Precise photorealistic visualization for restoration of historic buildings based on tacheometry data

Original Article

Abstract

This paper puts forward a 3D reconstruction methodology applied to the restoration of historic buildings taking advantage of the speed, range and accuracy of a total geodetic station. The measurements representing geo-referenced points produced an interactive and photorealistic geometric mesh of a monument named ‘Neoria.’ ‘Neoria’ is a Venetian building located by the old harbor at Chania, Crete, Greece. The integration of tacheometry acquisition and computer graphics puts forward a novel integrated software framework for the accurate 3D reconstruction of a historical building. The main technical challenge of this work was the production of a precise 3D mesh based on a sufficient number of tacheometry measurements acquired fast and at low cost, employing a combination of surface reconstruction and processing methods. A fully interactive application based on game engine technologies was developed. The user can visualize and walk through the monument and the area around it as well as photorealistically view it at different times of day and night. Advanced interactive functionalities are offered to the user in relation to identifying restoration areas and visualizing the outcome of such works. The user could visualize the coordinates of the points measured, calculate distances and navigate through the complete 3D mesh of the monument. The geographical data are stored in a database connected with the application. Features referencing and associating the database with the monument are developed. The goal was to utilize a small number of acquired data points and present a fully interactive visualization of a geo-referenced 3D model.

Keywords

3D reconstruction Tacheometry Computer graphics Restoration 

JEL Classification

C88 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Anastasia Tzigounaki, serving as the director of the 15th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in Chania, Greece, for her contribution to this work. The work of Katerina Mania (Sects. 2, 3) has been supported by the THALES project (CYBERSENSORS—High Frequency Monitoring System for Integrated Water Resources Management of Rivers). The project has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program ‘Education and Lifelong Learning’ of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—THALES.

