Guiding questions

  • How can a 3D reconstruction contribute to knowledge?

  • Where are 3D reconstructions made?

  • Why do a 3D reconstruction in a scientific context?

  • When can the model be reused in other research contexts?

  • How can one create a scientifically correct 3D reconstruction?

  • What guidelines are there for preparing a scientific 3D reconstruction?

Basic terms

  • Epistemic

  • Scholarly method

  • Purposes

  • Scientific principles

  • Standards

3.1 Introduction

Digital 3D reconstructions are getting increasingly established as a scholarly method. In the process, the use of 3D models can support and even revolutionize various work steps. The model can be seen as a substitute, extended, or concentrated object of investigation. At the same time, it may substitute objects of investigation that are ephemeral or in danger of destruction. The model is key for communicating research results. When equipped with appropriate descriptions, the model can serve as a comprehensive documentation format for knowledge about the object. The process of creating a 3D reconstruction is complex and often involves several disciplines bringing in their own expertise and research questions. Throughout this process knowledge is generated—while new questions arise, others are answered. An overview of 3D reconstruction and its purposes in digital models of historic architecture will be given here. Challenges in the reconstruction process are discussed here regarding missing information, lack of raw 3D models, and visual research process. For scholars to produce scientifically sound 3D models, they need guidelines. This chapter shows that following these guidelines ensures that 3D reconstructions are transparent regarding the used methodology and the decision-making process. In some contexts, research questions are not the focus of 3D reconstructions, as will be explained in the following chapter.

Further reading: Research on scholarly methods

Investigations on epistemic settings in visual digital humanities are widely driven by researchers originating in humanities and mostly focus on exemplification and problematization within a certain disciplinary context. On digital methods in art history, Drucker [1] sketches a historical evolution and current state of application of digital methods in humanities. Kohle defined fields of supplement by digital tools and practices in art history [2] and Heusinger describes a general visual humanities research process [3]. Similarly, many texts describe comprehensive state-of-the-art methodologies for digital archaeology [4,5,6]. Furthermore, there are many standards, guidelines, and rules for dealing with historical content (→Guidelines and charters for 3D reconstruction). An adjacent issue is general workflow modeling of the reasoning behind archaeological or architectural construction. Barceló discusses approaches to computable reasoning and artificial intelligence to support archaeological reasoning [7]. Some meta-reviews on similar aspects in museology exist [8, 9], and methodological overviews are available for adjacent disciplines, such as game research [10], editorial studies [11,12,13], or graphic design [14].

3.2 Purposes of 3D Modeling

Purposes of 3D modeling include research, preservation, education, culture of remembrance, and knowledge organization of cultural heritage [15] as shown in Fig. 3.1.

Fig. 3.1
A flowchart describing the process of creating a 3-D model for visualization. It starts with an existing, non-existing object, uses sources like images or texts to measure and reconstruct, includes interpretation and analysis of data, and cycles back to verify hypotheses before final visualization.

(Image: Schelbert/Messemer)

Purposes of 3D modeling in the reconstruction process

Full size image

3.2.1 Research

An example of this category is a reconstruction to test an (existing) research question or hypothesis with a 3D model, taking a step-by-step approach to the facts related to the question. This supports the imagination of the researcher/communicator to facilitate the generation of knowledge. Often, further questions or areas of application develop during the research process and can be answered by creating a 3D model.

A particular strength of 3D models is to enable empathy with the (lost or planned) real spatial situation. Models have always had this function, for example, design models in Renaissance and Baroque architecture, but as a rule, this effect did not justify the high cost of constructing a model, so it remained a side effect. In the digital model, creating a spatial impression places particularly high demands on the level of detail, especially if it is to be perceived through VR devices, which is not always the case. Both the source situation and the technical and other resources rarely allow complex simulations, such as visibility and social behavior, to be truly represented and measured in three dimensions. In principle, to create realistic impressions, it would be necessary to develop methods for recording the size relationships to humans in space. Initial work on this has been done, e.g., by Bernhard Frischer on the position of the sun [16], by Peter Scholz, University of Stuttgart, on Roman rhetoric,Footnote 1 and on crowds in space [17, 18]. Research functions of 3D models are given a typology in Table 3.1, which distinguishes between research objects and objectives [19, 20].

Table. 3.1 Research contexts of digital 3D models
Full size table

Research object: 3D reconstruction is employed to investigate and assess objects and/or sources. Sometimes not a specific object, but schemes and systems are the focus of research, e.g., to evaluate the Vitruvian scheme of architectural orders. Against this background, 3D reconstruction methods are often employed to derive archetypes or specific features [21].

Research objectives are the epistemic interest to be served by a 3D reconstruction (Fig. 3.2). They may include:

Fig. 3.2
Five panels with 3-D models and visualizations. A data quality assessment, a visualization of an unbuilt plan, a conceptualization of a sacral portal, a numerical analysis of lighting, and a hypothetical simulation of an M C, Escher optical illusion.

(Images: Muenster, [35, 36, p. 125, 37, p. 588])

Example research applications of 3D models in architectural history studies

Full size image

  • Data quality assessment: This is closely related to contextualization and assessment of the consistency of sources. For example, digital reconstruction of content depicted in drawings or paintings can be used to test perspective features or consistency [22].

  • Visualization: The most common way to visualize is to formulate a hypothesis of the shape, properties, and appearance of a certain historical object. Concerning this aspect, digital reconstruction allows the noninvasive application and testing of alterations or restoration (e.g., for destroyed statues) [23,24,25].

  • Process investigation: This includes research into historical preparation processes (e.g., planning or construction processes employed by artisans) [26, 27].

  • Conceptualization: A major question for underlying concepts and intentions, e.g., structuring concepts [28], refers to functions of certain parts of an object (e.g., rooms, figuration, or proportions)[29, 30].

  • Contextualization: The contextualization of objects (e.g., geo-location, relationship to other objects, historical circumstances, historical contextualization) and identification of archetypal characteristics may refer to artisan specifications and typologies, as well as comparison of iconographical concepts. Contextualization may lead to interest in sources, specific objects, or systems [2].

  • Numerical analysis and simulation: This is a frequent use case, especially for 3D digitization models [31]. Occasionally, 3D reconstructions are employed to simulate and analyze no longer extant heritage and structural analysis is one area of application [32].

  • Hypothetical simulations: Different usages are possible without making reference to concrete historical objects, e.g., the exploration of hypothetically possible objects, which derive from a certain architectural order and the (hypothetical) limits and boundaries of this system [21, 33] or the analysis of perspective drawings like M. C. Escher’s [34] impossible objects.

Further reading: Digitization to preserve heritage objects

3D digitization techniques are frequently used in preservation [38] (Fig. 3.3) to:

Fig. 3.3
Four sections exhibit a statue for 3-D digitization, a leg scan for replica creation, a 3-D head scan, and a degradation analysis of a stonewall with material loss estimation. Each section has a description below it relating to heritage preservation and accessibility.

Examples for preservation applications

Full size image

  • Preserve object properties in case of damage: Recent examples are the recording of surface and material properties prior to an unplanned disaster (Notre Dame in Paris [39]), in case of planned destruction, and post factum from extant images (e.g., the destroyed sites in Palmyra and Bamyan [40, 41]). In digital 3D reconstruction, the objectives of a virtual model are primarily to sort, store, and compile spatial knowledge [42]. For example, the 3D model of the Domus Severiana provided a spatial map and thus a possibility to georeference sources [43].

  • Create replicas: Especially in museums, artifacts are frequently replaced by replicas created in fully digital workflows [36].

  • Identify art forgery by creating a digital 3D footprint of the original [44,45,46],

  • Degradation analysis to detect the degradation of surfaces and materials [37, 47, 48].

3.2.2 Education

In this category, the digital 3D model is intended to represent existing knowledge and is thus in the direct tradition of haptic models (Fig. 3.4). The focus is on a didactic extension of knowledge communication. The 3D model facilitates knowledge transfer, which previously took place through abstraction from text and/or image. This can support both imagination and cultural remembrance, which is about how people deal with their history, past, and collective memory.

Fig. 3.4
Four photographs of educational applications of 3 D models. They indicate informal learning, formal learning, digital competency development, and edutainment.

(Images: Left: The Foundation of Medieval Cities, exhibit (Images: Architectura Virtualis GmbH; Middle: Muenster; Right: Image generated with Dall-E)

Example educational applications of 3D models in architectural history studies

Full size image

In education, 3D models of cultural heritage are used in various settings:

  • Teaching history and heritage in informal settings like museums, games, or television broadcasts [49, 50]. The role and effects of media like visualizations in museum education is a key focus of scientific discourse [51,52,53,54,55,56], as are settings that employ 3D models [57,58,59,60]. As one example, interactive applications for 4D city exploration [61,62,63] allow virtual visits and remote spatial learning [64], support guiding visitors through the city [63, 65, 66], provide access to additional information, and enable users to gather a virtual view of temporal change and historic spaces, buildings, and monuments or covered parts [66,67,68,69,70,71,72].

