De Montfort University Architecture Students Design for Historic Malta

Glass Shop 1 smallIt’s that time of year again and our group of MArch Architecture students working with the Digital Building Heritage Group have completed their designs for their adaptive re-use projects in Malta which they visited for a week in January 2016. Ranging from a glass workshop and high-end sales boutique to a winery and new medical library and archive, this year’s crop of projects have allowed DMU’s architecture students to explore how new, modern architecture can be sensitively and carefully adapted to fit into historic settings, in this case the UNESCO world heritage site of the Three Cities and Valletta. All the students spent a week exploring these magnificent cities and focussing on single buildings or structures that required adaptations to give them new life and a better chance of being preserved. Careful thought was given to the current economic and social context in which Malta finds itself and the opportunities as well as challenges this is bringing. Difficult questions were asked about the degree of adaptation, what should be preserved and what, if anything might be sacrificed. Conservation techniques were examined, particularly in relation to the marvellous limestone from which virtually all the historic buildings in the area are made and the issues of weathering and chemical erosion which affect them. Being speculative projects a degree of imagination was exercised in proposing new uses for historic buildings and interestingly, although they had the option to do so, none of the students designed a museum, all of the projects had a commercial or other operational function. This was not deliberate but it goes to show that historic cities of international importance do not have to be pickled in aspic as purely heritage tourist destinations, they can be living, economically successful communities. These were some of the ambitions for the student’s projects and irrespective of the degree to which individual students met them they have all gained a deep appreciation of the value of material and cultural heritage, historic architecture and the role that sensitive design for heritage sites can play in shaping better urban futures. We hope that our students continue to develop these interests and we look forward to more De Montfort University architecture students next year entering this programme to work on new architectural heritage projects with us. Lalan 2Boat Building Ac SmallMed Library 1 banner3D Printed Models Banner

Posted in 3D Digital Modelling, City Models, Military Architecture, Student Projects | Leave a comment

Leicester’s Newarke – Through the Ages

The Medieval Newarke Precinct in 1485, St Mary De Castro and the Leicester Castle Great Hall are on the Left, the Motte Mound of Leicester Castle in the middle and the now lost Collegiate Church of St Mary of Annunciation in the Newarke is on the right. The River Soar is in the foreground.

Digital reconstruction the Medieval Newarke precinct in 1485. The church of St Mary De Castro and the Leicester Castle Great Hall are on the Left, the motte mound of Leicester Castle are in the middle and the now lost Collegiate Church of St Mary of the Annunciation in the Newarke is on the right. The River Soar is in the foreground.

The Newarke precinct in Leicester is where De Montfort University has its campus. Its history goes back to the Roman period where there is evidence of farm and other buildings, culverts, agriculture, burials and roads, in a low density settlement outside the south gate of Leicester when it was the Roman city of Ratae Corieltauvorum.

The area outside the Roman city walls of Leicester (Ratae Corieltauvorum) which in the 14th century was to become The Newarke.

Digital Reconstruction of the area outside the Roman city walls of Leicester (Ratae Corieltauvorum) which in the 14th century was to become The Newarke.

The liberty of the Newarke as this area became known was a small rectangular district lying on the east bank of the Soar, to the south of the old walled area of the borough. In 1330 Henry, Earl of Lancaster founded a hospital on this site immediately to the south of the castle just outside the borough walls. This was substantially enlarged by his son, Henry, Duke of Lancaster who increased the size of the hospital and added to it a large and richly endowed chantry college to form the hospital and College of the Annunciation of St Mary in the Newarke. The dean and canons of the college claimed exemption from the borough jurisdiction, and in 1360 the king confirmed that the college and its precincts were so exempt and formed a small liberty. The college was known as St. Mary’s of the New Work, or Newarke, to distinguish it from the older college of St. Mary de Castro inside the borough, next to the castle’s great hall (see above). We have blogged about the history of the hospital and St Mary of the Annunciation here https://wp.me/p2eM6I-av and other visualisation projects related to this chapel, including 3D printing here https://wp.me/p2eM6I-rv

Reconstructed interior of the Church of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Royal Chantry Chapel of the Dukes of Lancaster in the The Chantry College of the Annunciation of St Mary in the Newarke, Leicester, founded 1353.

Digitally reconstructed interior of the Church of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was the royal chantry chapel of the Dukes of Lancaster in the the Chantry College of the Annunciation of St Mary in the Newarke, Leicester, founded in 1353.

Overview of the Medieval Newarke in Leicester in 1485. It was surrounded by a perimeter wall in which there were five gate-houses, there were hoses for the canons, vicars and the dean of the college and to the north was the castle and St Mary de Castro.

Digital reconstruction overview of the Medieval Newarke in Leicester in 1485. It was surrounded by a perimeter wall in which there were five gate-houses, there were houses for the canons, vicars and the dean of the college as well as other collegiate buildings and to the north was the castle precinct and St Mary de Castro, the castle’s church.

This college survived until the Edwardine dissolution of the Chantry Colleges when in 1548 its site and buildings were granted to John Beaumont, of Grace Dieu, and William Gies who sold off the cannons houses and other buildings and demolished the college and collegiate chapel for the value of the materials. Subsequently the properties became divided amongst various owners, the area was involved the siege of Leicester during the English Civil War with the Newarke gatehouse being used as a magazine for storing arms for the trained bands. From the 17th century until well into the 19th, the Newarke was the residence of some of Leicester’s wealthiest inhabitants. By the middle of the 19th century the County had made a number of purchases of land within the Newarke and to provide buildings for the militia, and later for the volunteer and Territorial forces of Leicestershire.

The Newarke in 1905, was, like most of Leicester a mixed residential and industrial area. Hosiery and boot factories were served by workers housed in rows of back-to-back houses on long streets.

A digital reconstruction overview of Leicester’s Newarke in 1905. It was, like most of Leicester a mixed residential and industrial area. Hosiery and boot factories were served by workers housed in rows of back-to-back houses on long streets.

It was in the late 19th century, after having rented several of the buildings in the Newarke for teaching such as the “old House” and the “Women’s Asylum” that the Leicester Municipal Technical and Art School built the Hawthorne building on the old College site to house its growing number of students.

EH000000 SMALL

The Hawthorn building in Leicester as it would have appeared in 1905. Built in 1897 on the site of the old Collegiate Church of St Mary of the Annunciation this building housed a range of courses such art, design and architecture which are still taught by De Montfort University today.

