3D Modeling of Buildings: Outstanding Sites

Conclusion

It is unreasonable to talk of a conclusion when the methods discussed in this text for documenting outstanding sites are, as shown here, in a period of rapid evolution. The equipment, whether laser or photo, is becoming lighter, more effective, less expensive and easier to manipulate. The software is becoming more automatic and can be turned to in more and more complex situations. It can be used today on sites which would have until recently been thought of as impossible to work with. However, never-ending progress in the field of computer science means that this type of complexity can now be processed.

Nevertheless, the performance and the modernity of these methods have not changed the underlying values: in [SAI 92], we are reminded that the survey “must establish the shapes of the object, their proportions and dimensions, and clearly describe the multiple relations between the various elements”. Saint-Aubin highlights the fact that “an observation of the representation is insufficient for establishing what is surveyed and what is interpolated and, even more seriously, what is accurate or inaccurate in the elements surveyed”. This call for caution, given in 1992 at the dawn of the first laser scanners and well before the automation of photogrammetry, is highly relevant today. Data produced using the current methods, now available to those outside the selected group of surveyors, are only useful if accompanied by metadata which qualifies it in a methodical way, and ...