Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T06:18:35.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laser and Structured Light Scanning to Acquire 3-D Morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2017

Jesse B. Pruitt ,
Nicholas G. Clement  and
Leif Tapanila
Jesse B. Pruitt
Affiliation:
Idaho Virtualization Lab, Idaho Museum of Natural History, 921 S. 8th Avenue, Stop 8096, Pocatello, Idaho 83209, USA, 〈pruijess@isu.edu〉, 〈clemnich@isu.edu〉, 〈tapaleif@isu.edu〉
Nicholas G. Clement
Affiliation:
Idaho Virtualization Lab, Idaho Museum of Natural History, 921 S. 8th Avenue, Stop 8096, Pocatello, Idaho 83209, USA, 〈pruijess@isu.edu〉, 〈clemnich@isu.edu〉, 〈tapaleif@isu.edu〉
Leif Tapanila*
Affiliation:
Idaho Virtualization Lab, Idaho Museum of Natural History, 921 S. 8th Avenue, Stop 8096, Pocatello, Idaho 83209, USA, 〈pruijess@isu.edu〉, 〈clemnich@isu.edu〉, 〈tapaleif@isu.edu〉
*
*Corresponding author
Get access

Abstract

Laser and structured light scanners are primary tools for acquiring surface details of body and trace fossils and have been widely used to study vertebrate specimens. Comparison of different scanner types shows their relative advantages and limitations. Regardless of scanning device, the workflow from initial scan to final product involves registration and some editing for archival or research-grade products. Additional steps, including further object editing and optimization, are required to prepare a scan file for web viewing, animation, and three-dimensional (3-D) printing.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Paleontological Society Papers , Volume 22: Virtual Paleontology , September 2016 , pp. 57 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © 2017, The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, T.L., Strganac, C., Polcyn, M.J., and Jacobs, L.L., 2010, High resolution three-dimensional laser-scanning of the type specimen of Eubrontes (?) glenrosensis Shuler, 1935, from the Comanchean (Lower Cretaceous) of Texas: Implications for digital archiving and preservation: Palaeontologia Electronica, v. 13, art. 1T, 11 p., http://palaeo-electronica.org/2010_3/226/index.html.Google Scholar
Balleri, R., Di Tondo, S., Adembri, G., and Gherardelli, M., 2014, 3D Laser scanning of historic molds for documenting the Richard-Ginori Factory Collection: Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, v. 53, p. 145–158.Google Scholar
Barsanti, S.G., Micoli, L.L., and Guidi, G., 2013, Quick textured mesh generation for massive 3D digitization of museum artifacts, in Proceedings, Digital Heritage International Congress, Marseille, France, October–November 2013, Volume 1: Piscataway, New Jersey, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, p. 197–200.Google Scholar
Beraldin, J.A., 2004, Integration of laser scanning and close-range photogrammetry—The last decade and beyond, in Proceedings, XXth International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS) Congress, Commission VII, Istanbul, Turkey, 2004: Istanbul, Turkey, Copernicus Publications, p. 1031–1042.Google Scholar
Bernardini, F., and Rushmeier, H., 2002, The 3D model acquisition pipeline: Computer Graphics Forum, v. 21, p. 149–172.Google Scholar
Betts, M.W., Maschner, H.D.G., Schou, C.D., Schlader, R., Holmes, J., Clement, N., and Smuin, M., 2011, Virtual zooarchaeology: building a web-based reference collection of northern vertebrates for archaeofaunal research and education: Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 38, p. 755–762.Google Scholar
Bogdanova, G., Todorov, T., and Noev, N., 2013, Digitization and 3D scanning of historical artifacts, in Proceedings, DiPP 2013, International Conference on Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria, September 2013, Volume 3: Sophia, Bulgaria, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics Research, p. 133–138.Google Scholar
Borowski, G.H., 1781, Gemeinntizige Naturgeschichte des Thier- reichs: Gottlieb August Lange, Berlin, v. 1, p. 1–21.Google Scholar
Boyd, A., and Motani, R., 2008, Three-dimensional re-evaluation of the deformation removal technique based on ‘jigsaw puzzling’: Palaeontologia Electronica, v. 11, art. 7A, 7 p. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2008_2/131/index.html.Google Scholar
Chapman, R.E., Weishampel, D.B., and Rasskin-Gutman, D., 1998, Three-dimensional modeling and analysis of function of fossil vertebrates: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 18, suppl. 3, p. 33A.Google Scholar
Daeschler, E.B., Shubin, N.H., and Jenkins, F.A. Jr., 2006, A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan: Nature, v. 440, p. 757–763.Google Scholar
