Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

ConímbrigAR: A Prototype Augmented Mobile Application for Exploration of Roman Mosaics

ConímbrigAR: A Prototype Augmented Mobile Application for Exploration of Roman Mosaics

Presentation for the "2ªS JORNADAS DOCUMENTAÇÃO E REPRESENTAÇÃO DIGITAL DE BENS CULTURAIS" at the School of Arts, Porto, 2018

Jorge C. S. Cardoso

October 20, 2018
Tweet

More Decks by Jorge C. S. Cardoso

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. ConímbrigAR: A Prototype Augmented Mobile Application for Exploration of Roman

    Mosaics 2ªs Jornadas de Documentação e Representação Digital de Bens Culturais, 19-20 Oct, School of Arts, Porto, 2018 André Belo, Jorge C. S. Cardoso CISUC/DEI, Universidade de Coimbra
  2. Contents 1. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” project 2. Digital

    Tools for Exploring Roman Mosaic 3. Prototype AR Application 4. AR Framework Testing
  3. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” Project

  4. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” Project • Integrated into the

    CREATOUR national project as a pilot initiative - Creative Tourism Destination Development in Small Cities and Rural Areas • “Mosaico – Conímbriga e Sicó” is a creative tourism project based on the Roman Mosaic heritage ◦ Develops educational, cultural, and creative activities around Roman Mosaic
  5. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” Project • Based on the

    valuable Roman Mosaic Heritage present in the geographical axis constituted by ◦ the Ruins of the Roman city of Conímbriga, ◦ the Roman Villa of Rabaçal, and ◦ the Monumental Complex of Santiago da Guarda. • Headquartered in the “Monographic Museum of Conímbriga – National Museum” ◦ an important center for archaeological research, conservation and restoration of Roman Mosaic in Portugal
  6. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” Project • Promotes cultural and

    creative activities within the museums, interpretative centers and archaeological sites included in its program of action. • The visitors are invited to be involved in alternative experiences of sharing knowledge about the Roman Mosaic Heritage • Mosaic as an expression of creativity brought into the present and reinterpreted now and in the future.
  7. Digital Tools for Exploring Roman Mosaic In the context of

    the “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” project Various planned digital tools to support different activities for exploring roman mosaic
  8. Mosaic Editor • Support for mosaic workshops for non-professionals

  9. Mosaic Programming Environment • Learning computer programming by creating mosaic

    patterns
  10. Innovative Interactive Experiences • Sandbox early prototype • Interactive experiences

    for kids • Digging mosaics simulations
  11. Augmented Reality Mobile Application An AR application that provides in-place,

    contextual information about the roman mosaics
  12. Augmented Reality Mobile Application • Technical information about the mosaics,

    for example, when they were uncovered, what was the latest conservation or restoration work, etc. • Provide additional conservation and restoration information, for example, display image overlays of the conservation or restoration works on mosaics over time.
  13. Augmented Reality Mobile Application • Provide a platform for the

    visualization of virtual restoration of the existing mosaics. The virtual restoration images could be created by different audiences with different purposes. For example, in the context of a school visit, students could digitally manipulate mosaic images and creatively “restore” missing parts which could then be experienced through the AR application.
  14. Augmented Reality Mobile Application • Provide visual indication regarding specific

    aspects of the various mosaics. • For example, mosaics could be highlighted with graphical information regarding the various motifs found in the mosaics ◦ geometric patterns, animals, plants, compositions, mythological figures, etc.
  15. Augmented Reality Mobile Application • Hybrid application (run on Android,

    iOS, etc.) ◦ Lower development effort • What AR development frameworks are most suitable for detecting mosaics?
  16. Types of Augmented Reality - Location Based • Based on

    coordinates (e.g., GPS) • Imprecise, not enough to overlay mosaic details
  17. Types of Augmented Reality - (Structured) Marker Based • Based

    on a pre-defined, structured visual marker image • Very precise, requires placement of artificial markers on site
  18. Types of Augmented Reality - (Natural Image Features) Marker Based

    • Based on a pre-defined natural images (targets) • Very precise, if targets are good enough • May be used against natural images on site • Usually used with printed images
  19. Types of Augmented Reality - Markerless Based • Based on

    detection of planar surfaces • Not contextual
  20. AR Development Frameworks • We studied multi-platform AR development frameworks

    and their features ◦ We wanted natural image features • Narrowed down to 3 frameworks suitable for natural image detection
  21. AR Framework Evaluation • Real-world evaluation with roman mosaics at

    Conímbriga • Targets with different characteristics were captured • A test application was developed using each of the 3 AR frameworks
  22. AR Test Application • Test application overlaid graphical shapes over

    the targets • We screen-captured in video the execution of the application over each of the mosaic targets
  23. AR Test Application • We subjectively analysed the various videos

    on 3 metrics ◦ Recognition delay ◦ Minimum required target area ◦ Visual alignment and stability
  24. AR Framework Evaluation Results - Overall Recognition • Not all

    targets were recognized ◦ This was expected ◦ Targets were captured from a distance ◦ Not much effort in capturing targets • Wikitude performed very poorly ◦ Unexpected ◦ Requires further study as to why
  25. AR Framework Evaluation Results - Recognition Delay • CraftAR is

    faster than PixLive ◦ Almost 0.5 seconds faster
  26. AR Framework Evaluation Results - Minimum required target area PixLive

    requires less visible target area
  27. AR Framework Evaluation Results - Visual alignment and stability -1:

    bad alignment / stability 0: ok alignment / stability 1: good alignment / stability
  28. Conclusion • Study allowed us to understand strong and weak

    points of these AR frameworks • AR frameworks’ performance varies depending on the type of image they are recognizing • AR frameworks have different performance compromises ◦ No single one is best at every performance attribute • Virtual Heritage application developers should test different frameworks before commiting to one • We still need to study additional aspects such as the best way to capture targets ◦ Explore alternative AR types