Creating Digital Archives of 3D Artworks

A white paper submitted to the
National Science Foundation's Digital Libraries Initiative

Marc Levoy and Hector Garcia-Molina
Computer Science Department
Stanford University


December 4, 1999
(revised March 27, 2000)

Introduction

Recent improvements in laser rangefinder technology, together with algorithms for combining multiple range and color images, allow us to reliably and accurately digitize the external shape and surface characteristics of many physical objects. Examples include machine parts, design models, toys, and artistic and cultural artifacts. Although the technologies required to create digital archives of 2D artifacts have matured substantially in the last ten years [Lesk97], the jump from two to three dimensions poses new problems. These are problems of both scale and substance, and they touch on every aspect of digital archiving: storage, indexing, searching, distribution, viewing, and piracy protection. To prevent our libraries and museums from being blindsided by technological change, we should begin addressing these problems now. Furthermore, to insure that the solutions we adopt are useful and scalable, we should incorporate into our research programs the construction of several non-toy 3D digital archives.

In this white paper, we enumerate and discuss the challenges of creating digital archives of 3D artworks. We also propose solutions to some of these problems. In the "sidebars" (sections with italicized titles), we illustrate these problems with examples taken from the Digital Michelangelo Project, and we identify particular solutions that we at Stanford would like to try implementing, using the 3D data acquired during this project as a testbed.

The Digital Michelangelo Project Figure 1: Stanford's laser scanner positioned in front of Michelangelo's David. Our 3D model of the David contains 2 billion polygons and 7,000 color images, occupying 30 gigabytes. As an application of recent improvements in 3D scanning technology, a team of 30 faculty, staff, and students from Stanford University and the University of Washington, led by one of us (Levoy), spent the 1998-99 academic year in Italy scanning the sculptures and architecture of Michelangelo [DigMichProj]. The principal goals of our project were to make a 3D archive of as many of his statues as we could scan in a year, to make that archive as detailed as current scanning and computer technology would permit, regardless of cost, and to distribute this archive to scholars worldwide. We are not the first research group to digitize statues. Notable previous efforts include those of the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) [Beraldin, 1999] and and a team from IBM [Rushmeier, 1998]. The NRC efforts are interesting because they have focused for years on building robust, field-deployable systems. The IBM efforts are interesting because they recently tackled digitizing a large statue (Michelangelo's unfinished Florentine Pieta). Although their models are not as detailed as ours, their equipment was considerably lighter-weight. In addition to these efforts, there are a growing number of companies that offer contract scanning services to the design, entertainment, and museum communities. Compared to these efforts, the most unique aspect of the Digital Michelangelo Project is its scale - 10 large statues recorded at a resolution of 0.25mm, including every major statue in the Accademia museum in Florence. Unfortunately, having successfully acquired over 250 gigabytes of three-dimensional data, we now realize that the task of turning this data into a usable archive is more difficult than we thought. These difficulties in motivated us to think more generally about the problems of creating 3D digital archives, leading to the present white paper.

Where do you store a 500-gigabyte book?

3D scanning produces large datasets. During our year in Italy we acquired 250 gigabytes of raw data. Over the next year or so, we will clean up this data, edit it, and assemble it to create 3D geometric models with color. We estimate that these models will occupy another 250 gigabytes. Since the technology for assembling scans into models is immature, we consider it important that scholars continue to have access to the raw data. Thus, the total size of our archive will be about 500 gigabytes. Although this database is currently the largest of its type in the world, we believe that with continued development and commercialization of 3D digitization technologies, archives of this size will soon become commonplace, and will even grow in size.

The enormous size of 3D archives makes it unlikely that many libraries will be sufficiently wealthy to maintain local copies of them. Certainly, online storage is out of the question. At the current price of $6 per gigabyte for a low-end hard drive, it would cost $3,000 to keep our 500-gigabyte database "spinning". No library can spend this much archiving a single work. Offline storage media, like 8-gigabyte DVD disks, offers an attractive alternative. However, our database would occupy over 60 DVD disks, which if nothing else represents a significant investment in shelf space.

We therefore believe that 3D archives must be stored centrally and distributed on demand to libraries. The centralized server might be at the museum that owns the work, at a centralized library (like the U.S. Library of Congress), or elsewhere. Although centralizing the storage of 3D works eliminates the cost of redundant copies, it does not eliminate the cost of the primary archive, which is high. This solution also forces a long-term relationship between the serving institution and the client library, one that has monetary implications. Moreover, if the serving institution closes, then the library has failed in its role of providing a safe, permanent archive of valuable works for posterity.

Can bytes outlive marble?

Another problem related to storage of 3D works is insuring the longevity of the archive. Unlike images, which can be printed on paper at high resolution to insure their survival in the event a digital archive becomes unreadable or undecodable, 3D models have no natural printed representation. Of course, rapid prototyping technologies (such as stereolithography) could be used to make physical replicas [Curless, 1996] of small objects, but the cost of making such replicas is high, the replicas do not capture color or surface finish, and replicas cannot be made of large objects except at a reduced scale and quality. Thus, it is important to preserve the digital models themselves. Due to the size and complexity of the 3D models, techniques that are being developed for archiving digital information will have to be extended [Cooper, 1999; Garrett 1996].

One approach that has been suggested is to save not just the bytes, but also the software needed to interpret the bytes, with the idea that this software can be recompiled on future machines [Crespo, 1999]. In the case of graphical data, this implies archiving not only the source code for file readers and interactive viewers, but also for a layered hierarchy of high-level and low-level graphics packages. In the case of interactive 3D graphics, these packages often interact not only with the operating system, but also with graphics acceleration hardware and with display and input devices. These interactions greatly complicate this "emulation" approach.

One more problem worth mentioning is that because 3D scanning is a young technology, there are methodologies and parameters associated with a 3D digitization effort that should be recorded and made available to users of the data. There is no clear concensus on how such "metadata" should be represented or stored [Weibel, 1995]. The current "technology" - README files - is inadequate; better methods will need to be developed.

How should 3D works be catalogued?

If 3D works are centrally archived, and to some extent even if they are not, techniques must be developed for indexing the works within each client library. Since artwork is inherently graphical, and modern computers make graphics easy, it makes sense to create graphical catalogs for digitized art. For 2D works, local indexing can be accomplished by catalogs containing thumbnail images. For 3D works, these thumbnails should be interactive, allowing the library user to examine the work from all angles. However, they should also be lightweight enough for browsing on a low-cost PC, even a laptop or handheld computer. Unfortunately, computers capable of rotating 3D models in real-time are expensive, and even low-detail 3D models of complex objects require a lot of memory, both in the computer and on disk.

One possible solution to this quandary is to use techniques from the relatively new field of image-based rendering [IBR]. Image-based rendering generates views of a 3D object from a set of previously computed (or photographed) images. Since only pixels are being manipulated, not 3D models, these techniques are efficient, and their computational cost is independent of object complexity.

Although image-based rendering techniques are still in their infancy, they have already found application in the commercial sector. For example, in an effort to make online merchandise catalogues more compelling and useful than their printed counterparts, many retailers are experimenting with texture-mapped 3D models (such as Meta Creations's MetaStream format) or animation flipbooks (such as Apple's QuickTime VR, a primitive form of image-based rendering [Chen, 1995]). We expect explosive growth in this area in the coming years.

Cataloguing Michelangelo's statues using light fields Figure 2: An excerpt from the center of a light field composed of computer renderings of a 3D model of a dragon. Each image represents a slightly different view of the model. By cutting and pasting pixels from several images, new views can be constructed from observer positions not present in the original array. Since rendering a light field involves only shuffling pixels, not rendering polygons, small light fields light this one can be navigated in real time on a PC having no hardware acceleration. A group of us at Stanford University have developed an image-based rendering technique called light field rendering [Levoy and Hanrahan, 1996] which is simple and powerful. A light field is a 2D array of 2D images of an object. Each image is taken from a slightly different viewpoint. Once a light field has been created, perspective views from viewpoints not present in the original array can be constructed in real time by extracting 2D slices in appropriate directions from this 4D array. Since each original image differs only slightly from its neighbor, light fields are highly compressible, possibly up to 1000:1. The compressed lightfield for a typical thumbnail catalog entry would occupy only a few megabytes, about the size of an uncompressed color image. We propose exploring the use of light fields for cataloguing archives of 3D artworks. Such catalogues would be authored by the museum or central server, stored on each library's server (although downloading on demand is also possible), and viewed on an inexpensive PC or laptop. To test our idea, we propose to build a prototype catalog for the statues of Michelangelo where the entries are interactive light fields built from renderings of our computer models of the statues.

How valuable are 3D archives?

Although some museums have joined licensing cooperatives [MDLC], they are as a whole unsure what economic model to use to license and distribute their artistic patrimony. The reasons for this uncertainty are multifold: the cost of digitizing artifacts is high, the cost of maintaining and distributing a digital archive is high, and the economic value of digital representations of two-dimensional works is uncertain. One reason for this uncertainty is that photographic replicas of important paintings and drawings abound, many of them unlicensed, so the liklihood of realizing substantial royalties from digital replicas of these artworks is low.

The situation for three-dimensional artworks is different, however. Until a few years ago no famous sculptures had been scanned, and of those that have been scanned, only a handful have been used to manufacture replicas for sale. Although replicas of famous statues (such as Michelangelo's David) abound, these are based on handmade clay models and are of poor quality. Thus, the potential economic value of digital representations of 3D artifacts is high. Indeed, the U.S. market for replicas of statuary and other 3D artifacts, much of it conducted through mail-order catalogs, exceeds a billion dollars annually.

How can we protect 3D archives?

Providing physical protection for valuable intellectual property is a hard problem composed of many parts. One aspect is secure archiving. If due to their large size 3D archives are kept in only a few central locations, rather than in libraries worldwide, then maintaining security for the data is simplified. However, centralized archiving does not entirely solve the security problem; it only shifts it. In order to be useful, an archive must be downloadable and/or viewable. To protect data during these operations, researchers have suggested some combination of 3D digital watermarking, piracy detection, and piracy prevention. Let us consider each in turn.

1. 3D digital watermarking. There is a small but growing body of literature on 3D digital watermarking [Ohbuchi, 1998; Praun, 1999]. These techniques, like those proposed for 2D images, are robust to some attacks, but not others. To cite one example, Praun et al. focus on dense triangle meshes of the type produced by laser scanning, and they propose to introduce controlled perturbations into the xyz-coordinates of the mesh vertices. This approach is immune to attack by moderate smoothing or remeshing, but can be defeated by introducing low-frequency warps into the object shape. Moreover, it is not immune to severe smoothing. Given the extreme detail in our model of Michelangelo's David, a severely smoothed version would still be sufficiently detailed to make a physical replica or to use as a character in a video game.

2. Piracy detection. Web crawlers have been developed that will search the web for specific images. We need similar technology that will search for specific 3D models. Such a crawler would need to recognize all major 3D model formats. Unfortunately, standards for these formats are not as highly developed or standardized as image formats, although they are maturing rapidly. Once a crawler has found a file of a recognized type, it would examine its contents. One obvious approach is to immediately search the contents for a 3D digital watermark. However, watermark testing is generally expensive. Another approach would be to quickly compare the contents to a set of coarse shape descriptors (see the discussion below on search engines for 3D shapes). If a match is found, then the file would be tested for the presence of a 3D watermark.

3. Piracy prevention. We believe that for the digital representations of highly valuable 3D artworks, like our model of the David, it is not sufficient to detect piracy; we must instead prevent it. The computer industry has experimented with a number of techniques for preventing unauthorized use and copying. For computer software, these techniques include physical dongles, software access keys, machine-serial-number based licenses, and copy prevention software. However, none has proven workable. For copyrighted content, on the other hand, one technique has been effective: the content can be encoded or encrypted in files that can only be read by a viewer (hardware or software) that provides no facility for exporting the content. Unfortunately, much of the value of a digital archive, particularly a 3D archive, lies precisely in our ability to extract its content for scholarly analysis. Fortunately, for 3D models the presentation format (images) is different from the underlying representation (geometry). Thus, it might be possible to write a viewer can render images of the model without exposing the model itself to view and copying. It might even be possible to provide some analysis tools, like the ability to measure distances or plot profiles, without completely exposing the model. This is an open area for research.

Figure 3: An 8-million polygon, 4-millimeter model of the David, constructed from our 2-billion polygon, 0.25-millimeter dataset of the statue. Michelangelo's David: a driving application for piracy prevention Piracy is a real and constant danger in the Digital Michelangelo Project. The David is arguably the most famous statue in the world. Our model, accurate to 0.25mm, is not likely to be superceded for many years, if ever. In theory, we are permitted to release this model to scholars for non-commercial use. However, it is obvious to us that if our computer model were widely distributed, it would soon be pirated. Before long, we would be able to buy a bootlegged DVD copy for $25 or a simulated marble replica for $250. The replica would even bear a tag saying it was the true David, made from the Stanford data. From there, it would find its way into TV commercials, video games, etc. Aside from landing one of us (Levoy) in an Italian jail, this would poison the well for future digitization projects. Museums worldwide will undoubtedly take note of how we handle intellectual property protection for our models of Michelangelo's statues. Distributing them to scholars, while at the same time protecting them against piracy, is a very hard problem.

Search engines for 3D shapes

One of the main reasons for digitizing an archive is to make it searchable using a computer, and 3D archives are no exception. Just as you would search a text archive for a given word or phrase, or search a 2D archive for a given image, you might search a 3D archive for a given shape. There are many applications for such a capability. One, already mentioned, is to search for pirated copies of a copyrighted model. On a more positive note, a doctor might want to search a 3D anatomical atlas for bone anomalies having a certain shape, a classical scholar might want to search the world's museums for Greek vases having a certain profile, ichthyologist might want to search a 3D field guide for fish whose shape matches a given sonar signature. Although search techniques for images is a rapidly growing field, there has been relatively little research on 3D shape matching. Note that in this discussion, we are talking about searches driven by given target images (or shapes), not by keywords.

Shape searching is similar to image searching in many respects. In both cases, candidate images (or shapes) can be translated, rotated, scaled or otherwise transformed relative to the target image (or shape), and in both cases, candidates can be present in conjunction with other objects, requiring segmentation. In some ways, shape searching is easier than image searching: there is no need to worry about perspective viewpoint, occlusions (shapes don't "block" other shapes the way superimposed images do), or differences in tone or color. In other ways, shape searching is harder: the same shape can be represented by a variety of geometric primitives (polygons, B-splines, voxels, etc.), there are a variety of file formats and no widely accepted standards, and the cost of each comparison is high.

One obvious approach to searching for shapes is to borrow techniques from the image processing literature, such as the notion of computing and comparing vectors of salient shape descriptors (like moments, topological genus (number of holes), etc.). For the slightly different problem of testing for matches between two shapes, one might use surface-to-surface geometric alignment algorithms [Pulli, 1999], which one of us (Levoy) used when aligning 3D scans of the statues of Michelangelo.

The Forma Urbis Romae: a driving application for shape matching Figure 4: Four fragments of the Forma Urbis Romae, fit together in the early 1980's by Emilio Rodriguez-Almeida. As this photograph shows, the matches between fragments are not obvious from an examination of their top surfaces. These particular pieces do fit, however, as can be verified by examining the surfaces, largely hidden in this photograph, where they mate. Finding new matches among the 1,163 extant fragments will be a severe test of our matching algorithms. (Photograph courtesy of Prof. Rodriguez-Almeida.) As a driving application for our investigation of shape searching and matching, we propose using our ongoing attempt to piece together the jigsaw puzzle of the Forma Urbis Romae. During the same year that one of us (Levoy) scanned the statues of Michelangelo, a project was mounted to digitize all 1,163 fragments of the Forma Urbis Romae, a giant map of ancient Rome carved onto marble slabs circa 200 A.D. This map is probably the single most important document on ancient Roman topography, and piecing its fragments together has been one of the great unsolved problems of classical archaeology [Carettoni, 1960]. The fragments of the Forma Urbis present many clues to the would-be puzzle solver. We plan search not only for matches between the 3D shapes of the fragments, but also between the 2.5D patterns of incisions on their top surfaces, which depict the streets and buildings of the ancient city. We also plan to search for matches between the incisions on the Forma Urbis fragments and all known 2D plans of modern excavations in the city. To support such a wide variety of searches, especially hybrid searches involving multiple datatypes, as well as searches that go beyond the data we acquired while in Italy, we will need powerful and flexible search engines.