Deck, L.T., Schlader, R., Clement, N., Gibbs, W., and Chapman, R.E., 2007, Especially durable prototypes of fossil specimens and replicas for use in public programming: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 27, p. 67A.Google Scholar
Falkingham, P.L., 2012, Acquisition of high resolution three-dimensional models using free, open-source, photogrammetric software: Palaeontologia Electronica, v. 5, art. 1T, p. 1–15. http://palaeo-electronica.org/content/issue1-2012technical-articles/92-3d-photogrammetry.Google Scholar
Fassi, F., Fregonese, L., Ackermann, S., and De Troia, V., 2013, Comparison between laser scanning and automated 3D modeling techniques to reconstruct complex and extensive cultural heritage areas, in Proceedings of the International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Trento, Italy, February 2013, Volume XL-5/W1, 3D Virtual Reconstruction and Visualization of Complex Architectures: Trento, Italy, Digital Publication, p. 40–45.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, A., Ioannidis, C., and Valanis, A., 2010, Assessing the performance of a structured light scanner: International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences (Commission V Symposium, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK), v. 38, no. 5, p. 250–255.Google Scholar
Gomes, L., Bellon, O.R.P., and Silva, L., 2014, 3D reconstruction methods for digital preservation of cultural heritage: A survey: Pattern Recognition Letters, v. 50, p. 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guidi, G., Micoli, L.L., Gonizzi, S., Rodriguez Navarro, P., and Russo, M., 2013, 3D digitizing a whole museum: A metadata centered workflow, in Proceedings, DiPP 2013, International Conference on Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria, September 2013, Volume 2: Sophia, Bulgaria, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics Research, p. 307–310.Google Scholar
Gupta, M., Agrawal, A., Veeraraghavan, A., and Narasimhan, S.G., 2013, A practical approach to 3D scanning in the presence of interreflections, subsurface scattering and defocus: International Journal of Computer Vision, v. 102, p. 33–55.Google Scholar
Harlan, R., 1825, Fauna Americana: Being a Description of the Mammiferous Animals Inhabiting North America: Philadelphia, Anthony Finley, 318 p.Google Scholar
Holmer, N., Clement, N., Dehart, K., Maschner, H., Pruitt, J., Schlader, R., and Van Walsum, M., 2014, The Idaho Virtualization Laboratory 3D pipeline: Virtual Archaeology Review, v. 5, p. 21–31.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., Mustansar, Z., Manning, P., Margetts, L., and Mummery, P., 2009, Virtual repair of fossil CT scan data: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 29, p. 123A.Google Scholar
Kuzminskya, S.C., and Gardiner, M.S., 2012, Three-dimensional laser scanning: Potential uses for museum conservation and scientific research: Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 39, p. 2744–2751.Google Scholar
Lacépède, B.G. de, 1804, Histoire Naturelle des Cétacées: Paris, Plassan, 329 p., 16 pls.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C., 1758, Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentis, Synonymis, Locis, 10th ed.: Stockholm, Sweden, Laurentii, Slavi, 824 p.Google Scholar
Mathys, A., Brecko, J., and Semal, P., 2013, Comparing 3D digitizing technologies: What are the differences?, in Proceedings, DiPP 2013, International Conference on Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria, September 2013, Volume 1: Sophia, Bulgaria, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics Research, p. 201–204.Google Scholar
Miao-le, H., Xiang-Qian, Z., Yu-Hua, W., Yun-Yang, H., and Xue-Dong, Z., 2015, Study on the 3D information reconstruction and management of cultural relics based on the articulated arm scanner: Journal of Digital Information Management, v. 13, p. 31–38.Google Scholar
Scopigno, R., and Cignoni, P., 2008, Sampled 3D models for CH applications: A viable and enabling new medium or just a technological exercise?: Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, v. 1, p. 1–23.Google Scholar
Vrubel, A., Bellon, O.R., and Silva, L., 2013, A 3D reconstruction pipeline for digital preservation, in Proceedings, IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Miami, Florida, June 2009: Piscataway, New Jersey, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, p. 2687–2694, DOI: 10.1109/CVPRW.2009.5206586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar