Figure 1.
Schematic operative workflow applied to this research analysis: from preliminary steps to post-processing procedures.
Figure 1.
Schematic operative workflow applied to this research analysis: from preliminary steps to post-processing procedures.
Figure 2.
Schematic representation of structured-light scanning operation: trigonometric triangulation between the object, the camera and the light source. The scanner calculates the triangulation angle α and light deformation on the object.
Figure 2.
Schematic representation of structured-light scanning operation: trigonometric triangulation between the object, the camera and the light source. The scanner calculates the triangulation angle α and light deformation on the object.
Figure 3.
The tested structured-light scanners: (A) Artec Micro; (B) Artec Space Spider.
Figure 3.
The tested structured-light scanners: (A) Artec Micro; (B) Artec Space Spider.
Figure 4.
Cuneiform replica tablet considered for this analysis: (A) lenticular tablet from UPM, diameter 70 mm, max-thickness 27 mm; (B) rectangular tablet from UPM, length 35 mm, width 30 mm, thickness 16 mm; (C) squared tablet, length 25 mm, width 25 mm, thickness 9 mm.
Figure 4.
Cuneiform replica tablet considered for this analysis: (A) lenticular tablet from UPM, diameter 70 mm, max-thickness 27 mm; (B) rectangular tablet from UPM, length 35 mm, width 30 mm, thickness 16 mm; (C) squared tablet, length 25 mm, width 25 mm, thickness 9 mm.
Figure 5.
3D model of the lenticular tablet created with Artec Micro: 3D resolution 0.03 mm.
Figure 5.
3D model of the lenticular tablet created with Artec Micro: 3D resolution 0.03 mm.
Figure 6.
3D model of the lenticular tablet created with Artec Space Spider: 3D resolution 0.08 mm.
Figure 6.
3D model of the lenticular tablet created with Artec Space Spider: 3D resolution 0.08 mm.
Figure 7.
Details of 3D models related to the lenticular tablet created with Artec Micro (A) and Space Spider (B). Here can be noticed differences between 3D resolutions: 0.03 mm and 0.08 mm.
Figure 7.
Details of 3D models related to the lenticular tablet created with Artec Micro (A) and Space Spider (B). Here can be noticed differences between 3D resolutions: 0.03 mm and 0.08 mm.
Figure 8.
3D model of the rectangular tablet created with Artec Micro: 3D resolution 0.03 mm.
Figure 8.
3D model of the rectangular tablet created with Artec Micro: 3D resolution 0.03 mm.
Figure 9.
3D model of the rectangular tablet created with Artec Space Spider: 3D resolution 0.08 mm.
Figure 9.
3D model of the rectangular tablet created with Artec Space Spider: 3D resolution 0.08 mm.
Figure 10.
Details of 3D models related to the rectangular tablet created with Artec Micro (A) and Space Spider (B). Here can be noticed differences between 3D resolutions: 0.03 mm and 0.08 mm.
Figure 10.
Details of 3D models related to the rectangular tablet created with Artec Micro (A) and Space Spider (B). Here can be noticed differences between 3D resolutions: 0.03 mm and 0.08 mm.
Figure 11.
3D model of the squared tablet created with Artec Micro: 3D resolution 0.03 mm.
Figure 11.
3D model of the squared tablet created with Artec Micro: 3D resolution 0.03 mm.
Figure 12.
3D model of the rectangular tablet created with Artec Space Spider: 3D resolution 0.08 mm.
Figure 12.
3D model of the rectangular tablet created with Artec Space Spider: 3D resolution 0.08 mm.
Figure 13.
Details of 3D models related to the squared tablet created with Artec Micro (A) and Space Spider (B). Here can be noticed differences between 3D resolutions: 0.03 mm and 0.08 mm.
Figure 13.
Details of 3D models related to the squared tablet created with Artec Micro (A) and Space Spider (B). Here can be noticed differences between 3D resolutions: 0.03 mm and 0.08 mm.
Figure 14.
Texture diffuse mapping: Micro models (A–C); Space Spider models (D–F).
Figure 14.
Texture diffuse mapping: Micro models (A–C); Space Spider models (D–F).
