Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Assesses micro-photogrammetry accuracy in various artworks, suggesting practical applications for heritage documentation.
Portable digital microscopy (PDM) has become standard equipment in archaeological and restoration campaigns. In recent years, several studies have proposed combining PDM and micro-photogrammetry for preliminary documentation and in situ three-dimensional (3D) digitization, testing its applicability on a variety of materials and artifacts, including stone, bone, mural paintings, and small jewelry. However, limited data is available on its use with some of the most common types of artworks, such as paintings on canvas and wooden panels. In this study, the performance of micro-photogrammetry using a Dino-Lite digital microscope (Dino-Lite Europe, Almere, The Netherlands) was evaluated on five representative artistic materials: metal, stone, and paintings, including mural, canvas, and panel works. Textured mesh models were generated from the acquired datasets, and the quality of the 3D reconstruction was assessed through analysis of dense cloud confidence and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) accuracy. The metrical reliability of the micro-photogrammetric results was validated by comparing the 3D data obtained with the digital microscope against height measurements acquired using an optical microprofilometer. The results indicate that the performance of the method is strongly influenced by the physical properties of the substrates examined. Accurate and metrically consistent reconstructions were achieved for matte and textured surfaces (e.g., fresco and stone), whereas significant limitations emerged on dark or glossy painted surfaces, such as canvas and panel paintings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Porcu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: