Week 5 – Reflection on the Museum Project

This week, we started working on the project of using the software Photogrammetry to model the sculptures exhibited at Carleton’s Perlman Teaching Museum. My group chose to create a 3D model of a ceramic tomb figure of a court lady that was excavated in Sichuan Province, China.
From viewing the object at the exhibition, we gained a general understanding of its appearance and shape, and we learned about its history and cultural significance from the provided information. However, we didn’t notice much detail since some pigments have faded and some parts of the surface have come off as it could be dated to the 7th – 10th century. When we came back to the museum to take pictures, we were able to examine the object from different angles and actively engage with it. We also experimented with the setup of the lighting to get high-quality images and understand how shadows affect the look. Since photogrammetry requires great attention to detail, we had to carefully observe the structure, texture, color, and surface features of the object. Compared to simply viewing it in the exhibition, the process of attempting to model an object allows us to get a comprehensive understanding of various details that we might otherwise have ignored. Meanwhile, engaging with this object makes me curious to explore the stories behind it. It takes thorough investigations into the history and culture of a particular era to truly understand a work of art.
Moving from passive observer to active modeler, I was intrigued by the power of 3D modeling. At exhibitions, observation is limited because people cannot get close enough to the object or view it from different perspectives since exhibits are usually protected by a glass cover. 3D models enable people to take a close examination from all angles and capture details. 3D modeling offers an accessible way to communicate art and history to various publics.

3 thoughts on “Week 5 – Reflection on the Museum Project

  1. My group also faced similar issues when viewing the exhibition versus viewing it for photogrammetry. It allowed us to see the artifact in much more detail. I am also curious to learn more about our group’s artifact after taking the pictures. As an active observer it would be exciting to make all this information available so that it is super accessible to people who are interested in the exhibit.

  2. I’m curious how you all played around with the lighting when you were taking the photos of your object. I believe I remember hearing that it is good practice to keep the lighting the same for every photo of the object, so it can pick up shadows. Did your group alter the lighting between shots, or were you experimenting with the lighting before you began shooting the photos? If it was beforehand, did you find any specific setup of the lights that you thought was ideal?

  3. I had similar reflections on the impact of a 3d modeled exhibit. It is not without tradeoffs, but having the model as another resource for those who value more hands on learning is beneficial. I have a similar question to Aaron: aren’t you supposed to keep the lighting consistent between shots for the photogrammetry to yield good results? Apart from that, I’m also curious how the photogrammetry algorithm would react given wildly different photos…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

css.php