Table 9 Main solutions arising from 2.5D reconstruction starting from painted images
From: Enhancing traditional museum fruition: current state and emerging tendencies
Cause | Effect using SFS methods | Solution | Possible drawbacks |
|---|---|---|---|
Presence in the scene of a painted (i.e., guessed by the artist) diffuse illumination | Flattened final surface | Retrieval of a rough surface \({Z}_{rough}\) obtained as a result of inflating and smoothing iterative procedure. This allows to solve the SFS problem using only the principal illumination | Loss of details in the reconstructed surfaces. Too much emphasis on coarse volumes |
Incorrect shading of objects due to artistic reproduction of subjects in the scene | Errors in shape reconstruction | Retrieval of a surface \({Z}_{main}\) based on SFS modified method using minimization and a set of boundary conditions robust to the possible errors in shading | If the shading of painted objects is grossly represented by the artist, the reconstruction may appear unfaithful |
Incorrect scene principal illumination | Combined with the incorrect shading, this leads to errors in shape illumination | Use of an empirical method for determining, approximately, the illumination vector. Combining \({Z}_{main}\) with \({Z}_{rough}\) is equivalent to solve SFS problem using both diffuse illumination and principal illumination | Solving the method with more than one principal illumination leads to incorrect reconstructions |
Loss of details due to excessive inflating and to over smoothing effect in SFS-based reconstruction (e.g., using high values of smoothness constraint) | None | Use of a refinement procedure allowing to consider finer details of the reconstructed objects | None |