5 ms·

As optimistic as I am about photogrammetry and other 3D-scanning technology, I'm leery of calling it "preservation" or letting you "recreate" artifacts. It cap

As optimistic as I am about photogrammetry and other 3D-scanning technology, I'm leery of calling it "preservation" or letting you "recreate" artifacts. It captures shape and texture, but that's all. It's hollow. You can't take a core sample of a 3D scan, you can't X-Ray a 3D scan, you can't smell it or touch it; you can't tell if there's anything inside and you can't carbon-date it. It can't capture how pliable or brittle the object is or how dense it is. A high-res scan of the Mona Lisa can't actually be used to recreate the Mona Lisa. Short of nanoscale replicators, there's information missing.

jfoutz 11y ago
Of course, the real one will be blown up, sooooooo. Hanging on to the copy of the copy of the copy worked ok for books. it's infinitely better than nothing.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  There's an awful lot of value in a particular book-as-object that you lose in a copy, especially in pre-Gutenburg manuscripts: - What script was it written in? - How was it bound? - What shape and size is it? - Huge roomy margins or small tiny margins? - Is it actually a palimpsest with another text underneath? - Who owned it? - How old is it? And so on. If someone just writes down the text and burns the book, you've preserved the text but thrown away an awful lot about the people that produced and used the book. A 3D scan might preserve 100% of aspect A, but 0% of aspect B, in which case it's exactly as bad as no scan if what you care about is aspect B.
  - jfoutz 11y ago
    Just so i understand, your point is it's much better to have nothing, than having a poor copy of the original object? That makes, well, not much sense to me. but ok.
    - roywiggins 11y ago
      I mean that a lot of circumstances, having a picture/scan/copy only slightly diminishes the loss if the object is destroyed, and the existence of 3D scans etc shouldn't be confused with preservation of the original. Obviously, take pictures and make 3D scans of everything! It's a great way to make unique objects available (to some extent) across the globe. But they're more aids to study than actual backups. Objects haven't been "saved" by being scanned; they're saved when they're actually preserved. A 3D scan of the Buddhas of Bamiyan would have only kinda sorta have ameliorated their loss.
      - jfoutz 11y ago
        Ah! gotcha. we were talking past each other. i was worried about the incidental damage from war and destruction by zealots, you're talking more about general preservation.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
> A high-res scan of the Mona Lisa can't actually be used to recreate the Mona Lisa. Short of nanoscale replicators, there's information missing. Baby steps. 100 years ago, I'm sure no one considered 3D scanning and 3D printing might ever exist. The next 100 years are going to be just as fun.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Exponentially more fun!
dogma1138 11y ago
And? if you are looking at a good reproduction of the Mona Lisa do you feel anything less? There are tons of items that cannot be displayed to the public in fear of damaging them this can help to create a more accurate replica that can be easily displayed at a fraction of the cost. Just so you know museums have been displaying replicas for decades (if not longer) as many items were too fragile to display, many "original" items that you might see in a museum are in fact replicas carefully crafted, some museums go as far as commission high end manual reproduction paintings if the original is too fragile to display. And while reproduction paintings are rare natural history museums are filled with replica's those dinosaur fossils are not the actually fossils found in the ground, those are cast and hand finished to look good for the display and the casts often do not even come from a single fossil as a full fossil is almost a unicorn.
- mchahn 11y ago
  > that cannot be displayed to the public in fear of damaging them I saw the Mona Lisa at the Louvre on vacation. It was being displayed on a wall like any other painting but it had a big sign, saying no flash photography. There was a large crowd in front and there was a constant flashing from cameras. I wanted to yell at everyone but it wouldn't have done any good.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    Was that the original? I remember seeing Lady with an Ermine in Poland - really thick glass in front, dark room, people reminding you about the flash before going in. And I imagine that's not even remotely as important painting.
    - mchahn 11y ago
      > Was that the original? Yes. It was 30 years ago so they have probably improved the protection since then.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  Reproductions are awesome as aids to study and for education, no question. Scan everything and make it available in virtual & physical museums! There are huge gains from that. A faithful reproduction of an ancient Egyptian coffin lid is probably nearly as good, from an educational point of view, as the real thing. But you're not going to be able to take that reproduction coffin lid, put it in a CAT scan, and find a 3000-year-old fingerprint. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/three-thousand-year-old-fingerprints-discovered-on-ancient-egyptian-coffin-lid-a6887976.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/three-thousand-yea...