The Digital Building heritage Group was commissioned to produce a series of reconstructions of this part of Leicester at three periods of its history, Roman, Medieval and Edwardian and combine them together in an animated fly-through sequence for explaining the historical development of De Montfort University’s campus which now occupies the Newarke precinct. This has been a challenging project, with many different buildings involved in each of the periods. It involved making three separate urban models each with their own buildings and slightly varying topography coving an area of about half a square mile. It was felt important to look at some buildings in more detail than others, a process of selection which proved difficult in some cases where there was equally good evidence for form, structure and materiality of the buildings but insufficient time to treat all of the buildings having this level of evidence to the same level of rendered detail. In the end executive decisions were made based on the narrative arc that was intended. Other buildings posed less of a dilemma where they were less well documented but rather than doing what we usually do of indicating these as white un-textured block models Steffan, who did most of the 3D on the project with some assistance from Jonathan and Romylos did give them indicative textures to maintain the overall visual “feel” of the recreation which is what was required for the intended audience. This was an aesthetic decision which non-the-less has scholarly implications and has prompted considerable discussion within the DBHG about audience expectations, aesthetics and authenticity. These are subjects which we have long been involved with and we’re pretty sure these debates will continue for the foreseeable future beyond this particular project. The resulting video fly-through which is just over 8 minutes duration will be on show at De Montfort University’s Heritage Centre in the Hawthorn Building.

Posted in 3D Digital Modelling, Churches and Ecclesiatical, City Models, Medieval, Museum Installations, Museum Installations, Richard III & Medieval Leicester, Roman, Tudor | Leave a comment

3D Printing the Star Carr Pendant

Left – the unmodified STL file of the Star Carr pendant. Right - A UHD 3D print of the pendant at 1:1 scale made using a 3D Systems Projet 3500 HD Max 3D printer at De Montfort University, Leicester.

Left – The unmodified STL file of the Star Carr pendant. Right – A UHD 3D print of the pendant at 1:1 scale made using a 3D Systems Projet 3500 HD Max 3D printer at De Montfort University, Leicester.

In 2015 an engraved shale pendant which is roughly triangular and measures approximately 31mm by 35mm by 3mm thick was found during archaeological excavations at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, in North Yorkshire UK. On one of its faces it has a series of incised linear marks which the team involved in its discovery claim are the earliest known Mesolithic art in Britain. In March 2016 the independent, on-line, not-for-profit internet journal Internet Archaeology published a scholarly paper on the Star Carr pendant (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue40/8/index.html ). Helpfully, in their article Internet Archaeology included a downloadable STL (Surface Tessellation Language) file of the artefact. This is a very welcome initiative and Internet Archaeology are to be congratulated on taking this step which, if applied more widely, may have the potential to benefit a range of disciplines beyond archaeology.

STL files contain 3 dimensional coordinate data in the form of a geometric mesh of the surface of a 3 dimensional object  and can sometimes have other properties attached like colours. It is an industry standard method of transferring 3D shape data in a wide range of disciplines, notably in engineering, product design and architecture. The mesh data can be created in a number of ways from laser scanning and photogrammetry to 3D solid modelling. One of the uses of STL files is to produce 3D physical prints of the objects. This is something that we do quite a lot of in the Digital Building Heritage Group at De Montfort University and because we feel that Internet Archaeology’s initiative moves the debate about the use of 3D digital data of archaeological artefacts on in a useful and interesting way, we thought it might be helpful to look not at the artefact but at the 3D print arising from it and examine aspects of its production and potential use.

Reproductions of archaeological artefacts can have a number of very different uses. These may range from surface geometry analysis, wear pattern and impact detection to artefacts handling for school children and students, substitute display, travelling exhibitions and experimental archaeology. However it’s important to be clear about the pros and cons of 3D prints in relation to reproductions made by skilled artisans out of authentic materials. Good, hand-made reproductions are excellent for giving an authentic haptic experience of the appearance, texture, weight and “feel” of an artefact type, and of course they are often useable, having the same mechanical properties as the original would have had. Hand-made reproductions are in fact new artefacts, they can have most of the material properties of the original and can give excellent service as convincing simulacra for many purposes. But there are aspects of hand crafted copies which are less effective. One of these is that it’s virtually impossible using hand crafting to give crafted copies precise verisimilitude with the original at a very small-scale, for instance in scratches, incisions, indents, wear marks, ablations, corrosion pits and so on – aspects which can be of importance to archaeological enquiry. 3D data capture can (in theory) record these tiny details on the original with considerable precision, as well as the overall form of the object. The STL file of the Star Carr pendant is an example of this and a closer inspection of it can yield some useful insights into the advantages and limitations of this technique.

Sectional view through the STL file of the Star Carr pendant showing the good surface detail and the internal structural anomalies arising from the method of data capture and digital object production. Ideally these internal anomalies should be removed but in this case they were not critical and the part printed without modification.

Sectional view through the STL file of the Star Carr pendant showing the good surface detail and the internal structural anomalies arising from the method of data capture and digital object production. Ideally these internal anomalies should be removed but in this case they were not critical and the part printed without modification.

On downloading the STL file of the Star Carr pendant from (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue40/8/index.html ) the first step was to evaluate its integrity. 3D prints work best with “clean” STL files, that have no errors, consistent orientation of normals, no overlapping edges between triangles, contiguous “water-tight” shells and no internal anomalies within the 3D model. The Star Carr pendant STL file had a “water-tight” external shell and no extraneous shells but did have some unusual internal structural anomalies which tell a little about the method by which the model had been produced. It would be normal to remove these internal anomalies in the STL file for good 3D printing not least because it would then allow an effective re-hollowing of the part to reduce material usage. In a part this small, and using this material the quantities are trivial, the anomalies are non-critical and in this particular case they do not prevent the part printing, although similar anomalies in other circumstances often do and so the file was not modified before 3D printing.

Starr Carr Banner 3&4 small

Left – The Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) of the model’s shell. Right – A close up of the TIN around the circular perforation at its upper apex. Surface tessellation edge lengths at their smallest are between about 0.05mm (50 μ) and 0.1mm (100 μ).

Viewing the STL file on-screen also allows you to zoom into the object and inspect the TIN as produced by the capture technique which in the case of the pendant has yielded tessellation edge lengths between 0.05mm (50 μ) and 0.1mm (100 μ) for the smallest features. This is at the higher resolution end of scan data used for 3D printing and are justifiable given the small size of the object and shallow depth of the surface features. For this object at this resolution the result is an STL file size of 30.4MB. Our colleague James  Meadwell here at De Montfort University supervised the printing of the STL file without modification on our 3D Systems Projet 3500 HD Max machine in Ultra High Definition (UHD) with a resolution of 750 x 750 x 890 DPI (xyz). The deposition layers have at best a 29μ thickness and the material was an acrylic polymer with a wax support structure. This is a professional, high-resolution 3D printer and a good quality material.

A 1:1 scale 3D print of the Star Carr pendant produced using a 3D Systems Projet 3500 HD Max at De Montfort University, in Ultra High Definition (UHD) with a resolution of 750 x 750 x 890 DPI (xyz). The deposition layers have a 29μ thickness. This level of layer thickness in 2016 is regarded as high fidelity 3D printing – even so note how the layer contours mask the fine surface detail on such a small (35mm wide) artefact at 1:1 scale.

A 1:1 scale 3D print of the Star Carr pendant produced using a 3D Systems Projet 3500 HD Max at De Montfort University, in Ultra High Definition (UHD) with a resolution of 750 x 750 x 890 DPI (xyz). The deposition layers have a 29μ thickness. This level of layer thickness in 2016 is regarded as high fidelity 3D printing – even so note how the layer contours mask the fine surface detail on such a small (35mm wide) artefact at 1:1 scale.

 

The results are interesting. It’s immediately obvious that at 1:1 scale, even using this high-resolution 3D printer, while the overall form of the artefact is reproduced well the surface detail is largely obscured by the fine layering of the 3D print material. This layering is virtually invisible to the naked eye when looking at the 3D print under normal light and is only visible when photographed with a macro lens. Clearly 3D printing such small objects for such shallow surface detail at 1:1 is less effective than it might be.

Left - the 5x 3D print and 1:1 scale 3D print compared. Right - the 5x 3D print created using a Z-Corp 650 printerin resin bonded gypsum.

Left – the 5x 3D print and 1:1 scale 3D print compared. Right – the 5x 3D print created using a Z-Corp 650 printer in resin bonded gypsum. Note that some of the larger incised marks on the surface of the object are now visible to the naked eye at a distance under angled directional lighting, but that the contour lines of the printing are also still visible.

In order to examine whether this limitation could be overcome we scaled the 3D print up to 5x its actual size and printed one side of it. This was carried out using a different machine (a Z-Corp 650 printer) and different material (resin bonded gypsum) in order to reduce the cost of the print. Cost is largely determined by the solid volume of the object, the pendant at 1:1 scale used 0.87cc’s of material, the scaled up version used 97.18cc’s. Here the layer thickness is between 0.089 (89 μ) and 0.102 mm (102 μ) about three times that of the previous model but the scaling is 5x so there is actually an effective theoretical diminution of layer thickness in relation to the object size, not an increase and so one would expect increased legibility of the surface detail. For the 5x 3D print of the pendant the results indicate that this is in fact the case but not in our view to sufficient extent in this instance to be convincing. The surface detail is a little more legible and even at this size (about 15cm across) can to a certain extent be distinguished by touch with the fingertips. The direction of improvement does however indicate that further increase in size and / or use of UHD printing at this 5x scale (with of course its attendant increase in costs) may yield convincing results. Here at De Montfort University we have the ability to produce physical copies in one piece up to much larger sizes (about 0.5m) in diameter but whether such a capability can find any use for the analysis or display of artefacts is not known at this stage.

This ability to easily change the scale of objects in digital 3D is one of a set of key advantages of the medium that can be applied to many objects to examine aspects of them. Were this approach to be developed further this is perhaps one way that 3D printing should be viewed by the research community, not only to try to reproduce high quality copies of precious archaeological artefacts –  perhaps questionable in some senses but useful in others – but as with so many analytical techniques and instruments as a “lens” to bring into focus particular aspects of the artefact which the technique may, with further development, be naturally suited to effectively examining, in this case surface detail, shape and form. We believe that 3D printing may be useful for:

  • Visual display where handling is not necessary – very convincing 3D printed reproductions can be produced of suitably sized copies which are colour matched and physically excellent shape copies. See https://wp.me/p2eM6I-di
  • Experimental testing, for instance creating moulds and formers for casting or shaping in authentic materials like clay, bronze, precious metals, glass etc.
  • Creating scaled up copies of objects surfaces to illustrate or examine surface wear, or impact damage.
  • Testing physical forms where mass and material of the object are not key factors, for instance in fluid or air flow around or through static objects.

We hope this preliminary examination of the use of this STL file of an archaeological artefact may prompt further discussion on what roles, if any 3D printing may have for meaningful contribution to the study of heritage and material culture artefacts.

 

Posted in 3D Printing, Archaeology, Archaeology | 2 Comments

The Bosworth Experience – More Than Just a Battle

Bosworth Banner #0It’s refreshing after having been to two excellent battlefield centres in Scotland to visit another in Leicestershire which offers medieval architecture as well as armour. The Battle of Bosworth (22nd August 1485) was the last significant battle of the Wars of the Roses, the civil war between the English medieval Houses of Lancaster and York. Famously King Richard III (York) was killed at Bosworth by the Tudor forces (Lancaster) and after his victory their leader became King Henry VII, founder of an English royal dynasty. In 2010 the Battle of Bosworth Visitor Centre underwent a £400K makeover by Studio MB (http://studiomb.co.uk/Bosworth ) to better communicate the background to this battle which changed British history and the sequence of events which took place on the ground. The visitor centre itself sits atop a pleasant hill in the Bosworth landscape looking over the battleground and is a collection of pre-existing farm and mill buildings which have been adapted to their new use with additional new buildings added to them. As such they hang together well as an integrated and interestingly detailed group of brick buildings loosely arranged around an open courtyard. One enters the grouping though a covered gateway in the “Tithe Barn”, a structure with a real medieval timber frame but a 20th century building envelope which now houses the café. The ticket office is secreted away at the far side of the courtyard and acts as the entrance to a series of interlinked exhibition rooms arranged in chronological sequence of events beginning with an interesting if abbreviated rehearsal of late medieval society and every-day life. Here we have scale models of two types of dwelling, a farmer’s cottage and a knight’s house and a collection of reproduction domestic artefacts that attempt to give an idea of the life of ordinary people – the people who would make up the majority of those in the battle. Bosworth Banner #2

There is characterisation to provide a narrative sequence using four individuals, Alice a local child, Colette the wife of a mercenary in the employ for Henry Tudor, John a farmer and long-bowman in Richard III’s army and finally Lord Stanley, the rather ambiguous Chamberlain of Richard III but also step father of Henry Tudor. As one walks through each room push button video screens allow these characters to give short descriptions of their experience and their role in the events being presented. You start to identify with the characters, as you are supposed to do such that in the “battle room” you know because he’s not there before they tell you that John the long-bowman didn’t survive, but was killed as he fled with the defeated Yorkist troops. These are not CGI animations, they are real actors and are convincing and engaging, there is tangible real humanity to them and empathy with them. Bosworth Banner #3

The main protagonists are throughout posed in opposition to one another, in the historical preambles and in the sepulchrally darkened “battle room” at the centre of which is a very simple backlit round table animating very basic diagrammatic animations of the troop movements of the battle but accompanied by an informative well produced audio narration which is coordinated with the audio-visual displays in the room. This is a self-directed exploration of the content, you do not need a guide, with the darkened “battle room”, you can see where to go, an entrance and exit. However one’s left questioning the central method of the darkened “theatre” for the main narrative performance, it’s justification is the visual impact of the son-et-lumiere but I felt slightly frustrated that I couldn’t see the armour of the two figures at either end properly (localised spot-lights kept going off at the wrong time) and only stumbled across the really interesting try-your-strength long-bow by accident. Bosworth Banner #4

