Multi-Sensor Geomatic Techniques for the 3D Documentation and Virtual Repositioning of Elements of the Church of S. Miguel (Jaén, Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a pipeline for 3D survey and modelling of a church. Although the process is not new, the results are interesting but need to be improved.

The use of MMS is understandable but not clearly explained in the text, especially in cooperation with other instruments. 

the use of 360 camera is also clear but the results not specified or shown in the images: how well did these results integrate the other models? Did you have any problem integrating different models from different techniques or tools? how did you integrate the different models? it is not really explained (line 242-247 are not sufficient).

for the positioning of the original facade, how did you took the control points? how did you rototraslated the model? The paragraph  2.3. Procedures for repositioning  needs to be improved. It is mainly a list of things done to have the model positioned in a proper way but the passages are not clear and the paragraph lacks in critical issues. 

BIM, the procedure is not clearly described, nor the results. The images only show the final result. HOw did you im'lemented the 3D rality-based point cloud in Revit? Did you have any problems? How did you draw the 3D CAD model on which you applied the results?

How did you do the orthophotos, and how did you proceed to map the stratigraphy of the walls? Did you get any interesting information from this process?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs a minor check

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a pipeline for 3D survey and modelling of a church. Although the process is not new, the results are interesting but need to be improved.

Authors: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have improved the manuscript considering your review.

Reviewer #1: The use of MMS is understandable but not clearly explained in the text, especially in cooperation with other instruments.

Authors: We have improved the description of this issue. The MMS was used in specific zones where there were gaps in the data acquired with other techniques. As described in the text, point clouds obtained using MMS were aligned with the TLS cloud using Maptek Point Studio software (ICP algorithm).

Reviewer #1: the use of 360 camera is also clear but the results not specified or shown in the images: how well did these results integrate the other models? Did you have any problem integrating different models from different techniques or tools? how did you integrate the different models? it is not really explained (line 242-247 are not sufficient).

Authors: SP (360-degree camera) was used for texturing in cases where the other photogrammetric techniques showed gaps. Therefore, SP was not used to complete point cloud and consequently to define the geometry of the 3D model. The geometric aspect of the model was mainly defined by TLS and supported with UAV and CRP in areas not covered with by scanner. The integration of point clouds is explained in the text. We have improved this section following your suggestion. Thank you.

Reviewer #1: for the positioning of the original facade, how did you took the control points? how did you rototraslated the model? The paragraph  2.3. Procedures for repositioning  needs to be improved. It is mainly a list of things done to have the model positioned in a proper way but the passages are not clear and the paragraph lacks in critical issues.

Authors: We did not use control points for the repositioning. We used several geometries (planes) fitted to the point clouds of both the church and the façade. Using these common geometries, we obtained a 3D transformation, which was applied to the GCPs #2 and the 3D model of the façade. We have improved the description of this issue in the text. Thank you.

Reviewer #1: BIM, the procedure is not clearly described, nor the results. The images only show the final result. HOw did you im'lemented the 3D rality-based point cloud in Revit? Did you have any problems? How did you draw the 3D CAD model on which you applied the results?

Authors:  We have improved this paragraph to describe this procedure better. We encountered some problems in integrating the stratigraphy in the wall models. To solve this, we used a Dynamo script to automate this process. Thank you.

Reviewer #1: How did you do the orthophotos, and how did you proceed to map the stratigraphy of the walls? Did you get any interesting information from this process?

Authors: We have improved this paragraph to describe this procedure better. Orthophotos were obtained by orthorectification procedures using the projection plane of interest defined in each case. We used Metashape software to perform this procedure. After that, the stratigraphic units were digitized using Autocad software.

Reviewer #1: Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs a minor check

Authors: The manuscript has been reviewed by a native English speaker. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presented in this paper details the methodology and procedures carried out for the 3d documentation of an old church with the repositioning of architectural elements removed in the past and stored in different conditions.

