Abstract
In many educational and clinical settings we are increasingly looking into methodologies for accurate 3D representations of structures and specimens. This is relevant for anatomy teaching, pathology, forensic and anthropological sciences, and various clinical fields. The question then arises which tool best suits the task at hand – both 3D scanning and photogrammetry are options. For the use in medical education the aim is to create 3D models of anatomical specimens with high quality and resolution. Various qualitative and quantitative criteria determine the performance fidelity and results of 3D scanning versus photogrammetry. In our work we found that photogrammetry provides more realistic surface textures and very good geometries for most specimens. 3D surface scanning captures more accurate geometries of complex specimens and in specimens with reflective surfaces. The 3D scanning workflow and capture method is more practical for soft specimens where movement of the sample can lead to distortions. Overall, both methods are highly recommended dependent on the nature of the specimen and the use case of the 3D model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Azer SA, Azer S (2016) 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: a review of the quality of the literature. Health Prof Educ 2:80–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.05.002
Boehler W, Marbs A (2004) 3D scanning and photogrammetry for heritage recording: a comparison. In: Proceedings of the 12th International conference on geoinformatics, University of Gävle, Sweden 7–9
Brazina D, Fojtik R, Rombova Z (2014) 3D visualization in teaching anatomy. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 143:367–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.496
Camba JD, Contero M (2015) From reality to augmented reality: rapid strategies for developing marker-based AR content using image capturing and authoring tools. In: 2015 IEEE frontiers in education conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344162
Evin A, Souter T, Hulme-Beaman A et al (2016) The use of close-range photogrammetry in zooarchaeology: creating accurate 3D models of wolf crania to study dog domestication. J Archaeol Sci Rep 9:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.06.028
Foster S, Halbstein D (2014) Integrating 3D modeling, photogrammetry and design, SpringerBriefs in Computer Science. Springer, London
Incekara AH, Seker DZ (2018) Comparative analyses of the point cloud produced by using close-range photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning for rock surface. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 46:1243–1253
Jebur A, Abed F, Mohammed M (2018) Assessing the performance of commercial Agisoft PhotoScan software to deliver reliable data for accurate3D modelling. MATEC Web Conf 162. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201816203022
Katz D, Friess M (2014) Technical note: 3D from standard digital photography of human crania – a preliminary assessment. Am J Phys Anthropol 154:152–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22468
Knibbe J, O'Hara K (2014) Quick and dirty: streamlines 3D scanning in archeology. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, pp 1366–1376. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531669
Linder W (2016) Introduction BT – digital photogrammetry: a practical course. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg
Saltarelli AJ, Roseth CJ, Saltarelli WA (2014) Human cadavers vs. multimedia simulation: A study of student learning in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 7:331–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1429
Sapirstein P (2018) A high-precision photogrammetric recording system for small artifacts. J Cult Herit 31:33–45
Tam MDBS (2010) Building virtual models by postprocessing radiology images: a guide for anatomy faculty. Anat Sci Educ 3:261–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.175
Viggiano D, Thanassoulas T, Di-Cesare C et al (2015) A low-cost system to acquire 3D surface data from anatomical samples. Eur J Anat 19:343–349
Westoby MJ, Brasington J, Glasser NF et al (2012) “Structure-from-motion” photogrammetry: a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179:300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dixit, I., Kennedy, S., Piemontesi, J., Kennedy, B., Krebs, C. (2019). Which Tool Is Best: 3D Scanning or Photogrammetry – It Depends on the Task. In: Rea, P. (eds) Biomedical Visualisation . Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 1120. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06070-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06070-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06069-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06070-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)