What was surprisingly successful was the stick-your-head-in-a-helmet (fixed to the wall) and see how little you can see through a slit visor when you’re fighting – I ended up getting skewered with a halberd – just seen – not felt! After this the aftermath of the battle is displayed, with replica tomb effigies, descriptions of the treatment of the dead, including King Richard III, some of the knights and ordinary folk. The treatment of the wounded living is quite informative, for instance I had no idea that honey and turpentine was used as an anti-bacterial agent on wounds. Bosworth Banner #7

Following the “post battle exposé” we enter the present and there’s a room with opportunities to learn about how modern methods of metal detecting, archaeology and forensics were used to find the correct location for the battlefield and analyse what occurred on it. The ballistics of early artillery are given an airing, and there is a simple game-play element for those so inclined. And that pretty much does it for the battle itself but there is considerably more about the Tudor dynasty and society which follows on. Bosworth Banner #6

The final rooms of the exhibition focus on the Tudor kings and queens who succeeded Henry VII and the significant events, politics and society of the period. Its here that we find genuinely interesting content on Tudor architecture, with real parts of buildings like encaustic tiles, parts of a rood screen, explanatory material on prodigy houses and domestic equipment. There is also some information on the Reformation – the Henrician and Edwardine excesses of religious destruction in the 16th century. Bosworth Banner #5

This is a battle visitor centre so one cannot expect extensive special interest material on related subjects but one cannot help thinking that in the English midlands where arguably some of the finest and most innovate examples Tudor architecture exist, there should be a museum and or interpretive facility which focusses on the built legacy of this period of British History. Exiting through the centre’s shop you emerge back into the pleasant courtyard and the opportunity to view the battlefield itself. It has to be said that this is one of the most attractive battlefield landscapes, the hilltop location gives marvellous views over the rolling Leicestershire countryside. On a sunny day the short walk to the interpretation viewpoint is pleasant and easy to spot because of the two large flag-poles flying the pennants of Richard and Henry. Bosworth Banner #8

Having enjoyed the landscape and seen where it all happened – though it’s a bit unclear from the presentation method what did actually happen where – mthe café beckons. This is in the “Tythe Barn” close to the entrance and is large enough not to feel crowded even when there is a bus party. The timber frame of the building is original but the rest is recent and non-the-worse for it. This a working set of buildings which have been well considered and overall appear to function reasonably well as a visitor centre. Run by Leicestershire County Council (http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/ ) the rural setting makes this visitor attraction well worth it simply for an afternoon out in the countryside. Bosworth Banner #9

Posted in Battlefields, Medieval, Museum Installations, Museum Installations, Richard III & Medieval Leicester, Tudor | Leave a comment

VR Immersion in the Battle of Bannockburn

Bannockburn Banner #7This is the second of two articles on Battlefield Heritage Centres. The Battle of Bannockburn (23-24 June 1314) was a significant Scottish victory by Robert the Bruce and his army against a much larger English force led by King Edward II in the First War of Scottish Independence and was a landmark in Scottish history. The Battle of Bannockburn Visitor Centre http://battleofbannockburn.com/ just outside Stirling and operated by the National Trust for Scotland http://www.nts.org.uk/Home/ was opened for the 700th anniversary of the battle on the 1 March 2014 in a new building equipped with an impressive suite of Virtual Reality exhibits. Located at the heart of a wide area of landscape which saw events unfold over the two days in 1314, the building which was designed by Reiach and Hall (http://www.reiachandhall.co.uk/ ) is a low-key contrast in black brick to the largely white rough cast domestic buildings which are close by in the suburbs of the village. It stands out from these and rests just below the crest of a small hill which played an important part in the battle. The hill is now crowned with a viewing platform, flag-pole and a monument to Robert the Bruce.

Bannockburn Banner #1Designed around a courtyard the plan of the building leads the visitor from the entrance in a pre-programmed ant-clockwise circuit around it, for much of the time in darkness. This is another “black-box” visitor centre, necessarily so because of the nature of the exhibits which are all Virtual Reality. The experience is highly structured and organised, you have to book in advance, and select whether you want to be a “player” or an “observer.” These pre-programmed groups are issued with 3D specs and conducted around the VR galleries by a guide, in our case the excellent and appropriately costumed Ned. This is very much an experience for families and children, but even staid academics find themselves being caught up in the excitement of the narrative and game play. And this is what this experience is all about – it’s a dynamic, engaging, participative involvement in learning about a series of historical events by becoming part of the action.Bannockburn Banner #6

Immediately on arrival and presenting my pre-printed ticket I was invited to engage in “weapons handling” while I waited for my pre-booked and guided visit to start. This unstuffy and no-nonsense invitation was a great way break the ice and simply get involved. Real hands-on handling of swords, real armour and helmets convince the visitor that this experience is going to be something different and immediate. Bannockburn Banner #2a

The main event begins when we are taken through, as a group to the battlefield experience, a large, entirely black room with 3D projection on all the walls and in cloistered sections behind for further interactive CGI with animated characters. The guide gives careful instructions as to where to stand, what is being seen, what is available to be seen and how to interact with exhibits. I have to say that without this human guidance it would have been impossible to understand what to do or what was being seen, but as it was Ned the guide made an excellent job of narrating us through what turned out to be a highly interesting if somewhat sanitized presentation of the battle as it developed from the viewpoint of an observer within it. The 3D was generally OK, best for things like flying arrows and cross-bow bolts which very realistically appeared to whizz by, or indeed through us but less convincing for some of the human characters which although having been created using motion capture at times appeared cartoonish. This is not Braveheart, there is no blood spray, spattered mud and mutilations here, it’s more boys own but in many regards no less entertaining or informative for it. Bannockburn Banner #3

Around the perimeter of the room behind cloistered screens are a series of about ten, one-to-one interactive characters presented on the wall. You stand on metal plates in front of them and use a simple hand gesture to interact and prompt the character to speak to you, each has about five possible short scripts which you can select and which are informative, sometimes humorous and give a real sense of the diversity of people involved and their views. This character interaction is a genuinely interesting and effective part of the exhibition, I found myself progressing from one character to another and gaining useful insights about the motivations, prejudices and pre-occupations of these characters, all of whom are based on fact. Bannockburn Banner #4

For the second part of the “show” we were expertly shepherded into a battle “game-play” room another completely dark space but this time circular with a central console and projection mapping table. About a dozen “players” from the visitor group were allocated numbered positions around the table which had the physical topography of a few square miles of the battlefield on it. Ned our guide occupied a position at a control console and the rest of us occupied the circular upper level gallery to watch. Projection mapping was used to control and show graphic representations of the movement of forces over the battlefield on the circular table in the centre of the room. Each active participant was responsible for making decisions about the deployment and engagement of regiments, and had been allocated either to a Scottish or an English one. Most of the “generals” in command appeared to be under 12 years of age and there were a couple of Dads assisting. Like all good games this was very much a social event, not cerebral, but emotive and impulsive, both because of the natural inclinations of the players and the infectious enthusiasm of Ned the guide. I think it resulted in a popular Scottish victory but could have gone either way. Underlying this great experience is the technology, a computer game programme calculates and projects attrition based on a series of variables to do with the forces in play, their pre-programmed capabilities, and the geography and so on. Interestingly at the end of the process, there was a light diagnostic analysis of how the game had played out, losses, gains, duration and so on along with a comparison with what happened in the actual battle. This made the “game-play” more than just entertainment but a valuable learning experience conducted in way which communicated the visceral time-dependent urgency of decision-making in life and death situations. Bannockburn Banner #5

We emerged from the game play into reality and the small café for refreshment and the inevitable retail opportunity near the entrance. It felt like having been to the cinema but with a personal guide or compere. Overall this is definitely an “experience”, it is certainly entertainment, and it’s ideal for a family afternoon or morning out and it achieves all of these aims very well. It’s not a museum and is not intended to be one, it has no real artefacts but outside it does have the modern landscape of the battlefield which a 2 minute walk to the observation point lays out before you. There is a disconnect between the immersive VR experienced in the centre and the reality of standing on a wind-blown hill-top looking at a real landscape. There is no attempt at augmented reality which is perhaps a little surprising but rather immersion was the technical path chosen by the design team. The development was a partnership between the National Trust for Scotland and Historic Scotland, funded by the Scottish Government (£5.0M approx) and the Heritage Lottery Fund (£3.94M grant), and The Concept and Design of the new interpretation was by Bright White Ltd ( http://www.brightwhiteltd.co.uk/  ) with 3D Research, Development and Realisation by CDDV, Centre for Digital Documentation and Visualisation (CDDV) http://www.scottishten.org/index/partners/cddv.htm , a partnership between The Glasgow School of Art’s Digital Design Studio (DDS) and Historic Scotland. Bannockburn Banner #2

Posted in Battlefields, Medieval, Museum Installations, Museum Installations, Projection Mapping, Scotland | Comments Off on VR Immersion in the Battle of Bannockburn

Culloden Visitor Centre – Modern architecture meets contested heritage

Culloden Banner 3This is the first of two articles on Battlefield Heritage Centres. Opened during Scotland’s Year of Highland Culture in 2007 and designed by Hoskins Architects, the Culloden Visitor Centre in Scotland is a large and recent, bespoke heritage destination in Inverness-shire located adjacent to the eponymous battlefield where on 16 April 1746, the Jacobite forces of Charles Edward Stuart were decisively defeated by loyalist troops commanded by William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland Two hundred and seventy years on in 2016 heritage aspects surrounding the Jacobite Risings in Britain are still contested. The consequences of this conflict for the many ordinary people in the highlands of Scotland were profound and long-lasting and are still with us today for example in calls for Scottish independence and land reform which remain hotly debated political issues. It’s therefore interesting to look at how this turning point in British history has been portrayed by the Scottish National Trust on the site where it occurred. The exhibition begins with a gallery explaining the political background of the Jacobite rising in 1745 and offers at its end an audio experience of the “Derby Council” the point at which the Jacobite army, having marched from Scotland down into middle England turn around and fall back to Scotland and the arguments that led to this action. There is further audio experience reflecting the “Night March” undertaken by the Jacobite army and this then leads onto a gallery looking at the protagonists immediately before the Battle of Culloden and their relative preparedness. There is a “Battle Immersion Theatre” and following this a “Battle Exploration Zone” where one can see original and reproduction artefacts, clothing and weapons from the battle itself and talk to staff demonstrating the use of some of them. 

Culloden Banner 4

Digital heritage interpretation is certainly present here in a number of forms, most successfully at two points in this process, at the beginning and the end of the walk-through experience in projection mapping displays. The first tracks geographically the course of events of “the ’45” over Britain and its surrounding seas, the movement of forces and their relative numbers. The second, and much larger installation within the “Battle Exploration Zone” does the same for the course of the battle of Culloden itself, showing the lines of combatants as individuals in a birds-eye-view. These exhibits convey the facts of events as they occurred, in what could be at times a somewhat noisy and distracting environment but one which none-the-less has attractions for most age groups. The interiors of all of these galleries are quite dark, with very little or no natural light. While this may be a necessary expedient for conservation of the artefacts and some of the digital displays it does detach one from the architecture of the building and the historical landscape setting in which it rests.Culloden Banner 1

This changes when you emerge from the “Battlefield Exploration Zone and pass through glazed doors to the outside to view the “field.” Here you can turn around and examine the building itself, a long low structure recumbent in the landscape with long timber screen walls visually and physically separating the approach, car park and public entrance to the building from the battlefield. The design plays upon perspective, distance and lines, lines of battle, lines of sight, building lines and lines of barriers. A most successful aspect of this modern architecture is the use of traditional building materials, particularly stone, from the paving inside the building to the walls outside. It has a tactility and well-crafted precision which gives every indication that it’s going to weather well over the coming years and improve with age.

Culloden Banner 6

This is a deliberate architectural palette of materials which echoes an important location only experienced when you do go outside. Huddled down at the end of a long screen wall about two hundred meters north from the main building is one of the few original buildings that existed on the site in 1746, Old Leanach Cottage. This remarkable architectural survival is much as it would have appeared at the time of the battle, complete with heather thatch and un-rendered, random rubble stonework walls.  It’s here that you begin to feel the reality of the events surrounding the Battle of Culloden, its authenticity, survival and resonance with today, not least because having emerged from the somewhat artificial environment of the exhibition you can see the Scotland of today, the distant hills of Wester-Ross and Sutherland behind the cottage to the north, with (on the day we visited) rolling clouds in a big sky above. The contrast is welcome.

Old Leanach Cottage

Going back into the exhibition building, the final gallery is the most poignant. It treats the aftermath of the battle, the long-term consequences for the victors and vanquished. On show are a few of the looted spoils from the defeated Jacobite baggage train, portraits of the two leaders in later life, a copy of the exiled Charles Edward Stuart’s death mask (there is another bronze version in Inverness Museum) along with prints of and texts about the harrowing of the highlanders which followed in the months and years after the battle. All of these and the other artefacts in this gallery focus the mind on the real cost of conflict, ideology and allegiance, themes which still have a contemporary relevance. Overall the visitor receives a reasonably balanced view of the competing factors which impelled the protagonists in the courses of action which they took, but it is clear that the tone of the exhibition is one of a battle (and a way of life) lost by the Jacobites rather than a battle won by the Scots Hanoverian forces. Having said this, although there were “winners” and “losers” – the exhibition does well to leave the visitor with the intuition that neither come out of the sorry business with any laudable moral compass. On the 270th anniversary of the Battle of Culloden The Scottish National Trust are to be commended for the handling of this difficult subject on this beautiful countryside site with a modern building and an ambitious exhibition which I am sure will continue to evolve to reflect new insights and the changing frames of reference of a modern world.