  • Teaching heritage in formal education is another highly important scenario. A multitude of projects employ 3D models in higher education [73, 74], or evaluate the use of 3D models of cultural heritage in schools [75, 76].

  • Teaching digital competencies via heritage focuses on educating modeling techniques or VR technologies, while the historical object is “only” a training example. This closely relates to the concept of data literacy comprising data collection, exploration, management, analysis, and visualization skills [77]. Data literacy has been defined by various recommendations and standards [78, 79].

  • Edutainment or infotainment incorporates aspects of teaching addressed to a broader audience or linked to commercial offerings. Edutainment and infotainment are becoming increasingly important—examples are VR history tours offered as activity in several cities or museums [80] or the discovery mode in the computer game Assassins Creed [81].

3.2.3 Knowledge Organization

In this category, the digital 3D model is intended to structure or systematize all existing knowledge about an object/topic (Fig. 3.5). It serves as a multi-layered information carrier of the object-related knowledge. 3D models are used in various disciplines to structure knowledge and information. (a) Digital inventories as in the spatial book (Raumbuch) approach [43, 83] in archaeology, similar approaches to monument documentation [84, 85], and digital cartography—“deep” or “thick mapping” [86, 87]—focus on the spatial organization of digital data. (b) Digital information spaces like Digital Twin in manufacturing [88] extend the inventory by fully digital simulation workflows but focus on contemporary data. (c) 4D models, e.g., of cities, add a temporal layer to organize data in a 4D inventory [85, 89]. Finally, (d) the Mirrorworld approach describes a universal data integration principle, but is still hypothetical [90]. Those concepts relate to numerous overarching standards and protocols for organizing 3D cultural heritage objects and inventories, e.g., BIM [91]/H-BIM [92,93,94,95,96,97] for architectural models and 3D-GIS [98] and CityGML [99] for geo and city-scale models.

Fig. 3.5
Four sections present different aspects of digital heritage preservation. A 3-D visualization of a crypts orientation, a palace represented in digital information space, an H-B I M model of a heritage building, and a depiction of a Metaverse Museum in Second Life.

(Images: Left: Muenster; Middle left: Bruschke; Middle right: [82]; Right: Wikimedia Commons/Mirabella)

Knowledge structuring applications using 3D models

Full size image

Further reading: Knowledge as a theoretical approach

The creation and reception of digital 3D reconstructions and the visualization of visual humanities objects are based on complex sociotechnical interaction processes. According to Barceló, we “do not understand past social actions by enumerating [all possibilities]” [7, p. 414], but need a linkage between digital tools and human interpretation. Against this background, our research focuses on aspects of knowledge transformation and transfer, within and between humans as well as between humans and—as data—computers. This is closely related to concepts of intrapersonal knowledge such as reasoning or memorization, as well as to groups of people, their communication, and joint mental modeling [100]. Moreover, concepts like visual reasoning or embodied knowledge [101, 102] focus on an object that contains and represents knowledge, e.g., architecture. A well-established and hierarchical classification of information and knowledge is the distinction between signs, data, information, and knowledge (Fig. 3.6). In this definition, knowledge does not only include a perception and cognition of signs, but also aspects of their relevance and mental connection for a recipient [103].

Fig. 3.6
A pyramid diagram with four levels labeled from bottom to top as Sign, Data, Information, and Knowledge, each providing a definition such as Sign, a single mark and Knowledge, Information that is relevant and mentally connectable for an individual.

Knowledge pyramid [103, 104]

Full size image

The main intention of both research and education is to gain and transfer knowledge. According to Müller [105], knowledge in the context of visual media relates to: (1) the production of visual media, (2) the visual medium as an object, and (3) the reception of visual media. Digital 3D reconstruction models, as well as visualizations, act as: (1) boundary objects—cross-culturally understandable media [106]—for research and communication in visual humanities and (2) embody substantial knowledge—in terms of psychological and physiological cognition, i.e., of proportions or dimensions of objects—when creating models and visualizations [107]. From a theoretical perspective, both aspects are closely related to semiotics and model theory. According to semiotics, all visual entities represent a certain meaning [108]. Specific geometric shapes are recognized by humans as letters and words with a certain meaning. Graphical shapes like arrows direct human vision. These effects rely on individual cultural or professional backgrounds—i.e., an archaeologist and architectural engineer focus on different aspects when seeing a depiction of an ancient shrine [109, 110]. In addition, they are influenced by the contexts, or frames, of visual communication media (definition: [111]; research perspectives: [112]). The visual asset of knowledge is embedded or “embodied” in visual media. Lastly, visual perception and reasoning are highly influenced by the properties or Gestalt of visual assets [113]—e.g., color or shape—and related level of abstraction [114]. While semiotics focus on function and Gestalt on signs, model theory (→ Models and Modeling) focuses on the relation between an original and a model as its “abstraction” [115].

3.3 Epistemic Challenges of 3D Modeling in Humanities

The analog research process in history studies traditionally comprises the investigation of a historical object either directly or via historical sources, which researchers inspect visually to answer a specific research question (Fig. 3.7). Virtual 3D techniques (Fig. 3.8) add the transformation layers of digital modeling and computer graphical visualization—potentially losing, altering, or adding information, e.g., by interpretation or selection. This increases the complexity of the research process and potentially causes additional bias in history research due to nontransparency and fuzziness. The 3D reconstruction of no longer extant objects adds another main issue. Digital 3D modeling approaches usually strive to show a consistent building and “make it hard to be vague” [116], cited in [42], also [117] by requiring exact measurements and 3D shape information of all architectural parts.

Fig. 3.7
A sequence of four icons. 1. a column, 2. a column within a highlighted document, 3. an eye, and 4. a magnifying glass, suggesting analog research process.

The analog research process: A historical column (1) is either directly receivable or documented with sources (2), which is perceived by the researcher (3) to investigate a specific research question (4)

Full size image
Fig. 3.8
A sequence of six icons. 1. a column, 2. a column within a document outline, 3. binary code, 4. a web browser displaying the column and binary code, 5. an eye, and 6. a magnifying glass, suggesting a process from physical object to digital analysis.

The digital transformation process: a historical column (1) is documented with sources (2) on the basis of which a digital model is created (3), which is mapped by a visualization (4), which is perceived by the researcher (5) to investigate a specific research question (6)

Full size image

Consequently, 3D reconstructions force their creators to complete missing information that available sources—potentially biased, incomplete, and low-quality—cannot provide, e.g., about parts of buildings not shown in images or impossible to read. This approach contrasts with the problem-centric approach in history studies, the leading paradigm for over 50 years, where the attempt to “show how it actually was” [118] has usually given way to basing research on available historical sources [119, 120]. A consequent issue is how to overcome this clash between sparse, questionable, partial, or missing historical information and the demands for all-embracing information to achieve digital 3D reconstruction of past architecture. Although this is still unresolved at a conceptual level, there are various attempts to document inconsistencies (→ Visualization) and make the results scientifically reproducible (→ Documentation).

Further reading: Are 3D reconstructions multi-purpose?

Even after the completion of the research work, the purpose of models may change. The advantage of the all-embracing approach is that it merges different research subjects into a unified knowledge space [121].

3D models can represent valuable primary data, especially if they are based on measurements, scans, or similar survey methods in real spatial situations, which can be useful for further research. For example, additional data—such as the furnishings of a structure, or movement sequences within the spaces—could be connected to a basic model. Yet, 3D reconstruction models cultural heritage are rarely accessible online as open access. The reasons for this are manifold:

  • 3D model data is due to its size and less-standardized file formats more challenging to share than images and movies.

  • To date, no Current licensing models are still only limited applicable for 3D models (→ Legislation). This results in fears of losing one’s own reputation by releasing data.

  • Fears that one’s own work could be reused in other contexts.

  • Current digital repositories for 3D models are still limited e.g. with regards to interoperability (→ Infrastructure).

The problem of data sharing involves also conceptual issues, authorship could be made transparent if multiple authors made extensions to a 3D model.

