3D Documentation and Visualization of Cultural Heritage Buildings through the Application of Geospatial Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study explores the best way to visualize cultural heritage utilizing cutting-edge vision-based documentation technologies. The article is interesting. The reviewer has two comments.

It would be better for the readers if the authors prepared a table (it can be shared in the appendix or within the text), including the list of acronyms/abbreviations (CH, MR, HTC Vive) given in the article and their corresponding open names next to them. It will help readers to follow the text.

Also, explain in a paragraph how conservation and structural engineers can utilize this tool during structural analysis. Although the authors highlight this aspect a little bit, a more comprehensive discussion about this subject would enhance the impact of the study.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

This study explores the best way to visualize cultural heritage utilizing cutting-edge vision-based documentation technologies. The article is interesting. The reviewer has two comments.

COMMENT#1 It would be better for the readers if the authors prepared a table (it can be shared in the appendix or within the text), including the list of acronyms/abbreviations (CH, MR, HTC Vive) given in the article and their corresponding open names next to them. It will help readers to follow the text.

ANSWER#1 Corrected, an appendix with the acronyms/abbreviations has been added to the end of the article

COMMENT#2 Also, explain in a paragraph how conservation and structural engineers can utilize this tool during structural analysis. Although the authors highlight this aspect a little bit, a more comprehensive discussion about this subject would enhance the impact of the study.

ANSWER#2 The MERGIN’MODE tool to which the comment refers, focuses on providing visual representations of the monuments’ previous state and is not intended to support conservation and structural engineers during structural analysis. However, these visualisations could prove to be helpful for conservation work as they provide accurate 3D models but as said the main purpose is to provide audiences with an optimal understanding of how they looked in the past and render such sites more interesting for visitors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is quite interesting although not particularly original. The description is rather generic. Perhaps the authors could concentrate mostly on the second part, leaving out the part relating to the acquisition which, in fact, is the least original. In my opinion the author should stress more the methodology than the procedural aspects. From the point of view of the archaeological survey, the results do not appear satisfactory: the vector drawings of the Ottoman Soap Factory in Lod are definitely summary. Finally, the abstract refers to one case study while the paper talks about two different case studies.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

The work is quite interesting although not particularly original. The description is rather generic. 

COMMENT#1 Perhaps the authors could concentrate mostly on the second part, leaving out the part relating to the acquisition which, in fact, is the least original. In my opinion, the author should stress more the methodology than the procedural aspects. 

ANSWER#1 We refrained from expending too much on methodology, especially with regard to MERGIN’MODE as the main purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the technological solutions that will bring to life historical monuments and given the fact that said Methodology is presented in detail in the publications to which this article refers.

 

COMMENT#2 From the point of view of the archaeological survey, the results do not appear satisfactory: the vector drawings of the Ottoman Soap Factory in Lod are definitely summarized. 

ANSWER#2 Given the nature of this monument and its current state the main goal of the survey was to facilitate the documentation and the restoration work.

 

COMMENT#3 Finally, the abstract refers to one case study while the paper talks about two different case studies.

ANSWER#3 Corrected

This paper aims to present two case studies of digital documentation through laser scanning and photogrammetry that lead to the structural reinforcement and preservation of the one-site and to digital reconstruction and a mixed reality platform for the second site.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion the title promises more than what is described in the article. Some points seems to be more an advertisement of the software products used for reaching the results. The bibliography is really poor and doesn’t consider studies also on laser scanner prototypes, like for example research made in ENEA (Italy), which take into account the problem of resolution and environmental light with one instrument. In general the article has to be improved for highlighting the holistic approach and present the results as an article and not a manual.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

COMMENT#1 In my opinion the title promises more than what is described in the article. Some points seems to be more an advertisement of the software products used for reaching the results.

ANSWER#1 The title has been changed. The new title is Bringing cultural heritage buildings back to life through the implementation of digital technologies. Moreover, we rephrased the section introducing the software/application (Merginmode) to make clear that this digital system (which is free source and not commercial) is presented as an outcome of research published by some of the authors of the present article. This should alleviate the sense that the aim was to advertise a product as we effectively communicate research results in a specific context.