References

  1. Allen PK, Troccoli A, Smith B, Murray S, Stamos I, Leordeanu M (2003) New methods for digital modeling of historic sites. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 23(6):32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amenta N, Choi S, Kolluri RK (2001) The power crust. In: Proceedings of the sixth ACM symposium on solid modeling and applications, pp 249–266Google Scholar
  3. Andrews D, Bedford J, Blake B, Bryan P (2009) Metric survey specifications for cultural heritage, 2nd edn. English Heritage, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  4. Arias P, Herraez J, Lorenzo H, Ordonez C (2005) Control of structural problems in cultural heritage monuments using close-range photogrammetry and computer methods. Comput Struct 83(21):1754–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armesto-González J, Riveiro-Rodríguez B, González-Aguilera D, Rivas-Brea MT (2010) Terrestrial laser scanning intensity data applied to damage detection for historical buildings. J Archaeol Sci 37(12):3037–3047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balzani M, Santopuoli N, Grieco A, Zaltron N (2004) Laser scanner 3D survey in archaeological field: the Forum of Pompeii. In: International conference on remote sensing archaeology, Beijing, pp 169–175Google Scholar
  7. Bernardini F, Mittleman J, Rushmeier H, Silva C, Taubin G (1999) The ball-pivoting algorithm for surface reconstruction. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graphics 5(4):349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boehler W, Vicent MB, Heinz G, Marbs A, Müller H (2004) High quality scanning and modeling of monuments and artifacts. In: Proceedings of the FIG working week, pp 22–27Google Scholar
  9. Boochs F, HoffmannA Huxhagen U, Welter D (2006) Digital reconstruction of archaeological objects using hybrid sensing techniques-the example Porta Nigra at Trier. Bar Int Ser 1568:395Google Scholar
  10. Catmull E, Clark J (1978) Recursively generated B-spline surfaces on arbitrary topological meshes. Comput Aided Des 10(6):350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang W (2008) Surface reconstruction from points. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen Q, Prautzsch H (2012) General midpoint subdivision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.3794
  13. Doo D, Sabin M (1978) Behaviour of recursive division surfaces near extraordinary points. Comput Aided Des 10(6):356–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edelsbrunner H (2000) Triangulations and meshes in computational geometry. Acta Numer 9:133–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. El-Hakim Gonzo L, Voltolini F, Girardi S, Rizzi R, Remondino F, Whiting E (2007) Detailed 3D modelling of castles. Int J Archit Comput 5(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fabio R (2003) From point cloud to surface: the modeling and visualization problem. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 34(5):W10Google Scholar
  17. Gruen A (1989) Digital photogrammetric processing systems—current status and prospects. In: (International society for photogrammetry and remote sensing, congress, 16th, Kyoto, Japan, July 1–10, 1988) photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing, vol 55, pp 581–586Google Scholar
  18. Grussenmeyer P, LandesT, VoegtleT, Ringle K (2008) Comparison methods of terrestrial laser scanning, photogrammetry and tacheometry data for recording of cultural heritage buildings. In; ISPRS congress proceedings, Beijing, pp 213–218Google Scholar
  19. Guidi G, Micoli L, Russo M, Frischer B, De Simone M, Spinetti A, Carosso L (2005) 3D digitization of a large model of imperial Rome. In: International conference on 3-D digital imaging and modeling, pp 565–572Google Scholar
  20. Hoppe H, DeRose T, Duchamp T, McDonald J, Stuetzle W (1992) Surface reconstruction from unorganized points. 26(2):71–78Google Scholar
  21. Kazhdan M, Bolitho M, Hoppe H (2006) Poisson surface reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the fourth eurographics symposium on geometry processing, vol 7, pp 61–70Google Scholar
  22. Kersten T (2006) Combination and comparison of digital photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning for the generation of virtual models in cultural heritage applications. In: The 7th international symposium on virtual reality, archaeology and cultural heritage, VAST, pp 207–214Google Scholar
  23. Lee DT, Arthur KL (1986) Generalized Delaunay triangulation for planar graphs. Discrete Comput Geom 1(1):201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lingua AM, Piumatti P, Rinaudo F (2003) Digital photogrammetry: a standard approach to cultural heritage survey. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 34(Part 5):210–215Google Scholar
  25. Mayer H, Mosch M, Peipe J (2003) Comparison of photogrammetric and computer vision techniques—3D reconstruction and visualization of Wartburg castle. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 34(5/C15):103–108Google Scholar
  26. Pavlidis G, Tsirliganis N, Tsiafakis D, Arnaoutoglou F, Chamzas C, Tsioukas V, Mpakourou E, Mexia A (2006) 3D digitization of monuments: the case of Mani. In Proceedings of 3-rd international conference on museologyGoogle Scholar
  27. Pavlidis G, Koutsoudis A, Arnaoutoglou F, Tsioukas V, Chamzas C (2007) Methods for 3D digitization of cultural heritage. J Cult Herit 8(1):93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ragia L, Sarri F, Mania K (2015). 3D reconstruction and visualization of alternatives for restoration of historic buildings—a new approach. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on geographical information systems theory, applications and management, pp 94–102. ISBN 978-989-758-099-4Google Scholar
  29. Rozenwald GF, Seulin R, Fougerolle YD (2010) Fully automatic 3D digitization of unknown objects. In: Proceedings of electronic imaging machine vision application, vol 7538, pp 753807-1–753807-9Google Scholar
  30. Schaich M (2010) 3D scanning technologies and data evaluation in an archaeological information system. In: Nicolucci F, Hermon S (eds) Beyond the artifact. Digital interpretation of the past. Proceedings of CAA2004, Prato, 13–17 April 2004, Archaeolingua, Budapest, pp 396–399Google Scholar
  31. Sifniotis M, Jackson B, Mania K, Watten PL, White M (2010) 3D visualization of archaeological uncertainty. In: Poster, ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on applied perception in graphics and visualization 2010, Los Angeles, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Tang R, Halim S, Zulkepli M (2013) Surface reconstruction algorithms: review and comparisons. ISDE2013Google Scholar
  33. Tsingas V (2012) Acropolis of Athens: recording, modeling and visualising a major archaeological site. Int J Herit Dig Era 1(2):169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yastikli N (2007) Documentation of cultural heritage using digital photogrammetry and laser scanning. J Cult Herit 8(4):423–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yilmaz HM, Yakar M, Gulec SA, Dulgerler ON (2007) Importance of digital close-range photogrammetry in documentation of cultural heritage. J Cult Herit 8(4):428–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zorin D, Schroder P, Sweldens W (1996) Interpolating subdivision for meshes with arbitrary topology. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, pp 189–192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architectural EngineeringTechnical University of CreteKounoupidiana, ChaniaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Electronic and Computer EngineeringTechnical University of CreteKounoupidiana, ChaniaGreece

Personalised recommendations