There are numerous benefits to digitizing heritage, particularly for organizations like museums and cultural non-profits. As an example, digitizing heritage through the scanning, printing, and replicating of 3D objects allows museums and archaeological research teams to handle and study various artifacts or locations without the risk of damaging the likely fragile object they are studying. However, in that same train of thought, sometimes the 3D print itself can be equally fragile and very expensive to replicate. Catriona Cooper at the Fitzwilliam museum reached out to the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in regards to their 3D printed display of the Star Carr Headdresses. 

“A discussion with the gallery assistant suggested that the option to touch the headdresses was not offered because the prints are too expensive to produce and “we don’t want people messing around with them” (personal communication 2019). The irony of this statement is obvious given that the prints are being used here to protect the fragile originals.” (Cooper 2019)

This shows that while 3D printing technologies can be used to create sturdy, stronger replicas of artifacts, they are not necessarily a one-size-fits-all fix for fragile artifacts. Differences in 3D printing machines, user error, and other issues can affect the fragility of printed items. Therefore, while this type of digitized heritage can be very helpful for organizations, the organization’s intended use of the items can affect the amount of and/or type of use they receive out of it. A fragile 3D print may be perfect for internal use and study, but not so much for a tactile display. 

Similarly, 3D photogrammetry can be incredibly useful for study in specific, unique instances, such as the study and research of underwater shipwrecks. For many shipwrecks, particularly those in colder climates in which the water freezes for portions of the year, it is incredibly difficult to find the exact right time to survey the shipwreck, as both the weather, temperature, and wind speeds must be within certain levels to deem the dive safe. In addition, the physical strain of the work means that divers must work as quickly as possible, which limits the amount of time researchers can spend surveying the wreckage itself. Underwater photogrammetry has improved enough in recent years that it is now a cost effective and quick way for surveyors to study the wreckage of a ship. However, the quality of the resulting model can vary depending on the circumstances and location of the ship. In their article, Beltrame and Costa quote,

“Underwater photography, as a mean to get crispy and colorful photographs for photogrammetric processing, is to be resolved in a case-to-case basis, as it depends on depth and equipment.” (Beltrame, Costa 2018) 

As we saw in our own simplified photogrammetry lab, the results can be quite detailed if the surrounding environment (in this case, the water) is clear enough that it has minimal interference with the photos taken of the wreckage. This shows that while many different technologies can be useful for museums and organizations that work frequently with digitizing heritage, including through photogrammetry and 3D printing, the results and use for these resulting items is very individual, and as such must be considered specifically by the organization for each project they are looking to digitize. 

REFERENCES:

Beltrame, Carlo & Costa, Elisa. “3D survey and modelling of shipwrecks in different underwater environments.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Volume 29 (2018): 82-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.08.005

Cooper, Catriona. “You Can Handle It: 3D Printing for Museums.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 7, no. 4 (2019): 443–47. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1017/aap.2019.39.