ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
A Performance Comparison of 3D Survey Instruments for Their Application in the Cultural Heritage Field.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-Sensor Geometric Documentation of Cultural Heritage at Risk Across Inland, Coastal and Shallow-Water Environments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Surveying with Optical Sensors in Heritage Science: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Wavelet-Assisted Adaptive EKF Phase Shift Estimation Approach for Motion-Induced Error Compensation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integration of TLS and HLS Data for Non-Destructive Structural Damage Assessment of Building Structures: A Case Study of a Small Hydropower Plant.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Thanks to the recent development of innovative instruments and software with high accuracy and resolution, 3D modelling provides useful insights in several sectors (from industrial metrology to cultural heritage). Moreover, the 3D reconstruction of objects of artistic interest is becoming mandatory, not only because of the risks to which works of art are increasingly exposed (e.g., wars and climatic disasters) but also because of the leading role that the virtual fruition of art is taking. In this work, we compared the performance of four 3D instruments based on different working principles and techniques (laser micro-profilometry, structured-light topography and the phase-shifting method) by measuring four samples of different sizes, dimensions and surface characteristics. We aimed to assess the capabilities and limitations of these instruments to verify their accuracy and the technical specifications given in the suppliers' data sheets. To this end, we calculated the point densities and extracted several profiles from the models to evaluate both their lateral (XY) and axial (Z) resolution. A comparison between the nominal resolution values and those calculated on samples representative of cultural artefacts was used to predict the performance of the instruments in real case studies. Overall, the purpose of this comparison is to provide a quantitative assessment of the performance of the instruments that allows for their correct application to works of art according to their specific characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.