Immersive Photographic Environments as Interactive Repositories for Preservation, Data Collection and Dissemination of Cultural Assets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your work!
I would recommend a more coherent and foregrounded discussion of the resource question(s) in the introduction. In terms of contribution, I would also recommend further specifying upfront whether this is a novel application of VR for archaeological sites. If this is an application, but not unique, what can we learn from it that advances the cultural heritage community? I write this as an archivist who could benefit from greatly clarity on whether this is a unique application or one that we are seeing used more broadly particularly as a consequence of COVID-19, which you describe as notable to the digitization efforts).
I would be mindful of providing further definition of terms. For example, I would recommend defining the term "digitization" for your audience. Are you adopting a broad meaning of "to digitize" -- for example, "to transform analog information into digital form" (SAA, https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/digitize.html). Many of us many have a connotation with digitization -- the use of scanning or photography to create digital captures of an analog object. Is there a meaning we should keep in mind as we read your paper? If I understand the application of VR in this context, the goal would be to replicate an experience and environment, rather than digitization for the purpose of preservation and access to information content.
Similarly, the term "information container" needs definition. This term suggests, for me, a package with software, documentation, and files reliant on that software , but I am unclear whether it means this in the context of this paper (see line 61, when this phrase is introduced).
Selection of site: Thank you for providing context for the selection of the site. You write (lines 114-116): "This building was chosen as a case study to assess the potential for interaction between a rapid acquisition, which aims to generate the virtual experience, and the detailed archaeological analysis of the monument." Can you provide clarity about the meaning of the phrase "rapid acquisition"? I am in archives/libraries and this lack of understanding may be a result of not being trained in archaeology, but this meaning (and the sentence as a consequence) is unclear to me.
Line 40: "actively participating in the cultural offer" --> I am unclear on the meaning of "cultural offer"
Lines 71-73 --> I am having some difficulty fully understanding this sentence. If I understand it currently, you are suggesting that closed archeological sites can be similarly impactful to the public's learning as museums. Is this what you are maintaining here? And what does "take a back seat" mean in this context?
Line 78 --> "postposes future investments" --> postpones?
Lines 102-148 provide a rich discussion of the Abellinum as a space. I do note, however, that some of this context and the arrangement (the location of the termae versus the domnus, for example) is not referenced or returned to as we move through the discussion of the use of the digitization technology. This raises the question for me as to whether this description is fundamental detail for the paper.
Line 155: What does "Communities" refer to here? The general public?
As with the above discussion of the novel nature of VR and archaeological sites, was your use of equipment/method for collection novel? Will this method itself advance other project teams' ability to engage in similar documentation efforts? I think a bit more work needs to be done to communicate what the broader community can learn and emulate from your work. As it stands, this is a helpful discussion of your process, but the significance of the process and the novelty of VR for the broader community need some further work.
Are there limitations? Sites best suited? Conditions that are needed? Who should this documentation work fall to? Working archeologists? Cultural heritage agencies? And who should steward this documentation? These are some questions that the paper surfaced for me.
Author Response
Thank you for your reviews.
Before answering point by point, the authors premise that, as the abstract introduces, the paper focuses on the methodological process of the realization of high-resolution 360-degree photographs which, thanks to current management and implementation tools, can constitute a valid alternative for the digitisation of architectural space and its information sharing.
The aim of the authors is to focus on the methods and tools used, rather than on the impact of the tools themselves. In spite of this, we have attempted to integrate your observations and enrich the text.
We will expand the "Discussion" paragraph as suggested with more extensive considerations precisely regarding the questions highlighted in the intro and in your review.
Regarding if this is a novel app: this technology was intuited and commercialised by Google's Street View application back in 2007, providing mobile and desktop customers with a virtual reality environment in which users can virtually explore streets and cities [Bakirman & Gumusay, 2020]. So, discussing 360° photography is nothing new. Nevertheless, since this service does not provide specific information on the sites, what is new is the way in which , 360° photography can be exploited today, in relation to VR applications for the remote scientific content based knowledge of sites, certainly also archaeological sites.