The paper is well-structured, and easy to follow and the methodology described can be replicated. The equipment used while not being state-of-the-art was adequate for the purpose of the study and especially for the working conditions on-site.

The first part of the introduction has a good description of the state-of-the-art in the practice of 3D digitization of complex heritage spaces, especially narrow and inaccessible ones, by using uncommon lenses, poles, or UAVs.

The second part of the introduction describes the history and current state of conservation of the church with the procedure of dismantling and moving of the facade in the early 20th century in the Jaen Museum. 

The objectives of the study are clearly presented. The 3d documentation's scope was to generate a 3D model and a set of orthoimages. The original aspect restitution by integrating the 3d model of the facade into the church model was a secondary objective. While the third was to create a BIM-based on previous documentation data.

In Materials and methods section the arguments for the use of a multi-sensory set up are well-defined. 

In Table 1 at CRP line, the authors should check whether the Sony Alpha 6000 is indeed a pinhole camera.

The methodology schematics in Figure 3 are reasonably well described and easy to follow, and data acquisition procedures for both the church and the facade located in the museum are presented in sufficient detail.

At line 220 - "covering most of the object". perhaps objective, or subject.

At line 242 - The solution to use Maptek PointStudio v2023 was not argumented enough, in my opinion, in relation to other known programs for the data fusion of MMS TLS and photogrammetry (one of them already used for processing in this study).

At lines 287-290 should be looked over and maybe rewritten for clarity.

The virtual repositioning procedure is well explained.

The results are well presented while the texture quality of the 3D models (as seen in the provided video link) could be improved. But for the purpose of the study, the results are good.

The discussion section is very well structured between the geomatic methods and products. Perhaps Deliverables might be better suited, but Products is also fine. Both discussion points are well-argued and detailed.

The Conclusions section is consistent and relevant to the results and methodology presented.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presented in this paper details the methodology and procedures carried out for the 3d documentation of an old church with the repositioning of architectural elements removed in the past and stored in different conditions.

Authors: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have improved the manuscript considering your review.

Reviewer #2: The paper is well-structured, and easy to follow and the methodology described can be replicated. The equipment used while not being state-of-the-art was adequate for the purpose of the study and especially for the working conditions on-site.

The first part of the introduction has a good description of the state-of-the-art in the practice of 3D digitization of complex heritage spaces, especially narrow and inaccessible ones, by using uncommon lenses, poles, or UAVs.

The second part of the introduction describes the history and current state of conservation of the church with the procedure of dismantling and moving of the facade in the early 20th century in the Jaen Museum.

The objectives of the study are clearly presented. The 3d documentation's scope was to generate a 3D model and a set of orthoimages. The original aspect restitution by integrating the 3d model of the facade into the church model was a secondary objective. While the third was to create a BIM-based on previous documentation data.

In Materials and methods section the arguments for the use of a multi-sensory set up are well-defined.

In Table 1 at CRP line, the authors should check whether the Sony Alpha 6000 is indeed a pinhole camera.

Authors: Done. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: The methodology schematics in Figure 3 are reasonably well described and easy to follow, and data acquisition procedures for both the church and the facade located in the museum are presented in sufficient detail.

At line 220 - "covering most of the object". perhaps objective, or subject.

Authors: Changed. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: At line 242 - The solution to use Maptek PointStudio v2023 was not argumented enough, in my opinion, in relation to other known programs for the data fusion of MMS TLS and photogrammetry (one of them already used for processing in this study).

Authors: Done. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: At lines 287-290 should be looked over and maybe rewritten for clarity.

Authors: We have improved this section to clarify it. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: The virtual repositioning procedure is well explained.

The results are well presented while the texture quality of the 3D models (as seen in the provided video link) could be improved. But for the purpose of the study, the results are good.

The discussion section is very well structured between the geomatic methods and products. Perhaps Deliverables might be better suited, but Products is also fine. Both discussion points are well-argued and detailed.

The Conclusions section is consistent and relevant to the results and methodology presented.