Culloden Banner 5

Posted in Battlefields, Jacobean Architecture, Museum Installations, Museum Installations, Projection Mapping, Scotland | Comments Off on Culloden Visitor Centre – Modern architecture meets contested heritage

Groam House Museum – Pictish Art in the Black Isle

Click on image to go to 3D interactive model. Left - The Rosmarkie Stone in Groam House Museum. Right - A photocaptured 3D digital model at low resolution of the stone in situ.

Click on image to go to 3D interactive model. Left – The Rosmarkie Stone in Groam House Museum. Right – A photocaptured 3D digital model at low resolution of the stone in situ.

A visit to Groam House museum (http://www.groamhouse.org.uk/ ) is a rewarding experience if you have an interest in insular art or just a curiosity about local pre-history in the north of Scotland. Groam House Museum Ltd is a small independent, award-winning museum in the Black Isle village of Rosmarkie, fifteen miles north-east of Inverness in the UK. It displays an internationally important collection of Pictish sculptured art.  Of no small interest is the architecture of Groam House itself, a late 18th/early 19th century, 2 story, Grade ‘B’ listed structure (Historic Scotland Building ID: 31848). With its gable facing onto the street, a centre door flanked by 12-pane sash and case windows at ground and first floor levels and the exterior walls covered in traditional whitewashed lime-harl under a slate roof this is a gloriously typical example of a respectable Scottish tradespersons house which, after extensive restoration following a fire in 1978 has found a new use as a heritage hub at the centre of its community. The centrepiece of the museum’s exhibition on its ground floor is the Rosemarkie Stone, carved around the year 800 AD and there are fourteen other fascinating examples of this kind of insular art in their display, all mainly from the 7th to the 9th century.

Groam House Exterior (small)The Rosmarkie Stone is unusual in that the side of the slab with a well-formed Celtic cross on it is also covered with very fine ornamented patterns, a regular interlace on the upper half and arrangements of animal ornament on the lower (image top left). On the reverse (image top right) in the middle of the slab is a panel containing a cross with equal arms – which is quite unique. The top of the slab has been lost but originally on the reverse side it is supposed to have had three crescent symbols and their associated V-shaped rods, only two of these now remain. There are other symbols, the “Double Disk and Z Rod” and the “Mirror” and the “Comb” and rather than the traditional hunting scene which is common in Pictish slabs of this type there is a Christian cross. Parallels have been drawn with Northumbrian illuminated manuscripts and it seems likely that this particular devotional or memorial art-work was produced in an ecclesiastical setting where the governance was episcopal rather than aristocratic hence the absence of a hunting scene. Like a number of the other cross slabs on display at Groam House the Rosemarkie Stone has recessed panels on its face at the crossing of the crucifix which are edged with a border, and similar, shallower cavities at the centre of each arm. These depressions may have contained decorative glass or stone inlays and may have given the appearance of metalwork crosses in jewellery of the period. Because of the low degree of weathering of the stone surface on this 1200 year old artefact it is likely that for much of its life it was indoors, possibly within a church, and if so it could have formed a reredos at the back of an altar or had a position in the centre of the nave in front of the sanctuary. Despite the large number of ecclesiastical Pictish stone carvings found in and around Rosmarkie there is as yet no sign of the monastic buildings or church compound with which they may have been associated, however it was likely that there was one and that it was part of the Columban federation of churches whose main bases were on Iona on the west coast and Lindisfarne on the east coast.  It is possible that the site of Rosemarkie’s church or monastery has long since been covered by the later village. The first systematic account of the slab is in John Stuart’s Sculptured Stones of Scotland published in 1856. Stuart published a handsome, if somewhat inaccurate, double-page spread depicting the front and back of the slab. Prof. Isabel Henderson in her “Art and Function of Rosmemarkie’s Pictish Monuments” (1990) states that she believes “There is a strong probability that the cross-slab stood originally somewhere within the confines of the modern graveyard.” It is therefore possible that further evidence of the presence of a Celtic ecclesiastical establishment exists beneath the present church and its grounds.

Overall the collection at Groam House is distinguished by its generally high standard of artistic representation and inventiveness. Its sources are of some architectural interest. The art of carving in relief appears to have been lost in Northern England after the departure of the Roman army from the British Isles in the 5th century. In order to construct masonry churches in Northumbria masons had to be brought from Gaul in the 7th century AD because there remained only a tradition of timber building in the north. The beautifully decorated jambs on the doorway at Monkwearmouth built in 674 AD are of a Germanic type which may reflect this introduction. An impressive cross marked slab at Monkwearmouth dedicated to one Herebericht is dated to the early 8th century and it’s at just this time that the Pictish king Nechtan, son of Derile was in communication with Bede’s abbot Ceolfrith of Jarrow and “…asked for builders to be sent to build a church of stone…promising that it would be dedicated in honour of the blessed chief of the apostles [St. Peter].” It’s likely this church was eventually built at Restenneth near Forfar in the early 8th century and if introduction of masons led to stone church building in Pictland then it’s likely Northumbrian artistic decoration (including monumental sculpture) came with it, leading within a generation or two to a diffusion of this artistic tradition within the pre-existing Pictish arts. Evidence to support this view is that Restenneth is close to Aberlemno which has an outstanding concentration of Pictish sculpture. The early cross-slab (Aberlemno 2) in the Aberlemno Churchyard has the same proportion (height to width) as the Herebericht slab and has carved designs very similar to those found in the Lindisfarne Gospels which date to circa 700 AD. The stone is reputed to show scenes of the Battle of Dunnichen or Nechtansmere. This is usually believed to have taken place at Dunnichen, four miles south of Aberlemno, on 20 May 685. The battle was fought between the invading army of King Ecgfrith of Northumbria and Pictish defenders under King Bridei III. The battle was a decisive victory for the Picts.

Groam House Banner #2

Details of the relief carving on the Rosemarkie Stone.

The Rosemarkie cross slab which is 144 miles north of Restenneth, has more slender proportions which indicate that it is later than Aberlemno 2 which would conform to a view of initial northward propagation of Northumbrian-Celtic sculptural tradition from 700-800AD, and very probably the architecture of church building in stone progressed in the same way at the same time as well.  This was not a one way traffic, there was widespread communication between Pictland the rest of Britain, Ireland and the continent. Within this context Prof. Isabel Henderson sums up the wider importance of the Rosemarkie stone and others like it thus; “Because the Irish and the English sent missionaries to Germany in the eighth century, Insular Art was known on the Continent and interacted with the art produced at the court of Charlemagne. The Rosemarkie slab in spite of its array of uniquely Pictish symbols is a Christian monument decorated in an international art style…it would not have seemed alien or barbaric to a visitor from Canterbury or Ravenna in the ninth century.” This international dimension to the understanding of later Pictish sculpture like the Rosmarkie stone highlights a vitally important role regional museums like Groam House play in preserving and explaining the rich creative, cultural legacy early British art and architecture has within a wider European context.