 

COMMENT#2 The bibliography is really poor and doesn’t consider studies also on laser scanner prototypes, like for example research made in ENEA (Italy), which takes into account the problem of the resolution and environmental light with one instrument.

ANSWER#2 The bibliography has been enriched. The following references have been added:

• Digital Roman Forum - IDRE Sandbox – UCLA, https://sandbox.idre.ucla.edu/sandbox/digital-roman-forum
• Digital cultural heritage in education – a tool to navigate difficult times, https://pro.europeana.eu/post/digital-cultural-heritage-in-education-a-tool-to-navigate-difficult-times
• Bustillo, A., Alaguero, M., Miguel, I., Saiz, J.M., Iglesias, L.S. (2015). A flexible platform for the creation of 3D semi-immersive environments to teach Cultural Heritage. In Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 2, 248-259.
• Ceccarelli, S., Guarneri, M., Ferri de Collibus, M., Francucci, M., Ciaffi, M., & Danielis, A. (2018). Laser Scanners for High-Quality 3D and IR Imaging in Cultural Heritage Monitoring and Documentation. In Journal of Imaging (Vol. 4, Issue 11, p. 130). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging4110130
• Abate, D., Baracca, M.C., Ciavarella, R., Furini, G., Migliori S., & Pierattini, S. (2009). Laser Scanner Technologies and 3D Models Integration: Analysis and Methodological Approach, Final Workshop of the Grid Projects of the Italian National Operational Programme 2000-2006 Call 1575, ISBN: 978-88-95892-02-3, https://www.eneagrid.enea.it/papers_presentations/papers/Proceedings_Workshop_FinalePONCatania2009.pdf
• Bekele, M. K., Pierdicca, R., Frontoni, E., Malinverni, E. S., & Gain, J. (2018). A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 11(2), 1–36. doi:10.1145/3145534
• Nikolakopoulou, V., Printezis, P., Maniatis, V., Kontizas, D., Vosinakis, S., Chatzigrigoriou, P., & Koutsabasis, P. (2022). Conveying Intangible Cultural Heritage in Museums with Interactive Storytelling and Projection Mapping: The Case of the Mastic Villages. In Heritage (Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 1024–1049). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5020056Rafael, Y. The history of the Land of Israel from prehistoric times to the rise of the 19th century. Rappel, Joel, 1946.

 

COMMENT#3 In general the article has to be improved for highlighting the holistic approach and presenting the results as an article and not a manual.

ANSWER#3 The article has been significantly improved as it includes a more comprehensive bibliography and discussion of pertinent examples and practices.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The article is too much unbalanced between the two case studies: while the second case study “An Ottoman bath in Apollonia, Greece” is well set in the whole scientific chain from acquisition to virtual reconstruction and coherently develops the title of the article, the first case study “The site of an Ottoman Soap Factory in Lod, Israel” is strictly limited only to the initial part of the site documentation and does not develop the title of the article. Furthermore, the textual description in paragraph 3.3 “Results” and fig. Figure 4. “Planning of scan stations and targets” indicate that the case study “The site of an Ottoman Soap Factory in Lod, Israel” was detected using an incorrect procedure.

2. On page 9 in 4.2. “Materials and methods” the passage long 16 lines: "MERGIN 'MODE (MixEd Reality and GeoINformatics for MOnument Demonstra-tion, merginmode.com), is a Cultural Information System aiming to demonstrate monu-ments by merging real with virtual ... to produce a mixed reality that will enhance the cultural experience of the visitors. " is copied from the site https://merginmode.com/ without having explicitly mentioned the quotation.

3. The REFERENCES :

- The number of references does not seem to be in line with the journal's quality standard regarding the references that usually accompany “Heritage” articles due the article in review is 14 pages long and has only 12 references. For example, the last three articles published on the site have a length respectively equal to: pp. 14 and 45 ref. (River Beaches in Russian Cities: Examples of Soviet Legacy), pp. 19 and 39 ref. (Impact of Location, Gender and Previous Experience on User Evaluation of Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: The Mjällby Crucifix Case Study), 14 pp. and 21 ref. (Modeling Chemical Tests and Fiber Identification of Paper Materials Using Principal Component Analysis and Specular Reflection FTIR Data).

