Acceleration of 3D Mass Digitization Processes: Recent Advances and Challenges

  • Pedro SantosEmail author
  • Martin Ritz
  • Constanze Fuhrmann
  • Rafael Monroy
  • Hendrik Schmedt
  • Reimar Tausch
  • Matevz Domajnko
  • Martin Knuth
  • Dieter Fellner


In the heritage field, the demand for fast and efficient 3D digitization technologies for historic remains is increasing. Besides, 3D has proven to be a promising approach to enable precise reconstructions of cultural heritage objects. Even though 3D technologies and postprocessing tools are widespread and approaches to semantic enrichment and storage of 3D models are just emerging, only few approaches enable mass capture and computation of 3D virtual models from zoological and archeological findings. To illustrate how future 3D mass digitization systems may look like, we introduce CultLab3D, a recent approach to 3D mass digitization, annotation, and archival storage by the Competence Center for Cultural Heritage Digitization at the Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Research IGD. CultLab3D can be regarded as one of the first feasible approaches worldwide to enable fast, efficient, and cost-effective 3D digitization. It is specifically designed to automate the entire process and thus allows to scan and archive large amounts of heritage objects for documentation and preservation in the best possible quality, taking advantage of integrated 3D visualization and annotation within regular Web browsers using technologies such as WebGl and X3D.


Fast and economic 3D digitization Cultural heritage Documentation methods Technological innovation Industrialization Automation 3D reconstruction Photorealistic rendering Virtual replica 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



CultLab3D is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy under grant agreement 01MT12022E with support of strategic funds of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft.


