Our class partnered with the Jepson Museum, part of the Telfair Museum complex here in Savannah. On Friday, April 28, 2017, our Digital Practices class met at the Jepson Center at 9:30. Sarah, Madeline, Marina, and I were in charge of scanning the first set of objects provided by the museum collections staff. We then split up into groups of two. I worked with Madeline. We were selected to use the small Artec Scanner, a handheld scanner that is very user-friendly and easy to use, on an 18th century Wedgwood vase. Sarah and Marina used the class NextEngine Scanner to capture a small wood spill vase.
Our station in the atrium of the Jepson Center, where we scanned objects from their collections.
Madeline and I began scanning the Wedgwood vase. We saved each scan to a designated folder on the computer desktop named “Telfair” with this object in another folder labeled “Item 1-Wedgwood vase.” The process we completed for these scans was reasonable. We first placed the object on the turntable with assistance from the museum staff. With the scanner plugged into the computer and the program open, we pressed the preview button on the scanner to begin the process. The scanner required capturing the base first, so that it could be automatically removed. The left hand side of the program presents a range of error, with a light green splotch showing where the current scan would land in the amount of errors. When the splotch was in the best range (minimal errors), we pressed the preview button again to begin scanning. The object was rotated slowly in a clockwise rotation. The scanning only captured a small portion of the object and so multiple scans were needed. After the base was completed, we moved our way up the vase, eventually flipping it over to capture the beautiful detail on the bottom.
The Artec scanner was used to scan the Wedgwood vase on the turn-table (right).
Professor advised us that each scan preferably should have an error margin of less than 0.4 errors. Our first several scans of the base of the vase were at 0.5, which was a little more than we desired for great models for the museum. However, upon completing all of the scans needed for this vase, the program crashed and it was revealed that we forgot to save the majority of the scans. Knowing that we needed to save after every single scan, we restarted. The second round of scanning provided better scans and fewer errors. The errors for the second set of scans were, in order, 0.5, 0.1, 0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.1, and 0.2. These show we scanned the vase fairly well.
Once we felt we had completely scanned the vase, we switched with Sarah and Madeline and I moved to the NextEngine scanner. Moving from such an easy hand-held scanner to a troublesome scanner was difficult. The immobility of the scanner itself posed problems with trying to capture a fragile object like the wood spill vase. We continued Sarah’s scanning of the wooden spill vase. We ran into trouble when it came to scanning the base of the vase as the curve of the bottom and stem would not allow the laser to accurately capture detail at such an angle. A museum employee assisted us in using museum wax to hold the vase as we angled it against the scanning arm towards the scanner. This alleviated the issues of holes in the scans.
Madeline and I struggled with the dark, neutral, and light settings for the scans. Dark captured some detail but left out portions of the wood grain. Light simply left out too much information to work. Neutral light proved best for capturing the vase.As for distance, all of the settings (Macro, Wide, Extended) produced similar results, but Macro ended up producing slightly crisper details. With the scanner set to Macro distance and neutral light, we captured more and more detail. Once the base was fully captured, we angled the vase even more, directing the scanning to inside to hopefully capture the interior void. At 1:30, the second group of students arrived and we allowed them to finish the scanning.
Another issue we overcame with using the NextEngine scanner was the overhead sunlight in the atrium. The brightness drastically reduced data collection, and I was forced to hold a piece of cardboard above the scanner and vase to reduce the distraction. We also tried to move the laster scanner to face the opposite direction of its original orientation, but this produced no difference.
Using the NextEngine scanner to scan the wooden spill vase of the Telfair Museum.
On Monday, May 1, we met in the computer lab of the Clarence Thomas Center to begin registration of the data we collected while 3D scanning. We connected the NextEngine scanning to the one computer that has the software. Jarles began to align 3 points between each scan to properly stitch together the scans. We each took a turn to align two scans to continue to complete the 3D model. The registration of the Artec scanner requires the class laptop.
The registration process for the NextEngine scanner involves plugging the scanner into the computer and opening the program. Once the file of scans is opened, each individual scan will appear along the bottom. To begin stitching the scans, select the Align tool in the top tool bar. This will open up two scans side by side. On either scan, there are 3 dots (1 red, 1 yellow, 1 blue) that must be dragged onto the scan. Placing them on a specific location that is found in both scans will align them. For the wood spill vase we are stitching in class, we primarily selected letters of the text in each scan. Once all three dots have been placed in the scans accordingly, clicking the Align tool again will stitch them together to create one scan. Clicking the Refine tool will help clear up the attachment. This process must be done for each consequent scan. Clicking the Align tool again will restart the process with the next scan in line.
Selecting three points on two different scans allows the program to stitch the scans into one.
Once the registration/stitching is complete, the next step is to trim the excess data collected. Using the different selecting tools, select outlying specks of data and click the scissors button to delete. Next, the fuse tab will present a tool to create a mesh from the registered point clouds (data collected from scans). Selecting Fuse will present a window for settings for an automatic fuse (flat fill is preferred and leaving the largest hole will leave the handle in place). The process will take a long time. Finally, the polish tool is used to fill holes in any of the data. The finished project should be exported as an .obj file.
The hole filling, outlier removal, and polishing of the jug can be seen below:
As for the registration of the data collected using the Artec Scanner, the Artec Studio program is required. After the program is opened, the scan files are duplicated in the event of corruption. One file was opened as a new project. Making all 10 scans visible, it was easy to gauge how much data was captured. To begin the registration process, it was necessary to remove the base that was visible in some scans. To do so, the Edit tab holds the Eraser tool. With only one scan visible, select the cut-off plane selection option. Pressing CTRL, select the scanned base. Once it’s selected, hold CTRL and SHIFT to move the red plane up or down to cover all of the base. Press erase and the base will be removed. Repeat this process for each scan that has a base. The next step is aligning the scans with each other. One option is to use the automatic alignment, selecting the Align tab and Automatic Align. If the automatic alignment does not work properly (like in my case), manual alignment is necessary. To do so, select the scans that need aligned that are located on the left menu. With two scans visible, holding shift will allow you to maneuver the second scan for proper alignment. Left click on each scan to drop colored points that will match up exact points on the scans to align. Once around 3 points have been dropped, click Align. The two scans will be aligned according to how accurate your points were. Continue the process for each scan until the entire object is aligned.
