78, 80-82, 92, 98, 109, 113 138, 145, 148
images 16 airborne laser scanning (see LIDAR)
orthophoto 63 ambient occlusion 38, 31, 139, 142, 144
photogrammetry 34-38, 63, 153 aperture 45, 46, 108
vector(isation) 50, 98, 105 Apple Photos 47
(various) 35, 50, 153 Arc3D 19, 40, 42
2.5D 20, 50, 81 ArcGIS 36, 70, 73, 76
3D architecture (-al) 10, 13, 24, 27, 28, 43,
digitisation 13, 17-21, 24, 81, 82, 110, 50, 54, 62-64, 70, 73, 76, 81, 85, 88,
119, 120, 153 93, 106, 107, 119, 125, 127, 129, 132,
mesh 38, 82, 88 133, 146, 153
model(ling) 8, 14-22, 24, 28, 34, 40, ArcMap 37
42, 45, 46, 50, 55-81, 86-93, 95-99, Artec (Eva, Studio, Spider) 26, 31, 33, 133,
101, 102, 104, 106-109, 112, 115, 134, 140-147, 150
118, 120, 124, 127-131, 136-140, 142, artefact(s) 20, 22, 47, 49
143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 153 ASCII 24, 29
photogrammetry 9, 23 augmented reality 21
print(ing) 21 Aurora HDR 48
scanner(-ing) 9, 16-18, 23, 24, 76 Autodesk
(various) 10, 13-22, 25, 26, 30, 34, 35, 39, 123D Catch 19, 40, 42
40, 43, 50, 53-55, 70, 73, 82, 85, 93, 110, 3DS Max 51
112, 119, 125, 132, 133, 150, 153, 154 Civil 3D 36, 37, 55, 60, 62, 64, 67, 70, 73,
3D Coat 51 76, 79, 86, 88, 90, 112
3D MURALE 19 Maya 51
3D Reshaper 29 MudBox 51
3D-COFORM 19 ReCap 29, 40, 42
ReMake 40, 42
A
aerial B
archaeology (-ists) 17 Ball pivoting 29
documentation 81 Banská Belá 112-114
images 17 Banská Štiavnica 112
mapping 8 Baroque 76, 90, 136, 138, 140-142
photography 10, 43 Beckov 136
photogrammetry 34 Belgrade 9, 23, 85, 125, 133
vehicle(s) 28, 43, 62 Benedictines 67
ACDSee Ultimate 47, 48 BIM 22
Adobe Blender 51
Photoshop 47-49, 106, 108, 110, 151 Bratislava 35, 62, 76-78, 83, 145
Lightroom CC 47, 48 Brazda 73-75, 81
174 SUBJECT INDEX