Regarding the meaning of the term "digitization": The term ‘digitization’ can be interpreted in its general sense of a "transformation of analogue signals into digital pieces", as Maxwell and MacCain stated [Maxwell & MacCain, 1997]. Nevertheless, this definition seems to be anachronistic today and, while still valid in its generality, it should be emphasised that digitization is the most significant on-going transformation of contemporary society, bringing added value to the whole economy and society [Reis et al., 2020].
Regarding the meaning of the term "information container": VT is a tool in the knowledge process. Indeed, it offers the possibility of storing and managing a large amount of information in different formats, allocated in a photographic immersive environment. It is therefore an implementable container in which information is verified and validated from a scientific point of view by technical specialists.
Regarding the meaning of the term "rapid acquisition": in the introduction it was pointed out that the creation of a digital model of the archaeological space can be accomplished with different tools, more or less expensive in terms of both time and money. Fast acquisition means a fast procedure of acquiring the raw data. Speed also has a number of advantages from the point of view of safety: sites are often unsafe and the less time it takes to acquire the data, the less risk there is for the operator.
Line 40 --> Regarding the meaning of the term "Cultural offer": it refers to all those interventions implemented to support the dissemination and knowledge of cultural heritage.
Lines 71-73 --> It is suggested that VT can also have a positive impact on archaeological sites that are little or not at all accessible, and through the contributions it conveys, it can support, as it does in museums with didactic and informative apparatus, the learning and dissemination of knowledge.
Lines 102-148 --> Currently, the virtualization is focused on a small part of the archaeological area, the so-called domus area, while waiting for excavations to continue and bring to light the still-buried structures of the ancient settlement. In fact, it is currently possible to appreciate only the vestiges of road and terracing infrastructures, defensive structures and a domus located in the north-eastern portion of the original site.
Line 155 --> the general public, above all, by people who live in the proximity of the site and who can benefit and advantage from these places in terms of knowledge, culture and ultimately quality of life.
Regarding the novel nature of VR app: as stated before it is a new application of an existing technology, depending on the specificity of the individual archaeological site. There are very few examples in Italy of virtual tours being used as information containers (usually simple websites with static images are generated as the possibility of having an immersive experience is not yet widespread) and only the pandemic emergency has brought these opportunities to light again.
About the last questions: very interesting questions that can be answered by expanding the discussion paragraph. They will be very helpful in improving the content.
Best regards,
the authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Very interesting paper, and in light of covid difficulties of accessing heritage sites in person, raises some timely issues.
I would like to know more about the ethical issues noted in the opening paragraph and thereafter largely neglected; ethical issues around heritage are multiple and tricky and need due attention. Digital heritage is a newer area and we are still feeling our way with ethics, but this does need to be directly addressed (even if you can't always offer solutions or ethical answers).
Similarly, a more nuanced consideration of 'public' and 'visitors' would be welcome. Don't assume they are the same, and don't assume they are monolithic.
These are the two areas where I think more background and discussion would be useful for readers. You are clearly very knowledgeable about the site itself (which sounds very interesting) and the digital recording and display elements, but don't overlook these really important aspects of heritage work. Inclusivity is something else to consider - large parts of the world still don't have 24 hour electricity or reliable internet, or the means to buy and use hardware; what does this type of project mean to such communities? Are they part of the 'public' you want to reach? I realise that no single project can do everything for all communities and publics, but just showing an awareness of limitations and all the issues that come with limitations is useful.
Author Response
Thank you for your reviews.
The paper focuses on the methodological process of the realisation of high-resolution 360-degree photographs which, thanks to current management and implementation tools, can constitute a valid alternative for the digitisation of heritage space and its information sharing. This is why the paper focuses on the methods and tools used, rather than on the ethical issues: this is intended to leave the debate about the ethics of the reproducibility of the heritage in digital to those in charge.
Regarding the public and the visitor: certainly the attitudes of the general public differ from those of a visitor, but in this case the tool is versatile and can meet the interests of both. Pop culture is riding the VR trend and this application offers this opportunity. So even just from a popularity point of view it can be considered as an attractor.
The VT can be interpreted as a corpus of knowledge that can be communicated and enjoyed with agility through the use of new technologies, both by expert users and by the general public, above all, by people who live in the proximity of the site and who can benefit and advantage from these places in terms of knowledge, culture and ultimately quality of life.