Conclusion

The 3D scanning industry, although currently immature, is doubling in size every year. Within the library and museum communities, the jump from 2D digitization to 3D digitization is already beginning. This jump poses serious research challenges, most of which remain unexplored. In this paper, we have attempted to enumerate these challenges, driven to some extent by the very real roadblocks we have encountered in the Digital Michelangelo Project.

We expect great synergy between this new effort and the ongoing Stanford Digital Library Project. For instance, the ongoing project is already exploring archival repositories for digital libraries, and a repository of 3D models would provide a new application. This new application would force us to design for much larger repositories, and to develop new techniques specifically for preserving 3D models. Similarly, the ongoing project has explored copy detection schemes for text and images, which might be extended to 3D models. The ongoing project has developed mechanisms for digital library interoperation (e.g., the InfoBus). Again, the rich 3D models of the Digital Michaelangelo Project will provide new interoperability challenges. For example, can this new type of information be served through the library interfaces that have already been developed, or do these interfaces need to be extended in new ways?

References

Beraldin, J.-A., Blais, F., Cournoyer, L., Rioux, M., El-Hakim, S.F., Rodell, R., Bernier, F., Harrison, N., Digital 3D imaging system for rapid response on remote sites, Proc. Second International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999, pp. 34-43.

Carettoni, G., Colini, A., Cozza, L., Gatti, G., La Pianta Marmorea di Roma Antica (The Marble Map of Ancient Rome), Commune di Rome, 1960.

Chen, S.E., QuickTime VR - An Image-Based Approach to Virtual Environment Navigation, Proc. SIGGRAPH '95 (Los Angeles, CA, August 6-11, 1995). In Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 1995, ACM SIGGRAPH, pp. 29-38.

Cooper, B., Crespo, A., Garcia-Molina, H., Implementing a Reliable Digital Object Archive, available at http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/papers/arpaper.ps.

Crespo, A., Garcia-Molina, H., Modeling Archival Repositories for Digital Libraries, Stanford Computer Systems Laboratory Technical Report, 1999.

Curless, B., Levoy, M., A Volumetric Method for Building Complex Models from Range Images, Proc. SIGGRAPH '96 (New Orleans, LA, August 5-9, 1996). In Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 1996, ACM SIGGRAPH, pp. 303-312.

The Digital Michelangelo Project [DigMichProj], www.graphics.stanford.edu/projects/mich.

Garrett, J., Waters, D., Preserving Digital Information: Report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information, May, 1996, accessible at http://www.rlg.org/ArchTF/.

Levoy, M., Hanrahan, P., Light Field Rendering, Proc. SIGGRAPH '96 (New Orleans, LA, August 5-9, 1996). In Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 1996, ACM SIGGRAPH, pp. 31-42.

Workshop on Image-Based Modeling and Rendering [IBR], March 23-25, 1998, Stanford University, at http://graphics.stanford.edu/workshops/ibr98/.

Lesk, M., Practical Digital Libraries: Books, Bytes, and Bucks, Morgan Kaufman, 1997.

Museum Digital Library Collection (MDLC), www.museumlicensing.org.

Ohbuchi, R., Masuda, H., Aono, M., Watermarking three-dimensional polygon models through geometric and topological modifications, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 16, No. 4, May, 1998, pp. 551-559.

Praun, E., Hoppe, H., Finkelstein, A., Robust Mesh Watermarking, Proc. SIGGRAPH '99 (Los Angeles, August 8-13, 1999). In Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 1999, ACM SIGGRAPH, pp. 49-56.

Pulli, K., Multiview registration for large datasets, Second International Conference on 3D Digital Imaging and Modeling, 1999.

Rushmeier, H., Bernardini, F., Mittleman, J., Taubin, G., Acquiring input for rendering at appropriate levels of detail: digitizing a Piet�, Proc. 9th Eurographics Rendering Workshop, Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 81-92.

Weibel, S., Metadata: the foundations of resource description, D-Lib Magazine, July, 1995.