3D Model Acquisition and Image Processing for the Virtual Musealization of the Spezieria di Santa Maria della Scala, Rome

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting as a case study. There is no innovative aspect in the paper, but it is clearly presented. The Virtual Tour is short but fine. I have received now the images and I congratulate the authors, as they are excellent.

Author Response

We appreciate the comments of the reviewer

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very "updated" thematic and very interesting beacuse of the combination between intangible and tangible ressources.

I am not a specialist on technical issues related to digitalisation and virtualisation of assets, so for me in some parts there was a very complex narrative.

However it is a very enriching article and a very important work that is being developped. I would like to congratulate the team and the work achieved till now. Small things to check only.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's comments.
English has been revised.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper submitted by the Authors presents the results achieved within the project “Roma Hispana. Nuevas tecnologías aplicadas al estudio histórico, la musealización y la puesta en valor de Patrimonio Cultural español en Roma: la spezieria di Santa Maria della Scala”, which aims at the investigation, musealization and communication of cultural heritage, both material and non-material, of this historical apothecary, by investigating chemistry, physics and cultural aspects via innovative 3-D technologies and Artificial Intelligence. In addition, the paper presents the application of an ENEA laser scanner/photogrammetry prototype to create a navigable virtual tour of the different rooms and objects in the apothecary.

The manuscript clearly details an activity related to musealization and remote usability of both small objects and the 3-D space in which these are located. The presentation object is definitely included in open research topics.

As regards the scientific content, the results of the paper may not be replicated based on data included in the “Methods” section: in paragraph 2, “Materials and methods” (page 7), the section describing surveying methodologies and the related integration lacks appears to be lacking crucial information, namely the details of the photogrammetry project, the Ground Sample Distance value, the kind and make of lens(es) used, and the precision of the 3-D point cloud photogrammetry model.

In paragraph 2.2, “EASD-València & Universitat de València digital acquisition systems” (page 10), I advise to add explanatory block diagrams providing workflow outlines. At page 11, line 250 details on the meshing procedure followed should be included as well.

In paragraph 3, “Results” (page 12), the reference at Figures 2 and 3 is seemingly incongruous with the reference at Figure 9 in the same line 286. At page 14 (lines 312-314), the quality of the photogrammetry model is expressed by a qualitative (“detailed model”), rather than quantitative, judgment, with no indication of metric values.

Finally, the only research contents related to AI application in the case study are only found as hints to possible future developments: for this reason, I suggest to move this part to the “Conclusions” paragraph.

Author Response

1. The paper submitted by the Authors presents the results achieved within the project “Roma Hispana. Nuevas tecnologías aplicadas al estudio histórico, la musealización y la puesta en valor de Patrimonio Cultural español en Roma: la spezieria di Santa Maria della Scala”, which aims at the investigation, musealization and communication of cultural heritage, both material and non-material, of this historical apothecary, by investigating chemistry, physics and cultural aspects via innovative 3-D technologies and Artificial Intelligence. In addition, the paper presents the application of an ENEA laser scanner/photogrammetry prototype to create a navigable virtual tour of the different rooms and objects in the apothecary.

The manuscript clearly details an activity related to musealization and remote usability of both small objects and the 3-D space in which these are located. The presentation object is definitely included in open research topics.

As regards the scientific content, the results of the paper may not be replicated based on data included in the “Methods” section: in paragraph 2, “Materials and methods” (page 7), the section describing surveying methodologies and the related integration lacks appears to be lacking crucial information, namely the details of the photogrammetry project, the Ground Sample Distance value, the kind and make of lens(es) used, and the precision of the 3-D point cloud photogrammetry model.

REPLY

Concerning the kind and make of lens used in the RGB-ITR laser scanner (paragraph 2, “Materials and methods”) the following correction was made:

Page 9, line 11 from the top: changed the sentence “The laser beam is then focused on the target……” by the sentence “The laser beam is then focused on the target by means of a 40mm-focal-length, diffraction-limited, achromatic lens (Melles-Griot LAL-011)……”.

Another correction has been made in the paragraph 2 “Materials and methods”. The correction is the following:

Page 7, line 15 from the top: changed “4ҩm” into “4mm”.