The next stop is to register the model using global registration. This joins the points to a more condensed form. Using the Tools tab, select global registration. Select geometry and apply. This will create one form. Next, select the outlier removal. This will remove excess data outside of the model. For the resolution, look to the scans you have on the right hand side to see your maximum error (usually around 0.5). The largest error is your resolution. For the Wedgwood vase, our max error was 0.3, so the resolution was 0.3. After a long wait, the excess outliers were removed. The next step is to create a fusion (solid object). In the same Tools tab, select sharp fusion. Choose watertight to create a solid object that will automatically fill in any holes in the scans. Again, set the resolution to your maximum error (0.3). Apply and wait for the model to be generated.
When it came to our Wedgwood vase, there were severe holes towards the base and around the handles. Such large holes did not allow for a smooth fusion in those areas. The vast majority of the vase was beautifully captured. Rescanning of those areas will be necessary to entirely capture every area of the vase so that those holes are filled properly. The next step was to fill the holes. Since all of the holes needed to be filled, I selected the Edges tab, where it listed each of the holes present. As there were only a few, I manually filled them in, ensuring it was done correctly. The holes in the base and mouth of the vase filled in perfectly smooth. There was some trouble with the holes in the arms, so I smoothed edges of the holes first (with 100 strength) and then filled them in with a smooth fill. This did an acceptable job. Once the holes were all filled, the project was saved and then I ran a fast mesh simplification. This was found in the Tools tab, under Postprocessing. This reduces the amount of faces and polygons in the model, allowing it to easily be imported into other programs. As the tutorial video for the processing called for 200,000 polygons, I entered the same amount for this model. A quick wait yielded a much smaller mesh.
Next, it was finally time to apply the textures captured by the Artec Scanner. To do so, select the Textures tab, and ensure that the sharp fusion object is selected in the top left corner. By selecting all of the scans you want the texture from below, its ensuring that the color photos captured from those scans will be applied to your model. I left all of the other settings as default. A short wait presented a high definition texture applied to the vase. After adjusting brightness, contrast, and other settings, I was satisfied by the results and saved the project.
To end the process, I exported the mesh as an .obj file, saving the texture as a jpeg file. With the .obj (object file), the .mtl (texture file), and a jpeg of texture, I created a zip folder for the three so they were compressed together to ensure the texture was brought into Sketchfab. The files were uploaded into Sketchfab for viewing.
Overall, the registration process using the Artec software was vastly easier than the NextEngine. They took about the same time to register data (quite a long time) but the texture and detail of the surface of the Wedgwood vase was better than the texture of the jug, which was scanned and registered using the NextEngine.
The various holes located in the Artec scan of the Wedgwood vase can be seen below:
As for the other object we were tasked with registering, Madeline and I encountered many obstacles. The file was having issues when it came to polishing and filling in holes while operating the scans in the NextEngine software. The program took several hours to fill only a few of the dozens of holes. We continued to try and fill in holes but it proved too difficult. Occasionally, the program crashed. I think the files we registered together was so large that the program had trouble working with that much data. With the majority of the holes filled, we (along with Professor) agreed that it was acceptable to continue finishing the model with some holes left in the mesh. After, it was saved as an .obj file (object). However, the file size was too large (293 mb) for the Sketchfab program (max. 200 mb). As a result, it was imported into Meshmixer and reduced. Unfortunately, the file once uploaded to Sketchfab lost its texture and was only displayed as a white object. I attempted to upload both the .obj and .mtl (texture) files to Sketchfab, but it did not work.
The imported .obj file in Sketchfab with the missing texture.
The Wedgwood Vase proved to be very difficult. The holes seemed too large to fix. However, after working for an hour at Fahm with the Artec Studio 12 software, I was able to successfully fill in the large holes on the side and mouth of the vase. However, the holes that were located on the arms were too tricky for the software to fill properly, so there are some issues with the arms in the final model. As for the texture, it came out extremely crisp. Since the laser scanner had difficulty capturing inside the mouth of the vase, no texture was captured, and therefore the auto texture was placed on top, resulting in an uneven texture.
The texture from the scans applied to the vase
The holes that remain an issue on the arms
The NextEngine scanner captures great images paired with laser scanner. The process for capturing the scans is long and tiresome, having to select settings, scan, and wait to see how the results came out. Stationed in the atrium of the museum, the lighting overhead also made the scanning difficult to capture details in certain light. The laser scanner is also stationary on the table, and one is forced to move the object itself (difficult when only the museum staff can touch the objects). The NextEngine was used only to capture a single scan of the object, and not a complete 3D scan. On the other hand, the Artec Scanner was very easy to use. Connected to the computer via USB cord, one can freely move the scanner around the object as it sits on a rotating table. Free independence makes it much more easier to use. The methodology for the Artec also allows the user to see a gauge of the errors present in the scanning, so changes can be made in real-time to ensure better results rather than having to wait for the scan to be completed. The Artec’s mobility allows a complete 3D scan of certain portions, allowing less scans to be needed for registration. Overall, the experience of using the Artec scanner to freely scan the objects was more interesting and fruitful than the clunky NextEngine scanner. The resulting model from the Artec scanner was far clearer and superior to that of the NextEngine.