An Enhanced Methodology for Creating Digital Twins within a Paleontological Museum Using Photogrammetry and Laser Scanning Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- ''Unveiling the Past in Three Dimensions'', this sentences suggested to be removed rom the title

- abstract should be in passive sound, so please remove we

- the final outcome has to be clearly stated in the abstract

- from line 55 the idea explanation of the project need to be detailed and expand, the authors also may need to review the concept of UNESCO digital heritage 

- from line 81 to 85 suggested to be removed as it is already clear from the manuscript 

- the abilities of the educational part in not clear and needs to be consolidated

- clear explanation of the methodology is required

- in figure 5 the steps ends with point cloud producing while another stage has to be performed in order to digitize the cloud and produce an educational model, so please clarify

- please separate the discussion from conclusion and enrich both to reveal the final outcome and future consideration clearly

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your effort in revising our manuscript. We really appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. In what follows, we try to address all the points raised in the review. The manuscript is now substantially improved after making the suggested edits.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

While the journal Heritage covers both cultural and natural heritage, this article is described in a way that is confusing. The authors describe the revolutions that this article relates to within the "cultural heritage field," but all of case studies given as well as the research compared with others is Paleontological natural heritage. There are no actual cultural heritage examples studied. The 3-D research methods are techniques that can have applications for both natural heritage objects (like fossils) and cultural heritage artifacts.

Revisions addressing these issues are needed. Moreover, because the article starts off from the incorrect beginning of cultural heritage resources, it is missing the previous literature that needs to be reviewed for natural heritage resources. One such example that comes to mind is Natural History: Heritage, Place, and Politics by Ross J. Wilson (Routledge, 2018). Another is The Nature of Cultural Heritage, and the Culture of Natural Heritage, by David Lowenthal and Kenneth Olwig (Routledge, 2013). There are, of course, others to investigate. Sustainable Heritage: Merging Environmental Conservation and Historic Preservation by B. Stiefel and A. Leifeste (Routledge, 2018) also have studies that can help bridge the gap between natural and cultural heritage studies.

The conclusion/findings will also need to be revised because of these recommended changes.

There are some occasional errors in grammar, etc. Please fix these.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your effort in revising our manuscript. We really appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. In what follows, we try to address all the points raised in the review. The manuscript is now substantially improved after making the suggested edits.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well-written and addresses a useful topic. However, it appears to this reviewer to be very superficial and lacks adequate granularity. It is almost as if it were an introductory chapter to a more detailed discussion. Since Chapter 4 is referenced, this may be the case. I can only assess the current content, and while it is perfectly adequate, it lacks detail and covers a topic that is well covered elsewhere in the literature. The authors indicate that the effort is innovative, but, based on what is presented, this is not evident. It may be that this chapter has merit when seen in the larger volume content, but as a stand-alone document, I would not recommend its publication. Again - I emphasize that this is a "stand-alone" evaluation and, as a part of a larger volume, might have merit.

I have a few editorial comments

Line 120-FF, the text’s verbs alternate between present and past tenses though dealing with the same project. These should be made consistent.

 

Line 172. Up to this point in the text,  the project acronym has been V-PaLM - in this sentence, it is all lowercase. Note that in the caption for Table 1 it is V-Palm as it is in later sections of there paper. This should be made consistent.

 

Line 265. This article refers to content in a different chapter.  I assume (?) The systems' technical capabilities (resolution, density, precision) are discussed. Such details are essential for the reader.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your effort in revising our manuscript. We really appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. In what follows, we try to address all the points raised in the review. The manuscript is now substantially improved after making the suggested edits.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The subject of the article is interesting, although there is already a large literature on the subject. There are numerous articles describing different digitization methodologies based on the combined use of photogrammetry and laser or structured light scanners.

In the pdf I have introduced different comments about different aspects reflected in it. Below, I highlight some general issues that I think it is important to bear in mind.

There is significant confusion in the article regarding the technology of one of the scanners used in the paper, referring to it as a laser scanner when it is a structured light scanner. This should be corrected throughout the text, as it is repeated on multiple occasions.

In the Related work section, several relatively recent works are discussed, but they are not the most significant in relation to the subject. A more exhaustive review should be carried out and more relevant works should be identified.

In this section it is also essential to talk about structured light scanners, as this is one of the technologies used.

Despite the interest of the subject, the proposed methodology does not seem very novel and needs to be better explained in different aspects, among them:

     -  Why do you choose Scan-in-a-box instead of other models of structured light scanner? What are the advantages of this model?

      -   It is not explained what the optimization of the models consists of beyond the reduction of polygons. Are normal maps obtained to represent the fine detail captured by the scanners or do they only consist of the color texture in a low polygon mesh? In that case, would it not have been sufficient to use photogrammetry to digitize the objects for dissemination?

    -  Are the point clouds from the scanners mixed with those obtained from the photographic images, and to what extent does this affect the accuracy of the meshes obtained? Why not simply project the color texture of the photogrammetric model onto the scanned mesh?

     -    What are the advantages of Meshlab over Metashape in the performance of the operations carried out, the latter being able to perform several of them?

     -   There is a general lack of data on the technical specifications of the devices used (scanners, cameras, mobile phones, etc.).

     -   It is not specified what kind of contributors have provided data through crowdfunding.

    -    Problems that arise during scanning are mentioned, but not how they have been solved. Specifically, problems with lighting, location of artefacts, etc.

 

On the other hand, I see some important lack of information regarding the results:

- There are no images of the models obtained or of those already optimized. There are only images of the process. Figures with some examples of final models shown with and without texture should be included to also assess the quality of the polygonal mesh.

- What range of polygons did the optimized meshes have for dissemination?

- Finally, a link to the 3D model platform, if it is accessible online, or at least a figure showing what it looks like, explaining a bit more about its features, would be highly recommended.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your effort in revising our manuscript. We really appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. In what follows, we try to address all the points raised in the review. The manuscript is now substantially improved after making the suggested edits.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper looks a lot better. Thank you for revising.

Some minor copy-editing still needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments. 

Reviewer 4 Report

.