  1. 1.
    European Commission: Commission recommendation of 27 October 2011 on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation (2011/711/EU) [online], available from: Accessed 5 June 2016
  2. 2.
    European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Digital Agenda for Europe (COM(2010)245 final) [online], available from: Accessed 5 July 2016
  3. 3.
    Article 3.3 of the Treaty of Lisbon, Treaty of Lisbon, Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, 17.12.2007 (2007/C 306/01). Official Journal of the European Union, C 306/1 [online], available from: Accessed 10 Sept 2015
  4. 4.
    S. Keene (ed.), Collections for People. Museums’ stored Collections as a Public Resource (London 2008) [online], available from: Accessed 29 June 2016Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    To mention are the Google Books Library Project, the Google Art Project, the German Digital Library (German: Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek) or Europeana. This cultural platform and, at the same time, digital library, archive and museum was launched in 2008 with the aim to consolidate all national digital libraries under one roof and to make historic inventories and collections in digital form widely available to the publicGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    See company website Picturae [online], available from: Accessed 28 June 2016
  7. 7.
    Smithsonian Strategic Plan [online], available from: Accessed 29 June 2016
  8. 8.
    In this context, the term ‘3D digitization’ refers to the digital capture of a three-dimensional object with its shape and its visual appearance from all possible angles. For this reason, a digital replication in 3D is different to a photograph, “seeking to map the complete geometry of an object, its surface texture and where possible its visual material characteristics, and combining these to produce an integrated digital 3D model that depicts the object as accurately as possible”. Contrary to a 3D replica, which can be viewed from any angle, a photograph is a static image of an object taken from only one specific perspective. See DFG Practical Guidelines on Digitisation (2013), DFG form 12.151 – 02/13, p. 20Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Santos, S. Peña Serna, A. Stork, D. Fellner, The potential of 3D internet in the cultural heritage domain, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage – A Roadmap in Digital Heritage Preservation, eds. by M. Ioannides, E. Quak. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8355, (2014), pp. 1–17Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Pintus, K. Pal, Y. Yang, T. Weyrich, E. Gobbetti, H. Rushmeier, A survey of geometric analysis in cultural heritage. Comput. Graph. Forum 35(1), 4–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Scopigno, Sampled 3D models for cultural heritage: which uses beyond visualization? VAR 3(5), 109–125 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Digital acquisition in 3D on a broader scale is offered by the company Witikon. A large amount of collection artifacts were already digitized in high resolution with Phase One cameras as object panoramas. 3D reconstruction from object panoramas is now being offered as well. See company website Witikon [online], available from: Accessed 29 June 2016
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC 18004:2000: Information Technology. Automatic identification and data capture techniques. Bar code symbology. QR Code. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Weyrich, J. Lawrence, H. Lensch, S. Rusinkiewicz, T. Zickler, Principles of appearance acquisition and representation, in ACM SIGGRAPH 2008 Classes (ACM, New York, 2008), pp. 80:1–80:119Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Holroyd, J. Lawrence, T. Zickler, A coaxial optical scanner for synchronous acquisition of 3D geometry and surface reflectance, in ACM SIGGRAPH 2010 Papers (ACM, New York, 2010), pp. 99:1–99:12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Schwartz, R. Klein, Acquisition and presentation of virtual surrogates for cultural heritage artefacts, in Gesellschaft zur Förderung angewandter Informatik e.V., Proceedings of EVA 2012 Berlin, pp. 50–57Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Schwartz, M. Weinmann, R. Ruiters, R. Klein, Integrated high-quality acquisition of geometry and appearance for cultural heritage, in The 12th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archeology and Cultural Heritage VAST 2011 (Eurographics Association, 2011), pp. 25–32Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Noell, J. Koehler, R. Reis, D. Stricker, Fully automatic, omnidirectional acquisition of geometry and appearance in the context of cultural heritage preservation. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (Special Issue on Best Papers from Digital Heritage 2013 JOCCH Homepage archive), 8(1), Article No. 2Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Kohler, T. Noell, G. Reis, D. Stricker, A full-spherical device for simultaneous geometry and reflectance acquisition, in Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2013 I.E. Workshop (2013), pp. 355–362Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Goesele, J. Ackermann, S. Fuhrmann, R. Klowsky, F. Langguth, P. Muecke, M. Ritz, Scene reconstruction from community photo collections. Computer 43(6), 48–53 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Hertzmann, S. Seitz, Example-based photometric stereo: shape reconstruction with general, varying BRDFs. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27(8), 1254–1264 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Lens, J. Kunz, C. Trommer, A. Karguth, O. von Stryk, BioRob-Arm. A Quickly Deployable and Intrinsically Safe, Light- Weight Robot Arm for Service Robotics Applications. 41st International Symposium on Robotics (ISR 2010), 6th German Conference on Robotics (ROBOTIK 2010) pp. 905–910Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Santos, M. Ritz, R. Tausch, H. Schmedt, R. Monroy, A. De Stefano, D. Fellner, CultLab3D – On the Verge of 3D Mass Digitization, in GCH 2014, Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, eds. by R. Klein et al. (Eurographics Association, Goslar, 2014), pp. 65–73Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Lens, J. Kunz, O. von Stryk, Dynamic modeling of the 4 DoF BioRob series elastic robot arm for simulation and control, in Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots (SIMPAR 2010), vol. 6472 (Springer, 2010), pp. 411–422Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. De Stefano, R. Tausch, P. Santos, A. Kuijper, G. Di Gironimo, D.W. Fellner, B. Siciliano, Modeling a virtual robotic system for automated 3D digitization of cultural heritage artifacts. J. Cult. Herit. 19, 531–537 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. Siciliano, L. Sciavicco, L. Villani, G. Oriolo, Robotics. Modelling, Planning and Control (Springer, London, 2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Karaszewski, R. Sitnik, E. Bunsch, On-line, collision-free positioning of a scanner during fully automated three-dimensional measurement of cultural heritage objects. Robot. Auton. Syst. 60, 1205–1219 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    F. Remondino, C. Fraser, Digital Camera Calibration Methods: Considerations and Comparisons. ISPRS (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    E.W. Arold, Hand-guided 3D surface acquisition by combining simple light sectioning with real-time algorithms. arXiv: 1401.1946 (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Z. Zhang, A flexible new technique for camera calibration. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 22(11), 1330–1334 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    N. Fisher, A comparison of algorithms for subpixel peak detection, in Image Technology, ed. by J.L.C. Sanz (Springer, Berlin, 1996), pp. 385–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    S.R. Berns, The Science of digitizing paintings for color-accurate image archives: a review. J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 45(4), 305–325 (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    ISO 15076-1:2010: Image technology colour management. Architecture, profile format, and data structure based on ICC.1:2010Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    IEC61966-2-1:1999: Multimedia systems and equipment. Colour measurement and management. Part 2-1: Color management-Default RGB color space. sRGB. International Electrotechnical Commission, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Schnoes, M.D. Goesele, Massively parallel SVBRDF fitting BTF data, bachelor thesis, TU Darmstadt, 2010Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See company website Adlibsof [online], available from: Accessed 28 June 2016
  37. 37.
    See company website System Simulation [online], available from: Accessed 28 June 2016
  38. 38.
    Collections Trust, [online], available from: Accessed 29 June 2016
  39. 39.
    J.H.C.H. Yu, Assessing the value of semantic annotation services for 3d museum artefacts. Sustainable Data from the Digital Research Conference (SDDR 2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    S.P. Serna, H. Schmedt, M. Ritz, A. Stork, Interactive semantic enrichment of 3D cultural heritage collections, in VAST: International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage, eds. by D. Arnold, J. Kaminski, F. Niccolucci, A. Stork, Eurographics Symposium Proceedings, The 10th Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage (Brighton, 2012). The Eurographics Association 2012, pp. 33–40Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    N. Crofts, M. Doerr, T. Gill, S. Stead, M. Stiff, Definition of the cidoc conceptual reference model. ICOM/CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. Doerr, M. Theodoridou, Crmdig. A generic digital provenance model for scientific observation, in: 3rd Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance, TaPP’11, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 20–21, available from: Accessed 29 June 2016
  43. 43.
    X. Pan, M. Schröttner, S. Havemann, T. Schiffer, R. Berndt, M. Hecher, D.W. Fellner, A repository infrastructure for working with 3D assets in cultural heritage. Int. J. Herit. Dig. Era 2(1), 144–166 (2013)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    P. Boulanger, M. Rioux, J. Taylor, F. Livingstone, Automatic replication and recording of museum artifacts, in Analysis and Examination of an Art Object by Imaging Technique (Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural Properties, 1988), pp. 131–147Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    T. Noell, J. Koehler, R. Reis, D. Stricker, Fully automatic, omnidirectional acquisition of geometry and appearance in the context of cultural heritage preservation. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (Special Issue on Best Papers from Digital Heritage) 8(1), 2 (2013)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    C. Schwartz, M. Weinmann, R. Ruiters, R. Klein, Integrated high-quality acquisition of geometry and appearance for cultural heritage. The 12th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archeology and Cultural Heritage VAST 2011 (Eurographics Association, 2011), pp. 25–32Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See project website Fraunhofer innovations for cultural heritage [online], available from: Accessed 8 June 2016. The project is funded by the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and being carried out in cooperation with the Dresden State Art Collections (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden), and the Saxon State and University Library Dresden (Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden)

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Santos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Ritz
    • 1
  • Constanze Fuhrmann
    • 1
  • Rafael Monroy
    • 1
  • Hendrik Schmedt
    • 1
  • Reimar Tausch
    • 1
  • Matevz Domajnko
    • 1
  • Martin Knuth
    • 1
  • Dieter Fellner
    • 2
  1. 1.Fraunhofer IGDDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.GRIS/TU-DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations