TESTING DIFFERENT SURVEY TECHNIQUES TO MODEL ARCHITECTONIC NARROW SPACES

Abstract. In the architectural survey field, there has been the spread of a vast number of automated techniques. However, it is important to underline the gap that exists between the technical specification sheet of a particular instrument and its usability, accuracy and level of automation reachable in real cases scenario, especially speaking about Cultural Heritage (CH) field. In fact, even if the technical specifications (range, accuracy and field of view) are known for each instrument, their functioning and features are influenced by the environment, shape and materials of the object. The results depend more on how techniques are employed than the nominal specifications of the instruments. The aim of this article is to evaluate the real usability, for the 1:50 architectonic restitution scale, of common and not so common survey techniques applied to the complex scenario of dark, intricate and narrow spaces such as service areas, corridors and stairs of Milan’s cathedral indoors. Tests have shown that the quality of the results is strongly affected by side-issues like the impossibility of following the theoretical ideal methodology when survey such spaces. The tested instruments are: the laser scanner Leica C10, the GeoSLAM ZEB1, the DOT DPI 8 and two photogrammetric setups, a full frame camera with a fisheye lens and the NCTech iSTAR, a panoramic camera. Each instrument presents advantages and limits concerning both the sensors themselves and the acquisition phase.

[1]  Luigi Fregonese,et al.  Multiple data source for survey and modeling of very complex architecture , 2010 .

[2]  A. Pérez Ramos,et al.  ONLY IMAGE BASED FOR THE 3D METRIC SURVEY OF GOTHIC STRUCTURES BY USING FRAME CAMERAS AND PANORAMIC CAMERAS , 2016 .

[3]  Diego González-Aguilera,et al.  Mobile LiDAR System: New Possibilities for the Documentation and Dissemination of Large Cultural Heritage Sites , 2017, Remote. Sens..

[4]  Francesco Fassi,et al.  FISHEYE PHOTOGRAMMETRY:TESTS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR THE SURVEY OF NARROW SPACES , 2017 .

[5]  Sisi Zlatanova,et al.  Comparison of ZEB1 and Leica C10 indoor laser scanning point clouds , 2016 .

[6]  Andrea Adami,et al.  3D survey technologies: investigations on accuracy and usability in archaeology. The case study of the new “Municipio” underground station in Naples. , 2016 .

[7]  Tania Landes,et al.  3D modeling of the Strasbourg’s Cathedral basements for interdisciplinary research and virtual visits , 2015 .

[8]  Fabio Menna,et al.  ACCURACY OF TYPICAL PHOTOGRAMMETRIC NETWORKS IN CULTURAL HERITAGE 3D MODELING PROJECTS , 2014 .

[9]  Valerio Baiocchi,et al.  A PROMPT METHODOLOGY TO GEOREFERENCE COMPLEX HYPOGEA ENVIRONMENTS , 2017 .

[10]  R. A. Kuçak,et al.  Analysis of Terrestrial Laser Scanning and Photogrammetry Data for Documentation of Historical Artifacts , 2016 .

[11]  Luigi Barazzetti,et al.  FISHEYE LENSES FOR 3D MODELING: EVALUATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS , 2017 .

[12]  F. Hassani,et al.  Documentation of cultural heritage; techniques, potentials, and constraints , 2015 .