Table 6 Essential aspects of methods published in the literature for representative profile detection
From: Enhancing traditional museum fruition: current state and emerging tendencies
Methods | First attempt profile | Final profile | Pros | Cons | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct methods | Kampel et al. [40] | Â | Profile for the fragment maximum height | Easy implementation and speed of calculation | Evaluation affected by local and global surface imperfections |
Wang et al. [41] | Diameters of the circles centred on α and approximating 12 points of the slices perpendicular to α | ||||
Methods with a preliminary evaluation | Hlavackova-Schindler et. al [42] | Surface section with a half-plane passing through α | The profile is divided into several parts, and a cubic B-spline curve approximates each | Valid for each type of profile | - Evaluation affected by local and global surface imperfections - The curves approximating the profile are unknown a priori |
Karasik and Smilansky [43] | The cylindrical projection of all the points of the surface recognized does not belong to the fractured surface | Representative points extraction by using rectangles with width inversely proportional to the mean curvature at the point and oriented perpendicularly to the line locally approximating the profile | The result is affected by the noise of the profile | ||
Di Angelo et al. [31] | The circles' radii centred on α, approximating the slices perpendicular to α | A smoothed profile by a parabola approximating each point profile’s neighborhood with a defined width | The optimal dimensions of the neighborhood are not known in advance | ||