Photogrammetry for 3D Reconstruction of Objects: Effects of Geometry, Texture and Photographing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5566/ias.2887Keywords:
3D reconstruction, 3D scanning, image-based modeling, photo-scan, photogrammetry, textureAbstract
Today, the use of 3D scanning methods is increasing in a wide range of industries from biomedical to game production. The photogrammetry method is in demand by 3D scanning users due to its portability, photorealistic textured modeling, and low cost. Scanned objects vary according to industries and can have various materials, geometries and textures. In order to better benefit from the advantages of the photogrammetry method, it is necessary to know the response of the method against different parameters. Unlike the studies in the literature, in this study, many objects with various geometries, different materials and textures were reconstructed and evaluated by using the same equipment and workflow in the same environment, and thus a fair evaluation was performed for various factors affecting the reconstruction process. In this context, 24 differently shaped objects with metal, fabric, plastic, wood, glass, ceramic and organic textures were reconstructed. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted on the solid and textured models generated from the objects. In addition to the effects of object geometry, texture properties, photo shooting angle and distance, it also sought answers to questions about factors affecting the accuracy and mesh quality of the 3D models. In this study, it is possible to find some recent specific results and validated general results together related to photogrammetric modeling.
References
Ardelean MG, Năsui V (2021). Reverse engineering in the automotive industry. Scientific Bulletin Series C: Fascicle Mechanics, Tribology, Machine Manufacturing Technology 35:7-12.
Bourell DL, Rosen DW, Leu MC (2014). The roadmap for additive manufacturing and its impact. 3D PRINT ADDIT MANUF 1:6-9.
Calin M, Damian G, Popescu T, Manea R, Erghelegiu B, Salagean T (2015). 3d modeling for digital preservation of romanian heritage monuments. AGRIC AGRIC SCI PROC 6:421-8.
Cekus D, Kwiatoń P, Nadolski M, Sokół K (2021). Effect of material-technological properties on the reconstruction of utility parameters of bells. ENG SCI TECHNOL INT J 24:1042-8.
Douglass M, Lin S, Chodoronek M (2015). The application of 3d photogrammetry for in-field documentation of archaeological features. ADV ARCHAEOL PRACT 3:136-52.
Helle RH, Lemu HG (2021). A case study on use of 3d scanning for reverse engineering and quality control. MATER TODAY PROC 45:5255-62.
Hess M, Guery J, Mathys A (2017). Photogrammetry. Digital techniques for documenting and preserving cultural heritage:229-36.
Koller S, Ebert LC, Martinez RM, Sieberth T (2019). Using virtual reality for forensic examinations of injuries. FORENSIC SCI INT 295:30-5.
Lamb N, Banerjee NK, Banerjee S (2018). Programmatic 3d printing of a revolving camera track to automatically capture dense images for 3d scanning of objects. MultiMedia Modeling: 24th International Conference, MMM 2018, Bangkok, Thailand, February 5-7, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 24:390-4.
Lee W, Molenbroek JF, Goto L, Jellema AH, Song Y, Goossens RH (2019). Application of 3d scanning in design education. Dhm and posturography: Academic Press, 721-32.
Manuel CT, Harb R, Badran A, Ho D, Wong BJ (2017). Finite element model and validation of nasal tip deformation. ANN BIOMED ENG 45:829-38.
Orun AB, Goodyer E, Smith G (2018). 3d non-invasive inspection of the skin lesions by close-range and low-cost photogrammetric techniques. IMAGE ANAL STEREOL 37:63-70.
Özyeşil O, Voroninski V, Basri R, Singer A (2017). A survey of structure from motion. ACTA NUMER 26:305-364.
Paixão A, Resende R, Fortunato E (2018). Photogrammetry for digital reconstruction of railway ballast particles–a cost-efficient method. CONSTR BUILD MATER 191:963-76.
Peterman DJ, Barton CC (2017). Baculite 3d modeling: A new method for computing buoyancy, stability, and orientation with implications for ectocochleate cephalopod hydrostatics. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts 2017:PP11D-1063.
Reljić I, Dunder I, Seljan S (2019). Photogrammetric 3d scanning of physical objects: Tools and workflow. TEM J 8:383.
Remondino F (2003). From point cloud to surface: The modeling and visualization problem. ISPRS Archives 5:34.
Remondino F, El-Hakim S, Baltsavias E, Gruen A, van Gool L, Pateraki M (2005). Critical overview of image-based 3d modeling. Recording, Modeling and Visualization of Cultural Heritage, London, Taylor and Francis.
Reyno T, Marsden C, Wowk D (2018). Surface damage evaluation of honeycomb sandwich aircraft panels using 3d scanning technology. NDT E INT 97:11-9.
Statham N (2020). Use of photogrammetry in video games: A historical overview. GAMES CULT 15:289-307.
Stathopoulou E-K, Remondino F (2019). Semantic photogrammetry–boosting image-based 3d reconstruction with semantic labeling. ISPRS Archives 42:685-90.
Surmen HK, Arslan YZ (2021). Evaluation of various design concepts in passive ankle-foot orthoses using finite element analysis. ENG SCI TECHNOL INT J 24:1301-7.
Surmen K, Ortes F, Arslan YZ (2016). Design and production of subject specific insole using reverse engineering and 3d printing technology. INT J ENG SCI INVENT 5:11-5.
Villa C (2017). Forensic 3d documentation of skin injuries. IJLM 131:751-9.
Wang Q, Ye X, Wang S, Sloan SW, Sheng D (2018). Use of photo-based 3d photogrammetry in analysing the results of laboratory pressure grouting tests. ACTA GEOTECH 13:1129-40.
Xu J, Ding L, Love PE (2017). Digital reproduction of historical building ornamental components: From 3d scanning to 3d printing. AUTOMAT CONSTR 76:85-96.
Ziegler R, Matusik W, Pfister H, McMillan L (2003). 3d reconstruction using labeled image regions. SGP 248-59.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Hasan Kemal Surmen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