Figure 15.
Lenticular tablet. Comparison between two different outputs: (A) Micro model; (B) Spider model; (C) two models aligned and registered (models overlapped, error 0.001 mm).
Figure 15.
Lenticular tablet. Comparison between two different outputs: (A) Micro model; (B) Spider model; (C) two models aligned and registered (models overlapped, error 0.001 mm).
Figure 16.
Lenticular tablet. Distance Map (mesh to mesh) between Micro and Spider models: maximum distance (error scale) 0.250 mm; absolute distance 0.012 mm; RMSe 0.017 mm.
Figure 16.
Lenticular tablet. Distance Map (mesh to mesh) between Micro and Spider models: maximum distance (error scale) 0.250 mm; absolute distance 0.012 mm; RMSe 0.017 mm.
Figure 17.
Rectangular tablet. Comparison between two different outputs: (A) Micro model; (B) Spider model; (C) two models aligned and registered (models overlapped, error 0.001 mm).
Figure 17.
Rectangular tablet. Comparison between two different outputs: (A) Micro model; (B) Spider model; (C) two models aligned and registered (models overlapped, error 0.001 mm).
Figure 18.
Rectangular tablet. Distance Map (mesh to mesh) between Micro and Spider models: maximum distance (error scale) 0.200 mm; absolute distance 0.039 mm; RMSe 0.031 mm.
Figure 18.
Rectangular tablet. Distance Map (mesh to mesh) between Micro and Spider models: maximum distance (error scale) 0.200 mm; absolute distance 0.039 mm; RMSe 0.031 mm.
Figure 19.
Rectangular tablet. Comparison between two different outputs: (A) Micro model; (B) Spider model; (C) two models aligned and registered (models overlapped, error 0.001 mm).
Figure 19.
Rectangular tablet. Comparison between two different outputs: (A) Micro model; (B) Spider model; (C) two models aligned and registered (models overlapped, error 0.001 mm).
Figure 20.
Rectangular tablet. Distance Map (mesh to mesh) between Micro and Spider models: maximum distance (error scale) 0.200 mm; absolute distance 0.023 mm; RMSe 0.022 mm.
Figure 20.
Rectangular tablet. Distance Map (mesh to mesh) between Micro and Spider models: maximum distance (error scale) 0.200 mm; absolute distance 0.023 mm; RMSe 0.022 mm.
Figure 21.
Micrometric details of 3D cuneiform tablet. Zoom and metric evaluation of Micro (brown) and Space Spider (blue) models: lenticular tablet (A,D); Rectangular tablet (B,E); squared tablet (C,F).
Figure 21.
Micrometric details of 3D cuneiform tablet. Zoom and metric evaluation of Micro (brown) and Space Spider (blue) models: lenticular tablet (A,D); Rectangular tablet (B,E); squared tablet (C,F).
Figure 22.
Lenticular replica tablet. Post-processing render and shader filters. Micro model: (A) rendered depth map, (B) dimple shader with custom light direction, (C) shader related to the radiance inverted map. Spider model: (D) rendered depth map, (E) dimple shader with custom light direction, (F) shader related to the radiance inverted map.
Figure 22.
Lenticular replica tablet. Post-processing render and shader filters. Micro model: (A) rendered depth map, (B) dimple shader with custom light direction, (C) shader related to the radiance inverted map. Spider model: (D) rendered depth map, (E) dimple shader with custom light direction, (F) shader related to the radiance inverted map.
Figure 23.
Rectangular replica tablet. Post-processing render and shader filters. Micro model: (A) rendered depth map, (B) dimple shader with custom light direction, (C) shader related to the radiance inverted map. Spider model: (D) rendered depth map, (E) dimple shader with custom light direction, (F) shader related to the radiance inverted map.
Figure 23.
Rectangular replica tablet. Post-processing render and shader filters. Micro model: (A) rendered depth map, (B) dimple shader with custom light direction, (C) shader related to the radiance inverted map. Spider model: (D) rendered depth map, (E) dimple shader with custom light direction, (F) shader related to the radiance inverted map.
Figure 24.
