Measuring changes in cultural heritage objects with Reflectance Transformation Imaging
Proceedings of the DigitalHeritage 2013 - Federating the 19th Int'l VSMM, 10th Eurographics GCH, and 2nd UNESCO Memory of the World Conferences, Plus Special Sessions fromCAA, Arqueologica 2.0 et al., Vol: 1, Page: 189-192
2013
- 22Citations
- 34Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Conference Paper Description
Sites and objects of cultural heritage - from art to ancient inscriptions to ruins - are under constant attack by time and the environment. While much is known about how material components change from laboratory-based artificial aging, very little is known about the process or rates of change of actual objects and sites in situ. Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) is a quantitative method that captures surface normals. In our case, it provides detailed information on the geometry of the object surface. We show that RTI can be quantified for use as a method for measuring change in cultural heritage objects. The past decade has seen the rapid evolution and application of computational photography methods to document important works of human heritage, from art and architecture to archives and archaeology. The next logical step involves defining just how reproducible and precise these methods can be to use them to measure rates of change for important works of cultural heritage. The need is to move to calibrated, quantitative image datasets for reproducible imaging. We measure the precision of computed surface normals, which define the basic repeatability of RTI. Our results show that the average included solid angle for RTI sensitivity fitted to the Hemispherical Harmonics (HSH) polynomial function is 0.003 steradians (3 sigma), while the older Polynomial texture map (PTM) method is much less sensitive (0.5 steradians). The absolute sensitivity of the method is the minimum variation of the normal that can be statistically considered a change of the object. It is calculated considering the average value of the normal of each single pixel. The solid angle of the cone of variation represents the statistical limit (3 σ). Analysis of multiple RTI data sets from objects that have changed between image capture sessions results in a map of change that can easily be evaluated by conservators. © 2013 IEEE.
Bibliographic Details
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know