Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

You are here: Home / Library / RBINS Staff Publications / Comparing 3D digitizing technologies: what are the differences?

Aurore Mathys, Jonathan Brecko, and Patrick Semal (2013)

Comparing 3D digitizing technologies: what are the differences?

In: Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress, ed. by Alonzo C. Addison, Gabriele Guidi, Livio De Luca, Sofia Pescarin , vol. Volume 1, pp. 201-204, 19th Int’l VSMM, 10th Eurographics GCH, & 2nd UNESCO Memory of the World Conferences, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (ISBN: 978-1-4799-3169-9).

We tested five 3D digitization systems and one method of 2D+ recording on one object: a human skull from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences collection (RBINS). We chose a skull because it has both simple and complex structures and different materials such as bone and enamel within the same object. The results obtained with the different technologies were compared for 3D shape accuracy, texture quality, digitization and processing time and finally price. Our results show that the structured light scanner provided the best results to record external structures, CT was found to be the best to record internal structures and is also the best for recording reflecting material such as enamel. Photogrammetry is a very good compromise between portability, price and quality. RTI is a method of 2D+ recording and is a complementary technique, using the same equipment than photogrammetry, which can capture small morphological.
Peer Review, International Redaction Board, RBINS Collection(s)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4799-3169-9
Related content
Scientific Heritage Service

Document Actions


add or import reference(s)
  • add a PDF paper
    (Please follow editors copyrights policies)
  • add a PDF poster