We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

Efficient three-dimensional survey techniques and their comparison in open software in the archaeological test site of "Ninfeo maggiore" and "Ninfeo minore" of Formia (latina, Italy)

00:00

Formal Metadata

Title
Efficient three-dimensional survey techniques and their comparison in open software in the archaeological test site of "Ninfeo maggiore" and "Ninfeo minore" of Formia (latina, Italy)
Title of Series
Number of Parts
351
Author
License
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
Language
Production Year2022

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Genre
Abstract
Efficient three-dimensional survey techniques and their comparison in open software in the archaeological test site of "Ninfeo maggiore" and "Ninfeo minore" of Formia (latina, Italy) The survey took place in part of the so-called Roman Villa of Caposele, also known as Villa Rubino (Giuliani and Guaitoli 1972; Cassieri 2015). The Villa, built by the Dukes of Marzano and subsequently passed into the hands of Charles of Ligny, Prince of Caposele, was purchased by Ferdinand II of Bourbon in 1845, with the aim of making it a luxurious summer residence. The building overlooks the inlet of Caposele, where there must have been a small harbour, and is squeezed between the Via Appia and the sea. To the west of the small port are the remains of an imposing structure with a central courtyard, datable to the 1st century B.C., which scholarly tradition has identified as Cicero's Academy or School, although it is probably a horreum, testifying to the utilitarian vocation of this area of the villa. In later phases, while retaining its intended use, the horreum would be incorporated into a residential building complex together with other structures further to the west that, too, may have served as warehouses in the earlier phase. To the east of the marina is the residential area, the area in which the survey operations were concentrated. Here, on a front about 140 metres long, there are a series of rooms with barrel vaults that were probably part of the basis villae of the building. In two of these rooms are the so-called minor and major nymphaea. The first consists of an almost quadrangular room with a roof supported by four Doric brick columns; on the back wall, in a large niche, spring water gushes out. The wall decorations include stucco, shells and incrustations of glass paste and small stones. The main nymphaeum, on the other hand, is divided into three naves and covered with a rounded coffered vault supported by Doric columns. The large niche at the bottom of the nymphaeum contains a pool of spring water; the floor is in white mosaic with polychrome dots. These nymphaeums constitute the focus of the intervention. In front of this front there was a very large fishpond, which ran into the sea for about one hundred metres in length, with a width of over 200. Because of its architectural features and good state of preservation, the central body of the monument has always been a great attraction for visitors and scholars, many of whom have left descriptions and drawings in their diaries. The two nymphaeums have to be surveyed both for conservation and study purposes and in order to allow a virtual visit, which is particularly important since they are located inside a private property. As already described, the structure is complex, with a succession of rooms and environments in an archaeological complex extending approximately 480 metres in an east-west direction and approximately 50 metres in a south-north direction. The survey of such an extension and such an articulation with consolidated techniques such as terrestrial laser scanning would probably have required days of work, and for this purpose we wanted to test the possible use of the most modern SLAM techniques, in particular using a GEOSLAM Zeb Horizon, totally transportable by an operator and with a range of up to 100 metres (https://geoslam.com/solutions/zeb-horizon/). In order to compare the times, modes, precision and accuracy of the point cloud thus obtained, we took advantage of the possibilities provided by the open software "Cloud Compare 2.11.3 64 bit version", which allows us to compare point clouds of different origins. Cloud Compare allows comparisons to be made with various methods of calculating distance and to estimate precision and accuracy separately, allowing one cloud to be fitted to the other or to be compared while remaining within their absolute coordinates. In the present experimentation it was therefore decided to survey both nymphaea with the "GEOSLAM", also surveying all the internal connecting rooms and corridors between these two environments. The whole survey was carried out in a few tens of minutes and therefore the survey continued over most of the exterior of the entire