Authors: Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript illustrates the documentation of S. Miguel church in Jaén (Spain) using integrated geomatic sensors. The case study is interesting due to the virtual placement of the facade in its real location.

The paper is well written and supported by literature, even if the topic is not new in literature.

A few additions can improve the manuscript.

I report here some suggestions for improvement that I inserted as notes in the pdf.

The novelty of this paper should be highlighted at the end of the introduction, a comparison with other studies could help understanding which is the relevance of this paper.

Since in the manuscript you speak about BIM and virtual repositioning, I suggest you introducing the topics in the first section.

In the section 2.1 it is desirable to insert values for precision and accuracy before merging the datasets. I suggest declaring the level of development achieved with the BIM model.

In section 2.2 the density of the point clouds should be inserted after having applied filtering.

In section 4.1 you speak about data quality and improvement of efficiency but this statement is not supported by numerical values and comparison with other case studies.

Some duplicates are reported in the references.

Overall the paper should be more detailed in reporting some metrics to illustrate the scientific method and support the statement about improvement of efficiency. Comparison to other similar case studies is desirable to improve the introduction and discussion, including other considerations to expand the research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript illustrates the documentation of S. Miguel church in Jaén (Spain) using integrated geomatic sensors. The case study is interesting due to the virtual placement of the facade in its real location.

Authors: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have improved the manuscript considering your review, including the comments inserted in the pdf file.

Reviewer #3: The paper is well written and supported by literature, even if the topic is not new in literature.

A few additions can improve the manuscript.

I report here some suggestions for improvement that I inserted as notes in the pdf.

The novelty of this paper should be highlighted at the end of the introduction, a comparison with other studies could help understanding which is the relevance of this paper.

Authors: We have included a new paragraph in the introduction section related to the focus and the novelty of this study. Thank you.

Reviewer #3: Since in the manuscript you speak about BIM and virtual repositioning, I suggest you introducing the topics in the first section.

Authors: We agree with you. We have included a new paragraph in the introduction section related to these topics. Thank you.

Reviewer #3: In the section 2.1 it is desirable to insert values for precision and accuracy before merging the datasets. I suggest declaring the level of development achieved with the BIM model.

Authors: Done. Thank you.

Reviewer #3: In section 2.2 the density of the point clouds should be inserted after having applied filtering.

Authors: Done. Thank you.

Reviewer #3: In section 4.1 you speak about data quality and improvement of efficiency but this statement is not supported by numerical values and comparison with other case studies.

Authors: Done. Thank you.

Reviewer #3: Some duplicates are reported in the references.

Authors: Changed. Thank you.

Reviewer #3: Overall the paper should be more detailed in reporting some metrics to illustrate the scientific method and support the statement about improvement of efficiency. Comparison to other similar case studies is desirable to improve the introduction and discussion, including other considerations to expand the research.

Authors: we have included a new paragraph in the discussion section to justify the efficiency improvement considering several aspects (GCPs, TLS without image acquisition, SP, etc.). The efficiency improvement occurs due to the fusion of techniques. In this sense, our approach avoid some tasks involving large acquisition times using an alternative proposed by a more efficient one. For example, if we only use conventional photogrammetry, we will need a large number of images to cover the scene and a GCP network measured using classic surveying techniques (e.g. total station). This will considerably increase acquisition tasks. The alternative of using TLS to obtain these coordinates is more efficient. In addition, the use of SP (360-degree camera) to support obtaining a complete texture also reduces acquisition and processing time. In this case, the CRP survey does not have to be as exhaustive as when applied exclusively.  Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised properly

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have read the editing you have applied to the manuscript and I believe that the manuscript is now completed.

 

I just noticed that you used RMS without inserting the clarification of the acronym. Besides, RMS should be followed by 'error'. I suggest you including it.

 

Finally, I noticed that a reference is duplicated.

I attach the pdf the comments to help you.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have improved the manuscript considering your review.