Groam House Museum #1

 

Posted in Archaeology, Photogrammetry, Pictish / Insular Art, Scotland | Comments Off on Groam House Museum – Pictish Art in the Black Isle

Medieval “Lantern of the North” gets LED Projection Mapping

IMG_5502 small JPGThe opening of a new exhibition by Historic Scotland on Good Friday 2016 at Elgin cathedral was an opportunity to see arguably the best collection of medieval architectural sculpture in Scotland and one which has been inaccessible to the public for over twenty years. It was too good an opportunity to miss and we were not disappointed. Presented in a sensitive and imaginative series of displays in the chambers of the two surviving west towers of the cathedral the climb up the spiral stairs between the several chambers in which this permanent exhibition is now housed is amply rewarded by the plethora of sculptures – there are approximately 126 in the collection as a whole. Well considered LED artificial lighting brings the human and animal figures and faces to life, not just statically but in one case using projection mapping. This is used here for the tomb effigy of Bishop Archibald a 13th-century bishop of Moray (1253-98). Researchers at Napier University have designed and built an enclosed and highly effective projection mapping display which shows the paint colour scheme that the tomb effigy would originally have had. This reconstruction was based on paint samples which are still visible on the surviving stone. The effect is remarkably vivid – the colours are very bright. The opportunity has also been taken to exploit the animative potential of projection mapping and show the figure in various stages of weathering and to highlight areas of interest, including parts that have been replaced or are missing. For a young audience, the blinking eyes of the effigy under the projection mapping display are a surprising treat! Historic Scotland have had all the stones professionally photographed in detail and these images have been used to create a digital database of the entire collection which visitors can explore on the ground floor of the North West tower.

Head and detail of the LED projection onto Bishop Archibald's tomb effigy at Elgin Cathedral.

Head and detail of the LED projection onto Bishop Archibald’s tomb effigy at Elgin Cathedral.

Started in 1224 Elgin Cathedral was a powerhouse of Catholic faith in the north of Scotland and was lavishly enriched with architectural and ecclesiastical ornament.  Archibald became Bishop in 1253 and for 20 years he managed his dioceses quietly. However in 1270 a fire broke out which devastated the cathedral and the cannons’ houses. Archibald rebuilt the cathedral and expanded it, and he chose a prime location for his own tomb, in the choir, close the high altar where he was placed on his death in 1298. His tomb effigy under the projection mapping shows Bishop Archibald with a jewelled mitre, kneeling angels supporting his head on a decorated cushion, a red cope painted to show folds and with a black geometric pattern in the lining and a full length tunic under the cope decorated with a floral pattern and on his hands embroidered silk gloves.

Typical example of one of the exhibtion installations in the towers of Elgin cathedral.

Typical example of one of the exhibtion installations in the towers of Elgin cathedral.

Ninety years later the cathedral was infamously sacked and burned in 1390 by Alexander Stewart the Earl of Buchan also known as the “Wolf of Badenoch” in revenge for Bishop Alexander Bur (1362-97) excommunicating him. It was rebuilt and attacked again in 1402 by Alexander MacDonald, Lord of the Isles. Elgin’s position near the edge of the Highlands was a major problem in the later middle ages. The last major building work was the re-modelling of the chapter house by Bishop Andrew Stewart (1482-1501). The Reformation Parliament of 1560 began the decline of the cathedral, worship was moved to the local parish church of St Giles, the lead roofing was stripped from the cathedral in 1567-8 and 70 years later in December 1637 the choir blew down in a gale and the rood screen was broken up for firewood. The central tower collapsed on Easter Sunday 1711. The stone sculptures laid buried as debris until the 1880’s which accounts for their marvellously crisp detail. The west towers and chapter house remained roofed and form part of the most magnificent ecclesiastical ruin in the north of Scotland but one which now boasts a superb exhibition of medieval sculptural art thanks to Historic Scotland. Elgin is 3 ¾ hours’ drive north of Edinburgh or just over 4 hours on the train.

Elgin Banner 3

A quick 3D Photocapture of a green man sculpture at Elgin Cathedral's medieval sculpted stones exhibition.

Click on image for 3D interactive model. A quick 3D Photo-capture of a green man sculpture at Elgin Cathedral’s medieval sculpted stones exhibition.

Posted in Archaeology, Churches and Ecclesiatical, Medieval, Museum Installations, Museum Installations, Photogrammetry, Projection Mapping, Scotland | Comments Off on Medieval “Lantern of the North” gets LED Projection Mapping

Guerilla Photogrammetry

   Christ head Banner #5-1Photogrammetry has garnered much publicity recently as a means of capturing 3D data about heritage assets and here at the Digital Building Heritage Group we’ve been using it professionally for a number of years to do this. For much of this time it has been a highly specialised process but recent advances in technology such as tiny, very high resolution cameras in modern mobile phones and the availability of reliable and free-to-use software like Autodesk’s 123D CATCH has brought the technique well within the reach of everyone who has a modern mobile phone and an internet connection. This is the theory at least but from experience with our architecture students studying digital reconstruction of historic buildings we’ve seen that in reality the process can be more complex than this, requiring considerable care and planning to achieve high quality, exhibition ready results that have real usefulness. We routinely use a high quality 35mm digital SLR and the industry standard Agisoft PhotoScan for creating high quality 3D point clouds, Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) meshes and Digital Surface Models (DTM’s) for our digital models and 3D prints and this an excellent software package for doing so. It does come with price tag which can place it beyond the amateur or student user’s reach so we thought we’d look at how easy it was for this sector of the user community to engage with photogrammetry and the kind of results they could hope to achieve. For this we turned to the most commonly available form of cameras – mobile phones – and Autodesk’s 123D CATCH, a free-to-use photogrammetry package. Autodesk’s blurb says that 123D CATCH “….captures places, people and things in 3D using your Windows Phone or Mobile device, iPhone, iPad, Android device, or any camera. Share your catches, or 3D print a real object!” We thought we’d test the voracity of this claim by using an ordinary iPhone and a visit to cathedral and see what could be achieved. A day out at Lincoln Cathedral provided a typical user opportunity to grab some tourist snaps of the architecture using an iPhone 6S. In the north aisle it also provided the opportunity to walk round a stone copy of a medieval Christs head sculpture which was on a table display and take 21 photographs of it over a period of about 3 minutes in a roughly structured double circuit of the object, the first circuit at a low level, the second circuit at a higher level. The resulting photos, taken with the autofocus and auto lighting compensation activated in the phone’s software but without flash were all reasonable quality and good resolution, more as a result of the 12 megapixel camera within the phone than any great skill on the user’s part. Triangulated facePhotogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points and is a technique which is enjoying increasing popularity in the arts and creative design sector for the digital capture of 3D objects and scenes. These then are most often manipulated as 3D models for use in architecture, product design and engineering, performance art, fine art and conservation. The underlying method of creating a 3D mesh of surface points is actually called stereo photogrammetry. It involves estimating the three-dimensional coordinates of points on an object by making measurements in two or more photos of the same thing but taken from different positions. Common points are identified on each image. Methods related to triangulation, trilateration and multidimensional scaling are used to calculate the relative x,y,z positions of the camera and the points on the object. These can then be aggregated to reconstruct the 3D form of the object using the points identified on its surface. There are a number of good pieces of photogrammetry software available which do this and a great deal more, including capturing bit-maps of the object’s surface and “wrapping” them as textures onto the 3D mesh to give the model a lifelike appearance. Some programs like Acute3D’s Smart3DCapture, now part of Bentley Systems and renamed ContextCapture, Pix4Dmapper, Photoscan, 123D Catch, Bundler toolkit, PIXDIM, and Photosketch have been made to allow people to quickly make 3D models using this photogrammetry method. Irrespective of which is used, it’s likely that there will be gaps in the resulting mesh where data was not available or could not be calculated from the photos so additional work on the mesh with software like MeshLab, netfabb or MeshMixer is often still necessary to create whole, “water-tight” models. We use NetFabb Pro (http://www.netfabb.com/ ), and occasionally Magics (http://software.materialise.com/magics ) for cleaning up the the .obj files which Autodesk’s 123D CATCH produces. Once they have been cleaned up (“fixed”) they are exported as STL files for 3D printing.