Squared replica tablet. Post-processing render and shader filters. Micro model: (A) rendered depth map, (B) dimple shader with custom light direction, (C) shader related to the radiance inverted map. Spider model: (D) rendered depth map, (E) dimple shader with custom light direction, (F) shader related to the radiance inverted map.
Figure 24.
Squared replica tablet. Post-processing render and shader filters. Micro model: (A) rendered depth map, (B) dimple shader with custom light direction, (C) shader related to the radiance inverted map. Spider model: (D) rendered depth map, (E) dimple shader with custom light direction, (F) shader related to the radiance inverted map.
Figure 25.
Schematic analysis on polygons (triangles) count (million) for each cuneiform tablet.
Figure 25.
Schematic analysis on polygons (triangles) count (million) for each cuneiform tablet.
Figure 26.
Graphic schema on density ratio related to polygons per mm3 for each cuneiform tablet.
Figure 26.
Graphic schema on density ratio related to polygons per mm3 for each cuneiform tablet.
Figure 27.
Schematic analysis RMSe related to distance map Micro/Space Spider for each cuneiform tablet.
Figure 27.
Schematic analysis RMSe related to distance map Micro/Space Spider for each cuneiform tablet.
Table 1.
Metric information concerning acquisition processes of Artec Micro and Space Spider.
Table 1.
Metric information concerning acquisition processes of Artec Micro and Space Spider.
3D Scanner | 3D Accuracy | 3D Resolution | Acquisition Speed |
---|
Artec Micro | 0.01 mm | 0.029 mm | 1 mln points/s |
Artec Space Spider | 0.05 mm | 0.1 mm | 1 mln points/s |
Table 2.
Example 1. Lenticular cuneiform tablet. Metric information concerning acquisition processes of Artec Micro and Space Spider.
Table 2.
Example 1. Lenticular cuneiform tablet. Metric information concerning acquisition processes of Artec Micro and Space Spider.
3D Scanner | Max. Error | Scans/Frames | Resolution | Polygons |
---|
Micro | 0.00 mm | 2/50 | 0.03 mm | 29,270,798 |
Space Spider | 0.1 mm | 5/3526 | 0.08 mm | 4,003,584 |
Table 3.
Example 2. Rectangular cuneiform tablet. Metric information concerning acquisition processes of Artec Micro and Space Spider.
Table 3.
Example 2. Rectangular cuneiform tablet. Metric information concerning acquisition processes of Artec Micro and Space Spider.
3D Scanner | Max. Error | Scans/Frames | Resolution | Polygons |
---|
Micro | 0.00 mm | 6/96 | 0.03 mm | 10,457,596 |
Space Spider | 0.1 mm | 4/3606 | 0.08 mm | 1,480,838 |
Table 4.
Example 3. Squared cuneiform tablet. Metric information concerning acquisition processes of Artec Micro and Space Spider.
Table 4.
Example 3. Squared cuneiform tablet. Metric information concerning acquisition processes of Artec Micro and Space Spider.
3D Scanner | Max. Error | Scans/Frames | Resolution | Polygons |
---|
Micro | 0.00 mm | 2/60 | 0.03 mm | 5,328,852 |
Space Spider | 0.1 mm | 3/2221 | 0.08 mm | 1,322,622 |
Table 5.
Volume in mm3 related to all the analysed cuneiform replica tablets.
Table 5.
Volume in mm3 related to all the analysed cuneiform replica tablets.
| Lenticular Tablet | Rectangular Tablet | Squared Tablet |
---|
Volume | 61,412.31 mm3 | 14,870.54 mm3 | 5,582.57 mm3 |
Table 6.
Differences between Micro and Space Spider models related to density of polygons per mm3.
Table 6.
Differences between Micro and Space Spider models related to density of polygons per mm3.
3D Scanner | Lenticular Tablet | Rectangular Tablet | Squared Tablet |
---|
Micro | 477 poly/mm3 | 703 poly/mm3 | 955 poly/mm3 |
Space Spider | 65 poly/mm3 | 99 poly/mm3 | 237 poly/mm3 |
ratio | 7.34 | 7.10 | 4.03 |