Bronze Age 55-59 dehaze 46

burgess house 112, 115-118 DEM 40, 41, 50, 59, 60, 70-73, 76, 78, 81, 82
denoising 50
C development-led archaeology 5
CAA 18, 19 digital
CAD 8, 9, 16, 36, 50, 64 camera 34, 43
calibration 25, 27, 30, 39-41, 43, 49, 154 documentation, record(ing) 10, 13-15,
camera 27, 28, 30, 32, 34-36, 39-41, 43- 17, 25, 31
45, 47-49, 54, 55, 57, 60-62, 64, 67, heritage 19
70, 73, 76, 79, 81, 86-88, 90, 93, 94, images 34, 35
99, 100, 106, 108, 110-112, 115, 116, model(ling) 15, 19, 20, 23
119, 126, 127, 129, 134, 136, 138, photogrammetry 18, 33, 34, 37, 39,
145, 148, 151 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51
Capturing Reality RC 28, 29, 42, 93, 148 reconstructions 17
CARARE 21 representations 15
Carnuntum 21 shadows 28, 31, 43, 64, 112, 119, 132,
castle(s) 35, 62, 63, 70-72, 76-80, 83, 125, 140, 154
127-132, 145 technology 5, 8, 10, 14, 34
CCD array 27 (various) 17-20, 22-24, 26, 28, 31, 34,
cellar 116-118 40, 41, 53
ceramic(s) 16, 57, 145, 148 digital elevation model (see DEM)
Charubina 57-59 Dobrá Voda 125, 129-132
church 86, 87, 90-93, 99-105, 121, 136, DOF 46, 48
138, 140-142 drawing 13, 20, 40, 55, 119
CIPA 19 drone (see UAV)
clay 76, 145, 148, 149 DSLR 28, 45, 120
ClearView 46 DTM (see DEM)
CloudCompare 29, 62, 64, 67, 76, 79, 86, DWG 64
88, 90, 93, 99, 106, 108, 110, 112, DxO Optics pro 36, 47-49, 51, 86, 88, 90,
115, 127, 129, 136, 140, 143, 145, 93, 99, 112, 115, 123
146, 148 Dynamic Photo HDR 5 48
colour 16, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31, 40, 46, 47,
50, 54, 64, 79, 81, 86, 88, 119, 120, E
122, 124, 126, 134, 141, 143, 145, EasyHDR 48
146, 151, 153 EPOCH 19
commercial 14, 29, 40, 42, 47, 48, 51 EOS Systems PhotoModeller Scanner 19
contour(s) 73 Europeana 21
coordinates 24, 29,38-40, 43, 49, 50 excavation(s) 7-11, 13, 17, 20-22, 35, 36,
CPU 32, 54, 85, 125, 133 40, 53, 55, 57, 60, 62, 70, 76, 78
EXIF 49
Č
Čachtice 35, 54, 85, 125, 133 F
Faro Scene (filter) 76
D filter(ing) 39, 54, 85, 126, 133, 142, 144
decimation 50 HDR f. 47, 48, 106, 108, 120, 124
DEFC (project) 21 finecontrats 46
 SUBJECT INDEX 175

FLS 29 projects 24
Fusion HDR 48 protection 7, 8, 10, 11
(various) 10, 11
G high dynamic range (see HDR)
GCP 28, 29, 35, 36, 43, 50, 57, 64, 67, 77, hillshading 71-73
81, 93, 110, 112, 119, 129, 132, 151 Hodkovce 32, 93-111, 120-122
Geomagic Design X 28, 29, 51 hypocaust 67, 68
Geomagic Wrap 28, 29, 51 hypsometry 71-73
geophysics 9
georeference (-ing, -ed) 35, 40, 41, 50, I
55-57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 70, 73, 76, 78, IbM 38, 39, 42-45, 49, 50, 54-58, 60-62,
79, 81, 82, 86, 93, 99, 106, 108, 110, 64-68, 70,-74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 85-
115, 129 97, 99-103, 106-121, 125, 127, 129,
geoTIFF 50 132, 133, 136, 138, 145, 148-151,
GIMP 47 154
GIS 9, 22, 36, 50, 82 iconograpic 138
GNSS 49, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 67, 70, 73, 76, interpolation 54, 86, 126, 134
79, 93, 99, 106, 108, 110, 129 Iraq 21
Gothic 86, 90 ISO 46, 108, 119
GPS 35, 43 isometric (view) 70, 74, 87, 89, 91, 92, 95,
differential 13, 49, 53, 55, 57, 60, 62, 96, 101, 102, 104, 107, 113, 114, 117,
64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 93, 99, 106, 118, 128-131
108, 110, 129 ISPRS 19
GPU 32, 54, 85, 125, 133
Greece 21 J
Ground Control Points (see GCP) Jazernica 86, 87
Jesuits 67
H
HDR K
filter(ing) 47, 99, 106, 108, 120, 124 key points 39, 45, 120, 122
photos 46, 47 Koscelisko 55, 56
processing 119
software 48 L
toning 120, 124 La Tène 60, 76
(various) 47, 120 landscape 24, 25, 43, 50, 60, 125, 127,
HDR Efex Pro 48 132
HDR Expose 48 LAS 24, 29
HDR Projects 4 48 laser scan(ning)
heritage airborne 24
archaeological 5, 8, 40 terrestrial 13, 25, 154
cultural 11, 14, 17, 19, 23, 27, 34, 40, (various) 8, 14, 16, 23-28, 30, 31, 54,
53, 81, 85, 133, 154 77, 86
digital 19 LAZ 24, 29
historical 154 LCD (projector) 30
management 14, 23, 30 lense(s) 27, 43, 45, 47, 49
objects 16, 25 LIDAR 8-10, 24, 29
176 SUBJECT INDEX