Texture Maps #1Back at the Office the 21 pictures taken of the Christs Head at Lincoln Cathedral were uploaded to Autodesk’s 123D CATCH software (this software is free to download here – http://www.123dapp.com/catch ) just as one might do at home or even by Wi-Fi from your phone (there’s an app of course for this). The processing of the images once they were uploaded was straightforward and took about 4 minutes. The resulting OBJ file was pretty good, with what we’d describe as a medium resolution mesh density. It had only a few extraneous bits of mesh to be cut away and of course a hole underneath where the object’s underside had been sitting on a table and so could not be photographed. We used NetFabb Pro to fix this OBJ file by cutting away unwanted mesh of the table etc. and filling any holes and scaling it to the size of the original. We then used a hollowing function in Netfabb Pro (not available in the free version) to void the inside of the object and give it a 4mm wall thickness, and cut an access aperture in the back of the model where it would not be seen so allowing the interior of the hollowed out model to be inspected. To create a 3D print it’s not strictly necessary to do this but it greatly reduces the amount of material used and so reduces the cost. Normally we would print this ourselves but we wanted to be true to the experiment and recognised that most people do not have a 3D printer at home (yet), so we sent the finished model as an STL to our friends at John E Wright in Nottingham (http://www.johnewright.com/ ) who have a public 3D printing bureau service using Makerbot Replicator Z18’s (http://www.makerbot.com/ ). Anyone can use this commercial service. A couple of days later the 3D printed model arrived at our office. The resolution of the model reflects the relatively quick capture method, the medium level of TIN resolution automatically applied by 123D CATCH and the 0.5mm resolution of the Makerbot 3D printer. This is a cheap, quick model, using widely and publically available resources. Because of this we think the workflow we tried here makes a useful teaching demonstration of Photogrammetry 3D capture and 3D printing of artefacts and this is what we’re using it for. The resulting 3D print is interesting and so are the questions it raises about what you would do with this capability at this level of resolution beyond instruction.IMG_4943 #2 small

Posted in Churches and Ecclesiatical, Medieval, Photogrammetry | Comments Off on Guerilla Photogrammetry

Projection Mapping and Medieval Virtual Reality

PJ Banner 2Over the past couple of months we’ve been examining a range of delivery methods for historic building reconstruction visualisations beyond apps and on-screen video fly-throughs, in particular for museum and exhibition settings. A couple of techniques have been of particular interest, projection mapping and VR headsets. Projection mapping also known as video mapping and spatial augmented reality is not a new technique, it’s been used widely for projecting images and particularly polychromy reconstructions onto real buildings at 1:1 scale for some time. However as far as we can determine it’s been little used in conjunction with 3D printed heritage exhibition models, which is something we thought would be worth exploring. Our intern Romylos created a polychrome reconstruction of the internal south wall of the nave of the St. Mary of Annunciation 3D printed model we made last year for the De Montfort University Heritage Centre to try out the technique. With the assistance of collages at the Heritage Centre Romylos carried out some tests, in situ in the exhibition with a micro-projector to see what the projected polychrome elevation would look like and examine the practical issues of this kind of projection within a live exhibition setting. In low light conditions the overall effect was remarkably effective with an ability to switch easily between alternative polychrome reconstructions within the same 3D printed model. It’s also possible to project video instead of still images and animate the projected surfaces which has a number of narrative possibilities. At a technical level beam divergence does not appear to be a significant issue on sectional models like this where the variation in projection plane is relatively small, nor does transmission loss or diffraction through a layer of 5mm Perspex case cause any noticeably deleterious effects, though focus has to be precise, and the flatter the sectional model the better. Of greater issue are foreground obstructions within the model itself which if not accounted for the in the composition of the projected image will, when illuminated have the wrong surface image and will cast a shadow behind them (e.g. see the tombs and altar to left of model in the image above). Overcoming this requires careful thought in designing the model and the projected images together so that complement one another.

VR headset banner 1 smallFor the same reconstructed church we’ve also been using a Samsung Gear VR headset, to create 3D virtual interiors. It uses a Samsung Galaxy S6 Flat 128 GB SIM-Free Smartphone to deliver the sphere photo / render of the 3D environment and you can have a connected series of locations which you can navigate through using a slider on the side of the set. This is a relatively low cost, accessible and well-understood way for users to engage with VR and delivers a remarkably convincing immersive experience for the cost. The key factor in the experience beyond the content of the image is the screen resolution of the phone, the Galaxy S6 has a screen resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels (~577 ppi pixel density) which is good by current mobile phone standards, but you’re still conscious that you’re looking at a digital image because although they are small, the pixels are still detectable. It’s very likely that continuing improvements in phone screen resolution will overcome this in the next couple of years just as flat screen technology has done in other applications. As it stands, it’s the immersive 360 degree real-time interaction with the virtual environment which is a significant attraction to users and consequently for heritage visitor experiences that are considering adopting it. From being a novel technology 3-4 years ago, with prices to match VR headsets are now rapidly approaching something that could be described as mainstream, and the technologies comprising its immediate on-site use are becoming much more integrated and mature. Given this we are looking carefully at the methodological and epistemological issues which bear upon how and why to employ these technologies for presenting and understanding heritage buildings, what effects the technology may have upon that understanding and whether other alternatives may be more appropriate in certain circumstances. In particular we are interested in the institutional, museological, operational and interprative advantages that hybridised approaches using both tangible exhibits like 3D printed models and digital assets like 3D VR interiors can bring to heritage interpretation.

Posted in 3D Digital Modelling, 3D Printing, Churches and Ecclesiatical, Medieval, Museum Installations, Museum Installations, Projection Mapping, Textures and Rendering | Comments Off on Projection Mapping and Medieval Virtual Reality