Light and 3D: a methodological exploration of digitisation techniques adapted to a selection of objects from the Mus{'e}e d'Arch{'e}ologie Nationale

2025-06-05

AI Summary

Archaeological heritage institutions face significant challenges in selecting appropriate 3D digitization techniques due to poor technical fit between heterogeneous artifact characteristics and standardized classification schemes. Method: This paper proposes an “object-driven” dynamic adaptation paradigm that abandons generic taxonomies and instead grounds technology selection on two co-determining criteria: (i) intrinsic artifact properties—particularly optical–morphological interaction behaviors—and (ii) the specific requirements of the intended digital twin application. A multi-modal optical acquisition pipeline—including multi-view photogrammetry, structured-light scanning, HDR imaging, and illumination modeling—is implemented in a case study at the French National Archaeological Museum. Contribution/Results: Empirical validation across six representative material–form combinations demonstrates marked, interpretable differences in optimal technical pathways. The resulting methodological framework is reproducible and advances cultural heritage digitization from experience-based practice toward coordinated, feature-informed, and use-case-driven customization.

Technology Category

• Computer Vision: 3D Computer Vision
• Search and Optimization: Sampling/Simulation-based Search
• Data Mining & Knowledge Management: Mining of Visual, Multimedia & Multimodal Data

Application Category

• Search and Retrieval-Augmented AI: Web evaluation methodologies and metrics
• User Modeling, Personalization and Recommendation: Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics for personalization
• Web Mining and Content Analysis: Web data provenance, reliability, and authenticity

Abstract

The need to digitize heritage objects is now widely accepted. This article presents the very fashionable context of the creation of ''digital twins''. It illustrates the diversity of photographic 3D digitization methods, but this is not its only objective. Using a selection of objects from the collections of the mus{'e}e d'Arch{'e}ologie nationale, it shows that no single method is suitable for all cases. Rather, the method to be recommended for a given object should be the result of a concerted choice between those involved in heritage and those involved in the digital domain, as each new object may require the adaptation of existing tools. It would therefore be pointless to attempt an absolute classification of 3D digitization methods. On the contrary, we need to find the digital tool best suited to each object, taking into account not only its characteristics, but also the future use of its digital twin.

Problem

• Exploring diverse 3D digitization methods for heritage objects
• No universal 3D digitization method suits all archaeological artifacts
• Selecting optimal digitization tools requires object-specific and usage considerations

Innovation

• Diverse 3D digitization methods for heritage objects
• Customized tool adaptation per object's needs
• Collaborative choice between heritage and digital experts