M O
Macedonia 73-75 Oloneo HDR 48
Machinery HDR 48 ON1 Photo 10 47
MacPhun Creative Kit 47 open-source 29, 40, 42, 47, 48, 51, 154
Malé Karpaty 127 orthophoto 34-36, 40, 41, 43, 50, 55-57,
manor house 32, 93-98, 110, 118, 120, 122 59, 60, 62-64, 67, 70-73, 76, 78-82,
map(ping) 8, 17, 22, 24, 33, 35, 36, 46, 54, 86-90, 92, 93, 97-99, 103, 105, 108,
86, 126, 134 110, 112, 115, 129, 153
mask(ing) 46, 49, 136, 138, 148, 151 orthorectification 35-38
masonry 37, 63, 67, 76, 81, 108, 132
MayaArch3D 21 P
Medieval 18, 67-72, 76, 86, 87, 90-92, Paint.NET 47
112, 129, 143 park 54, 73-75, 80, 93, 99, 106-108, 110,
mesh(ing) 15, 16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 38, 111
39, 41, 45, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, Phase One Capture One Pro 47
64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88, phase-shift (see PS)
90, 93, 99, 106, 108, 110, 112, 115, photogram 38
121, 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 132, photogrammetry
133, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148 2D 34-38
Meshlab 19, 28, 29, 51 3D 9, 23, 33, 34
Microsoft Photosynth 19 aerial 34
Microstation 36, 93, 99, 129 close-range 34
micro-copters 43 convergent 35
microcontrast 46 digital 18, 34, 35
Middle Ages 57 single-image 34
mine(–ing) 112-114 (various) 17, 19, 33-35, 153
Modo 51 Photomatix Pro 48
monastery 67-69 Picasa 47
monitor(ing) 10, 14, 21, 24, 40, 153, 154 point cloud 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 38-41,
mosaic (blending mode) 54, 86, 126, 134 49, 50, 54, 81, 83, 85-90, 99, 103, 109,
Mošovce 60, 61 110, 120, 122, 126, 133, 134
mound 55, 56 pot, pottery 19, 21, 22, 145
multi-view-stereo (see MVS) Poisson reconstruction 29
MVS 13, 40 polygon(al) 15, 16, 24, 99, 129
Myjava 127 PolyWorks 28, 29, 51
Považská Bystrica 79
N Považská Teplá 79
nadir (view) 74, 111, 130, 148 Považský Castle 79, 80
Neo-Gothic 99-108, 121, 140 Prehistory (-ic) 60, 148
Neolithic 21, 148, 149 preventive archaeology (p. context, p.
noise 31, 45-48, 73, 81, 88, 99, 108, 112, excavations, p. research, p. practice,
115, 119, 120, 132, 154 p. projects, p. work) 5-11, 14, 53, 54,
normals 107 57, 60, 62, 67, 70, 76, 79
Nové Mesto nad Váhem 70, 127, 136, 138, prosopomorphic 149
139, 146, 147 PNG 48
NURBS 15, 16, 50 PS 23, 26
 SUBJECT INDEX 177

