Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584869›Full record

ArticleZooKeys2026

Labeled 2D images from 3D models of museum specimens: the impact of Structure from Motion modeling parameters on rendered 2D images.

Blair Mirka, Christopher Lippitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ZooKeys, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Blair MirkaDepartment of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA University of New Mexico Albuquerque United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4564-1242
Christopher LippittDepartment of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA University of New Mexico Albuquerque United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7979-7857

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Macro-photogrammetry using Structure from Motion (SfM) is widely used in museums and biorepositories to create high-resolution 3D models for educational outreach and proxy specimen access. These models can enable a wide range of analysis, including serving as a latent source of training data for species inventory approaches that leverage machine learning for automated interpretation of 2D imagery. To assess the potential for these models to generate accurate 2D representations, this study investigates how the resulting 3D models' geometric and texture accuracy is impacted by key photogrammetric parameters, specifically horizontal image overlap, vertical image overlap, and focus stacking, emphasizing the impacts on rendered 2D images. In our study, we find that focus stacking, which is commonly assumed to enhance accuracy, provides limited to no benefits for machine learning purposes when compared to an original image. Ten ground beetle specimens of varying shapes, sizes, and colors, including beetles with iridescent carapaces, were modeled using SfM. From these models, both geometric and texture (external coloration and patterning) accuracy were quantitatively assessed. Geometric accuracy was evaluated using the mean absolute error (MAE), comparing modeled and actual specimen measurements across five morphometric features (elytra length, the elytra width, the lengths of the second and third antenna segments, and the length of the first and second tibia). The accuracy of the 2D render texture was measured using % RGB similarity and structural similarity index measure (SSIM) comparing the original images to rendered images. Focus stacking has traditionally been considered essential for improving overall image sharpness within 3D specimen models, however it represents a major bottleneck in the 3D digitization workflow as it requires multiple images per view angle and requires a considerable amount of time and resources to successfully create a 3D model. Results from this study indicate that not only are these methods unnecessary but they lose image fidelity when renders are compared to their original 2D image. Image capture parameters such as horizontal and vertical overlap were found to have a significant impact on model geometric accuracy and rendered 2D image quality, with the overall best-performing method in terms of geometric and texture accuracy as well as model creation consistency, using non-focus-stacked images captured at five vertical angles, with a 20° rotation between each vertical imaging line and 11.25° horizontally between scans. These results challenge the necessity of focus stacking as a blanket, best practice for all use cases in contemporary 3D modeling workflows, indicating that forgoing focus stacking is a potentially beneficial and resource-efficient method of rendering 3D specimen models intended to produce accurate 2D renderings such as those used as training data for deep-learning algorithms.

Indexed as

Machine learningmacro-photogrammetrySfMsynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID41584869
PMCPMC12828332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.