Page 9, line 42 at the end of the sentence “In this case 3D photogrammetry was used for the reconstruction of the old wooden closet utilized to host the drugstore spices there located” has been added the following: “for fruition purposes” to specify that the described reconstruction was carried out without the required parameters for a quantitative analysis.

Page 9, line 49 after the sentence “Fuji X-T20 camera, equipped with an APS-C sensor with 24 Megapixel” added the following: “with XF18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS lenses configured with 18 mm Focal length”.

2. In paragraph 2.2, “EASD-València & Universitat de València digital acquisition systems” (page 10), I advise to add explanatory block diagrams providing workflow outlines. At page 11, line 250 details on the meshing procedure followed should be included as well.

REPLY

Details of the meshing process have been included

3. In paragraph 3, “Results” (page 12), the reference at Figures 2 and 3 is seemingly incongruous with the reference at Figure 9 in the same line 286. At page 14 (lines 312-314), the quality of the photogrammetry model is expressed by a qualitative (“detailed model”), rather than quantitative, judgment, with no indication of metric values.

REPLY

Concerning the reference at Figures 2 and 3 that is seemingly incongruous with the reference at Figure 9 (paragraph 3, “Results”, page 12), the following corrections were made:

Page 12, at the end of the page: changed “Figure 2” into “Figure 9”;

Page 12, at the end of the page: changed “Figure 3” into “Figure 10”.

Some other corrections have been made in the paragraph 3 “Results”. The corrections are the following:

Page 12, line 5 of the paragraph 3 “Results”: changed “2,5m” into “2.5m”;

Page 13, last line before Figure 9: changed the sentence “clearly visible in the lower left part of the model (Figure 9 right)” by the sentence “clearly visible in the lower right part of the model (Figure 9 left)”;

Page 13, caption of Figure 9: changed all the caption, i.e. changed the caption “The closet 3D model of the opened cast obtained with Blender. © ENEA.” by the caption “High-resolution 3D color model of the sales room obtained by RGB-ITR system (October 2021). Left: view looking at ceiling, wall in front of the entrance one and right wall with venom cabinet. Right: view looking at ceiling and entrance wall. © ENEA.”;

Page 14, caption of Figure 10: changed all the caption, i.e. changed the caption “The closet 3D model of the opened cast obtained with Blender. © ENEA.” by the caption “Left: RGB-ITR image of a small area of the venom cabinet of the sales room. Right: detail of the frescoed ceiling of the sales room obtained by RGB-ITR raw data. © ENEA.”.

Concerning the reference about the photogrammetric model: as stated before, the aim of this model is just for fruition purposes and no detailed and quantitative quality evaluation was carried out. The “detailed” it refers to a macro elements exam. It has been suppressed.

4. Finally, the only research contents related to AI application in the case study are only found as hints to possible future developments: for this reason, I suggest to move this part to the “Conclusions” paragraph.

REPLY

On line 336 of page 14 it has been indicated that the work of the International Thesaurus and the Web is currently in progress. References to both (AI) are included in conclusions.

In this same sense, and following the reviewer's suggestion, the contents of lines 345-351 have been removed from this section: “The user who soon accesses the Virtual Museum of Santa Maria della Scala will be able to enter the back room space, open the cabinet and select one of its boxes, action that will display its 3D model and the opening of an information box that will gather the etymological, historical and socio-cultural data of the substance and/or drug that was preserved there, which will be registered in the International Thesaurus and Semantic Web on " Materia Medica" which is currently under construction, using Artificial Intelligence”

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents a report of the research applied on the case study of the spezieria of Santa Maria della Scala in Rome using photogrammetric technique and a laser scanner prototype for the creation of a virtual tour and 3D models. The paper is fluid and well-structured: the first part of the paper starts with a brief introduction, followed by a review of state-of-the-art research on the topic. After that, the proposed method is deeply presented and finally the results are discussed. The workflow is well-defined and described and it presents promising results. For this reason, I support the publication of this paper.

Author Response

We appreciate the comments of the reviewer

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

 Accept in present form