PTG 29 spectrum (colour) 120

PTX 28, 29 Spišská Nová Ves 93, 99, 106, 108, 110
PTZ 29 St. Barbara (church) 140-142
St. Joachim (sculpture) 140-142
R St. John of Nepomuk (sculpture) 136
Radoľa 55, 56 St. Florian (sculpture) 136, 137
Rajec 57-59, 88, 89, 115-118 St. Stephen 136
RAW 28, 29, 45-49, 51, 120 stereophotogrammetry 34, 35, 28
RAWTherapee 47 structure from motion (see SfM)
rectification 35, 36 structured light scanning (see SLS)
reference comparison matrix 38 survey 8, 10, 13, 17, 24, 26, 27, 41, 43, 50
Renaissance 88, 89 synagogue 64-66
render(ing) 64, 136
replica 21, 143 T
resolution 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 28, 31, 34, terrestrial laser scanning (see TLS)
41, 43, 45, 48, 50, 54, 81, 85, 86, 88, texture 16, 20, 28, 40, 43, 50, 54, 64, 81,
110, 120, 125, 126, 134, 150 86, 88, 89, 119, 120, 126, 132, 134,
retopology (-isation) 50, 51 153, 154
RGB 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 120 Thinkbox Sequoia 29
Roman 18, 21, 60, 61, 76-78 tie points 39, 54, 85, 122, 126, 133
RTK (rover) 49, 55, 57, 60, 62, 62, 94, 67, 70, TIFF 48
73, 76, 79, 93, 99, 106, 108, 110, 129 TLS 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 54, 76, 77, 81, 85,
rubbersheting 36 93-97, 99-103, 119-121, 125, 129,
130-132, 140, 154
S TOF (time-of-flight) 23, 26, 27
Sazdice 90-92 tomb 73-75
sculpture(s) 133, 136-144, 148, 150, 154 toning 120, 124
scale(-ing) 7, 24, 26, 28, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, town hall 88, 89, 119
43, 50, 64, 84, 88, 90, 112, 127, 136, transparent(-cy) 20, 88, 119, 150
138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148 Trenčin 67
sediment(-ed) 54 triangle, triangular 16, 23, 25, 36, 50, 54,
Senec 64-66 56, 86, 126, 134
sepulchral 73 triangulation 27, 29, 30
Serbia 9, 148 Trnava 129
SIFT Turčianske Teplice 60, 86
algorhitm 39 turntable (method) 44, 45, 148-150
points 45, 47, 81, 88, 99, 108, 115,
120, 121, 122, 133 U
SfM 13, 19, 39, 40, 42, 43, 81, 120, 148 UAV 28, 43, 62 64, 67, 70, 81, 86, 99, 106,
sharpness 43, 45, 46, 49 108, 110. 125, 127, 132
Skalka nad Vahom 67-69 unmanned aerial vehicle (see UAV)
Slovakia 9, 32, 35, 55-62, 64-72, 76, 79, UV 45, 50, 51
80, 86, 88, 90-118, 121, 122, 127-131,
138-140, 143, 145, 146 V
Slovenia 7, 9 Váh 67-70, 127, 136, 138, 139, 146
SLS 26, 30, 31, 32, 133, 140-147, 150 vault 70, 115, 146, 153
178 SUBJECT INDEX

VCG 29
vector(isation) 35, 38-40, 50, 56, 59, 82,
98, 105
verticals 83
vessel 16, 145
video
games 16, 21
documentation 18
projector 30
Vinča 148, 149
Virgin Mary (sculpture) 138, 139, 143,
144, 146
virtual
archaeology 18, 19, 21
copy 20
environment 15
model(ling) 17
museum 31
presentations 153
reality 50
reconstruction(s) 10
(re)creation 17
(various) 21, 31
Visual SFM 19, 42
visualisation 10, 17, 20, 21, 29, 50, 71, 72,
107, 141, 143, 145, 146
VRMesh 29
VZAP 21

W
walk-around (method) 44, 45, 138, 150
white (balance) 46, 119

Z
Zbrush 51

Ž
Žehra 32, 93-111, 120-122
Žilina 55, 140-144
technology 5, 8, 10, 69
(various) 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 39, 45,
81, 84, 85, 87