- Autocitations: only 6 references of total 12 NOT relate to one or more authors of the article.

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

COMMENT#1. The article is too much unbalanced between the two case studies: while the second case study “An Ottoman bath in Apollonia, Greece” is well set in the whole scientific chain from acquisition to virtual reconstruction and coherently develops the title of the article, the first case study “The site of an Ottoman Soap Factory in Lod, Israel” is strictly limited only to the initial part of the site documentation and does not develop the title of the article. Furthermore, the textual description in paragraph 3.3 “Results” and fig. Figure 4. “Planning of scan stations and targets” indicate that the case study “The site of an Ottoman Soap Factory in Lod, Israel” was detected using an incorrect procedure.

ANSWER#1 Corrections have been made according to the reviewer’s comments. Please see the text of the resubmitted article.

 

COMMENT#2. On page 9 in 4.2. “Materials and methods” the passage long 16 lines: "MERGIN 'MODE (MixEd Reality and GeoINformatics for MOnument Demonstra-tion, merginmode.com), is a Cultural Information System aiming to demonstrate monu-ments by merging real with virtual ... to produce a mixed reality that will enhance the cultural experience of the visitors. " is copied from the site https://merginmode.com/ without having explicitly mentioned the quotation.

ANSWER#2 The text has been changed

As mentioned in merginmode.com “MERGIN’ MODE (MixEd Reality and GeoINformatics for MOnument Demonstration), is a Cultural Information System aiming to demonstrate monuments by merging real with virtual, in a Mixed Reality, assisted by Geoinformation technologies”  [14].

 

COMMENT#3. The REFERENCES :

- The number of references does not seem to be in line with the journal's quality standard regarding the references that usually accompany “Heritage” articles due the article in review is 14 pages long and has only 12 references. For example, the last three articles published on the site have a length respectively equal to: pp. 14 and 45 ref. (River Beaches in Russian Cities: Examples of Soviet Legacy), pp. 19 and 39 ref. (Impact of Location, Gender and Previous Experience on User Evaluation of Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: The Mjällby Crucifix Case Study), 14 pp. and 21 ref. (Modeling Chemical Tests and Fiber Identification of Paper Materials Using Principal Component Analysis and Specular Reflection FTIR Data).

- Autocitations: only 6 references of a total of 12 do NOT relate to one or more authors of the article.

ANSWER#3 Corrected the bibliography has been enriched.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The article is well but is very centered on the technical issues and how good materials and methods can be important to heritage safeguard and revitalization because they make more evident the use and quality of the records and surveys conducted around heritage. I don't have any great amendments to do but I would like to see more on the immersive cultural experience for the visitor of the place. Or the ruin will continue to be a ruin...

The importance of this mixed reality to bring back to life will always need to have people visiting them, so the visitor experience is important and there are already well-documented articles on this issue. At least some remarks on that could appear for further future discussion.

Author Response

REVIEWER 5

COMMENT#1 The article is well but is very centered on the technical issues and how good materials and methods can be important to heritage safeguard and revitalization because they make more evident the use and quality of the records and surveys conducted around heritage. I don't have any great amendments to do but I would like to see more on the immersive cultural experience for the visitor of the place. Or the ruin will continue to be a ruin...

 

ANSWER#1 A relevant sector has been added to section 2. Literature review

COMMENT#2 The importance of this mixed reality to bring back to life will always need to have people visiting them, so the visitor experience is important and there are already well-documented articles on this issue. At least some remarks on that could appear for further future discussion.

ANSWER#2 A relevant sector has been added to section 2. Literature review

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved and clarified better the overall article. Now it is more clear the entire job, the efforts for reaching the goals and the future perspective. In some parts it is still too much similar at a report than a scientific paper, but it is however a good resource for who works in this field.

I think it should be better to remove fig.10.

It's not clear if figures 18 and 19 refer to the present work (so the 3D environment refer to a reconstruction of the two cited sites) or if they are just generic examples of further developments. If it is the last, please remove one of the two figures and explain better the caption.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have removed fig.10.

We have removed figure 19 and we have explained better the relevant caption.