jfoutz 11y ago

Of course, the real one will be blown up, sooooooo. Hanging on to the copy of the copy of the copy worked ok for books. it's infinitely better than nothing.

roywiggins 11y ago
There's an awful lot of value in a particular book-as-object that you lose in a copy, especially in pre-Gutenburg manuscripts: - What script was it written in? - How was it bound? - What shape and size is it? - Huge roomy margins or small tiny margins? - Is it actually a palimpsest with another text underneath? - Who owned it? - How old is it? And so on. If someone just writes down the text and burns the book, you've preserved the text but thrown away an awful lot about the people that produced and used the book. A 3D scan might preserve 100% of aspect A, but 0% of aspect B, in which case it's exactly as bad as no scan if what you care about is aspect B.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  Just so i understand, your point is it's much better to have nothing, than having a poor copy of the original object? That makes, well, not much sense to me. but ok.
  - roywiggins 11y ago
    I mean that a lot of circumstances, having a picture/scan/copy only slightly diminishes the loss if the object is destroyed, and the existence of 3D scans etc shouldn't be confused with preservation of the original. Obviously, take pictures and make 3D scans of everything! It's a great way to make unique objects available (to some extent) across the globe. But they're more aids to study than actual backups. Objects haven't been "saved" by being scanned; they're saved when they're actually preserved. A 3D scan of the Buddhas of Bamiyan would have only kinda sorta have ameliorated their loss.
    - jfoutz 11y ago
      Ah! gotcha. we were talking past each other. i was worried about the incidental damage from war and destruction by zealots, you're talking more about general preservation.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> A high-res scan of the Mona Lisa can't actually be used to recreate the Mona Lisa. Short of nanoscale replicators, there's information missing. Baby steps. 100 years ago, I'm sure no one considered 3D scanning and 3D printing might ever exist. The next 100 years are going to be just as fun.

solipsism 11y ago
Exponentially more fun!

dogma1138 11y ago

And? if you are looking at a good reproduction of the Mona Lisa do you feel anything less? There are tons of items that cannot be displayed to the public in fear of damaging them this can help to create a more accurate replica that can be easily displayed at a fraction of the cost. Just so you know museums have been displaying replicas for decades (if not longer) as many items were too fragile to display, many "original" items that you might see in a museum are in fact replicas carefully crafted, some museums go as far as commission high end manual reproduction paintings if the original is too fragile to display. And while reproduction paintings are rare natural history museums are filled with replica's those dinosaur fossils are not the actually fossils found in the ground, those are cast and hand finished to look good for the display and the casts often do not even come from a single fossil as a full fossil is almost a unicorn.

mchahn 11y ago
> that cannot be displayed to the public in fear of damaging them I saw the Mona Lisa at the Louvre on vacation. It was being displayed on a wall like any other painting but it had a big sign, saying no flash photography. There was a large crowd in front and there was a constant flashing from cameras. I wanted to yell at everyone but it wouldn't have done any good.
- viraptor 11y ago
  Was that the original? I remember seeing Lady with an Ermine in Poland - really thick glass in front, dark room, people reminding you about the flash before going in. And I imagine that's not even remotely as important painting.
  - mchahn 11y ago
    > Was that the original? Yes. It was 30 years ago so they have probably improved the protection since then.
roywiggins 11y ago
Reproductions are awesome as aids to study and for education, no question. Scan everything and make it available in virtual & physical museums! There are huge gains from that. A faithful reproduction of an ancient Egyptian coffin lid is probably nearly as good, from an educational point of view, as the real thing. But you're not going to be able to take that reproduction coffin lid, put it in a CAT scan, and find a 3000-year-old fingerprint. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/three-thousand-year-old-fingerprints-discovered-on-ancient-egyptian-coffin-lid-a6887976.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/three-thousand-yea...