We will certainly evaluate the final aspects you highlithed in the end of your review, so that the "Discussion"paragraph will be improved, trying to highlight the pros and cons in more detail.
Best regards,
the authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The article entitled "Immersive photographic environments as interactive repositories for preservation, data collection and dissemination of cultural assets" implemented as part of the project “Abellinum. Piano per la conoscenza, la tutela e la valorizzazione dell'antico centro irpino ”describes the chosen research area in great detail. In addition, the authors focus very strongly on the detailed description of the photo history, up to 360-degree photos. In addition, the authors describe in great detail the equipment and the process of taking photos. The choice of camera and lens parameters is not supported by other studies, nor is it in dispute with other studies. There are a lot of subjective choices and statements in the article, not supported by any scientific evidence. In the discussion section, there is no discussion, not even a single reference to literature. The conclusion section of the two paragraphs adds nothing to the article. The article has a very low scientific level. Literature selection very poorly internationalized.
Author Response
The authors thank, however more specific comments would have been appreciated to improve the work.
Trying to answer point by point to this review:
"The choice of camera and lens parameters is not supported by otherstudies, nor is it in dispute with other studies..."---> these methodological choices are supported by the theory of photography, descriptive geometry, topographic statements and many others transdisciplinary scientific based studies, assumptions that the authors do not report because are nowadays widely known and familiar to the community. We can certainly implement the references on this if deemed necessary, but the paper is not a review.
"In the discussion section, there is nodiscussion, not even a single reference to literature..."---> The final paragraphs will certainly be expanded.
Regards,
the authors
Reviewer 4 Report
1-It will be better In the abstract section, the purpose and importance of the study should be mentioned clearly.
2- Materials and Methods
what is camera calibration parameteres ? it should be mention importance of calibration and calibration parameters shpuld be given in this section
3-I can advice some referances to improve introduction section.
Bakirman, T. & Gumusay, M. U. (2020). Integration of custom street view and low-cost motion sensors . International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences , 5 (2) , 66-72 . DOI: 10.26833/ijeg.589489
Al Kalbani, K. & Rahman, A. A. (2022). 3D city model for monitoring flash flood risks in Salalah, Oman . International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences , 7 (1) , 17-23 . DOI: 10.26833/ijeg.857971
Doğan, Y. & Yakar, M. (2018). GIS and three-dimensional modeling for cultural heritages . International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences , 3 (2) , 50-55 . DOI: 10.26833/ijeg.378257
Author Response
Thank you for your reviews.
The paper focuses on the methodological process of the realisation of high-resolution 360-degree photographs which, thanks to current management and implementation tools, can constitute a valid alternative for the digitisation of heritage space and its information sharing.
We will be clearer in expressing the purpose of this application from the abstract section.
Regarding the camera calibration: it is known that in addition to a rigorous capture methodology, the effects of optical aberrations for conventional cameras also need to be evaluated for achieving a perfect joint of the images that compose a panorama. In order to correct optical distortions before stitching, Adobe Lens Correction filter was performed on the raw images: the software access to the Exif data of the images and matches it with presets from the Adobe database of cameras and lenses. This procedure can be considered acceptable today (the results have excellent RMS) due to the improvement of algorithms in recognizing homologous points, but it can also be more rigorous (if, for example, conducted in Hugin environment, Photomodeler with calibration pattern or others). We did not, therefore, investigate this aspect further.
Regarding the additional references: thank you for your suggestions, we have inserted 2/3 of them to improve the intro. They will be very helpful in improving the content.
Best regards,
the authors
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
Unfortunately not. There is no reference to the article or secondary literature in the conclusions. The conclusions are too short and do not add much to the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment.
The authors think there is a misunderstanding. Conclusions should be supported by the secondary literature (present in the discussion), not contain the aforementioned literature. In fact, the authors believe that the conclusions should be concise and should not mention again concepts already mentioned before.
Nevertheless, in order to improve the quality of the article and to accommodate all comments, the authors enriched the conclusions (including literature) as suggested. To prove this, from reference 37 to reference 52 is all secondary literature.
Regards