structure. The survey of the entire complex was not carried out because the main interest of this project was to test the SLAM technology and validate its precision and accuracy in comparison with more consolidated techniques. For comparison, only the major nymphaeum was surveyed with a more consolidated laser Faro" terrestrial scanning laser.In order to verify the validity of the Slam also on the external part, a survey was carried out using a DJI Matrix drone with laser scanning. Finally, the same survey was also carried out with an optical camera on the same Matrix drone and with the most widely used drone for photogrammetry, i.e. the "Phantom 4 pro", also by DJI. All the surveys were framed with respect to the same network of ground control points, in order to refer them to the same framing system and be able to assess their precision and accuracy. It should be noted that Slam was only able to station a few of the GCPs while, as can be easily guessed, the drones acquired practically all of them.
Keywords
202
Thumbnail
1:16:05
226
242
Form (programming)Software testingGoodness of fitComputer animation
Entire functionArchaeological field surveyOpticsIntegrated development environmentInequality (mathematics)Complex (psychology)Simultaneous localization and mappingLatent heatPersonal digital assistantSound effectMereologyAreaSoftware testingCASE <Informatik>Complex (psychology)Different (Kate Ryan album)Archaeological field surveyAuthorizationSource codeXML
AreaUniform resource locatorMereologyAreaRight angleArchaeological field survey
OpticsArchaeological field surveyDifferent (Kate Ryan album)
Pairwise comparisonInequality (mathematics)OpticsError messageBuildingRotationHorizonArchaeological field surveyOpen setSoftwareAbsolute valueDistanceSimultaneous localization and mappingEndliche ModelltheorieComputer-generated imageryProcess (computing)AreaMereologyFitness functionSpline (mathematics)Error messageResultantShape (magazine)Sound effectSimultaneous localization and mappingArchaeological field surveyOpticsMatrix (mathematics)Point cloudLaser scanningPairwise comparisonSoftwareDifferent (Kate Ryan album)2 (number)CASE <Informatik>Real numberGame controllerHypothesisComputer animation
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
Good morning, I am Valerio Bayock and I am here to present you our work. In some countries, like in Italy, there is sometimes the need for effective and very fast solving methods for the acquisition of some archaeological areas in which there
is remains that are on a wide part of the area. In this paper, we will illustrate some tests on a real case, the survey of Capo Selle Villa complex in Gaeta,
attributed by some authors to Cicero. We will test different technologies for the survey of the external part and the internal part. Here, on the left, you can see the location of Gaeta that is in the center of Italy, on the Turanian Sea. On the right, all the area that was surveyed that you can see is on the sea.
The villa that was surveyed is partly buried, but in a part there is also some indoor areas to be surveyed. Here we can see the two drones used.
Here we can see the difference between the LIDAR cloud and the optical cloud by MATRIX, where we can see that the worst differences are on these two canopies that we can see here. Here we can see the differences between the two clouds, one made with MATRIX drone and the other with the phantom drone.
The first example is with the two clouds not calibrated one over the other, and in the second case with calibration. We can see that with calibration, the fit increases. This, we think, may be due to an error in the height of the antenna of the RT-CAPA GPS in the drone.
Here are the two instruments that were compared from the indoor survey. Here we can see on the left the results of the comparison of the two point clouds
without calibrating one over the other, and on the right calibrating one over the other. We can see that this visible worsening of the results, we thought that this is because probably the shape of the cloud by SLAM is different from the real shape.
This may be an effect of drift along the survey with SLAM. To verify our hypothesis, we calibrated the two clouds on a smaller area, and we can see that the fit increased significantly.
Our conclusion for the outdoor part of our survey is that RTK GPS is very useful and very interesting, but it is very important to calibrate correctly the height of the antenna inside the RTK drone,
otherwise it can lead to a systematic error. For the indoor part of the survey, we observed that surely the SLAM is more fast because it acquired the same area in minutes while with the classical NOS scanning we need hours,
but it showed something like a drift along the survey, so it is important to have a ground control point network that anyway is needed also with laser scanning.