The object Lydia, Sarah, Joella, and I worked on is Berit Olsdatter Egge’s mini Bible. It was written in most likely Norwegian and was owned by the grandparent of a Carleton student at the time.
Overall, the project has been very interesting and has brought a new perspective to the potential of 3D modeling. Photogrammetry seems like a significantly quicker way to produce 3D models of artifacts like the bible we scanned. The finished product is scaled very similarly to the real item and contains a level of detailed precision that would be difficult to notice without seeing the original.
One downside I see of photogrammetry for objects is the polygon count and lack of creative freedom. Photogrammetry captures many accurate, intricate, and complex geometry that I would image would make the 3D model difficult for applications like gaming or 3D printing. Additionally, phone capture photogrammetry with Scaniverse does not do a good job of capturing organic shapes like plushies or humans. When we tried scanning the cow plushie, the cast shadows caused by the lighting made it difficult to accurately scan some areas. It is also a lot easier to notice dimensional and proportional flaws in animals and humans than rigid objects that could come in different sizes and shapes.
However, for simple things like online museum displays, photogrammetry is definitely a cheaper, quicker, and better 3D modeling method. Being able to rotate the model to view areas that would otherwise be obstructed in a museum allows for greater interactivity and exploration. The process of photogrammetry encourages me to pay closer attention to spots I would otherwise ignore. For example, the details in texture of the bible cover or the text inside. The bible cover had a lot of rips that were emphasized in the 3D model. In addition, I was impressed by the clarity of the text. Text is usually something I ignore when viewing real objects so the fact that I was initially drawn to the text shows how people view 3D models differently from the real thing.
3 thoughts on “Blog 5”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I also found that Scaniverse didn’t do a good job scanning objects that weren’t rigid. My group tried to scan the green hat and found that it struggled to complete the bottom of the hat which wasn’t fully on the table. The final scan had many deformities around the bottom of the hat. On the other hand, the fact that it was so easy and accessible to make the scan outweighs that limitation.
I was really impressed that you embedded your 3D model into your blog post. It’s gives a nicer, more interactive way to view your object compared to just having a still photo. I was wondering on how to include my 3D object into my blog post too, so thank you for reminding me that SketchFab can do this.
I was really drawn to your observation that you noticed the text on the bible much more with the 3D model than the real thing! I definitely felt similarly when I saw your embedded model. At least for me, I feel like it’s partially because it’s fascinating that a digital representation of something I just saw in real life can look so realistic — but it would be interesting to look into this more and see if this phenomenon replicates with other people or in other circumstances!