3.4 Visual Research Processes and 3D Modeling

Despite several visual approaches to art and architectural history research, such as style criticism as an examination of genetic and morphological connections [122, p. 20], iconography and iconology, exploration of the content or symbols behind the visible forms [122, 123], or structural analysis [122], practices are highly researcher-specific and experience-based. They have not been connected in an overarching methodology [124, 125]. Generally, research about the use of images has been utilized in various contexts like engineering, design, architecture, or science. Visual media greatly support the research processes of reasoning or forming ideas [102] and enable deep learning [126]. Such aspects are theorized in several approaches, such as visual decision-making [127] or visual learning theories [128,129,130]. Issues related to the quality of images as visual signs include similarities to a depicted object, visual styles, or creation processes [131]. The perception and visual reasoning of art historians [124, 132, 133] and archaeologists [110] have been subject to many empirical studies. Most of the investigations on architectural perception do not distinguish between laypersons and experts, and if they do, the expert group are architects [134] rather than architectural historians. Images as sources and their relevance for 3D reconstruction are a prominent topic in academic literature [135, 136], and images are the most prominent type of sources for reconstruction projects [137]. Other than in text-related disciplines, digital reconstructions usually involve multiple authors, intuitive decisions, and expertise [138]. So far, neither an academic culture nor mechanisms have been fully established for making digital models and generated images scientifically linkable and discussable (→ Documentation). This includes the capacity to quote parts or areas in models and images, and for others to modify them. In addition to a number of technical requirements, approaches are being developed to document processes and their results, as is the capacity of making a model logic transparent [20, 139].

3.5 Scientific Values

Requirements for digital 3D models to be regarded as scientific generally correspond to generally academic requirements [140]. The model must be accessible to be verifiable. It must be possible to see at least some of the data and there must be information about its provenance. Likewise, to meet scientific requirements, models must be able to provide information about the object, its nature, and its history, as well as about the origin of the model itself (→ Documentation). Required information include:

  • Authorship (of each element of the 3D model)

  • Versioning (of each element of the 3D model)

  • Level of detail

  • Online availability

  • Long-term archiving

  • Documentation of the reconstruction process

  • Marking of hypotheses (e.g., visually, textually)

  • Metadata and paradata

  • Linking to sources used for the reconstruction.

Providing access to research results/authorship/publication [141] and the absence of value(s) [142] have often been addressed from both an epistemological and an empirical perspective, e.g., in the positivism controversy [143]. In addition to the well-known technical principles of objectivity, reliability, and validity of scientific work [144, p. 22], scientific knowledge must explain, justify, and be comprehensible [145, p. 17].

A similar long-running discourse on architecture and art history—especially digital images—has considered specific scientific access and value, and a tendency toward fragmentation, small form and prevailing the quantitative [146]. Scientific values implied in 3D models in humanities include:

  • Authenticity (relationship to the object)

  • Hypotheses or modeling (relationship to the research thesis)

  • Plausibility (relationship to the cognitive process)

  • Recognizability (relationship of the above values to form/design)

  • Flawlessness (problems of abovementioned values in relation to form/design)

  • Immersivity (relationship of object to viewer by means of visualization)

  • Source fidelity (problems of object to viewer due to visualization)

  • Correspondence with textual explanations (problem awareness through image-text direction).

The methods for examining models can be differentiated according to whether they are primarily focused on the sources, the structure, or the appearance of the model.

3.6 Guidelines and Standards for 3D Reconstruction

A large number of guidelines and standards cover different aspects of the scientific requirements for models. However, categories and prioritization are still necessary. 3D reconstructions within research projects and generally with a scientific claim, should be based on the principles of good scientific practice and thus be comprehensible and theoretically reproducible. A binding basis for this is provided by the DFG guidelines [147]. The following key principles of the DFG guidelines are particularly relevant for digital reconstruction, as Marc Grellert and Mieke Pfarr-Harfst noted in 2019: “From the point of view of the current challenges in the field of knowledge-based digital reconstruction, the following recommendations of the DFG are significant in terms of good scientific practice: First, to work lege artis; second, to consistently self-doubt all results; third, to document results (Recommendation 1); fourth, scientific publications are the primary medium of accountability of scientists for their work (Recommendation 12); and fifth, to secure and preserve primary data (Recommendation 7)” [148, p. 275].

Specifically geared to the particularities of 3D projects in archaeology is the AHDS Guides to Good Practice for CAD [149], which can be applied to other disciplines. The Reconstruction Argument Method conceived by Mieke Pfarr-Harfst and Marc Grellert aims “to juxtapose images of reconstruction with sources and link them to a textual argument. The core is a triad of reconstruction—argument—source, which can be completed by mapping variants with the attributes ‘assured’, ‘probable’, ‘possible’, and ‘hypothetical’” [148, p. 264]. Using this method, the creation process and visualization result of a 3D reconstruction is documented in all its individual steps, substantiated (with sources, arguments, theses), and made comprehensible.

Guidelines and charters for 3D reconstruction

  • The UNESCO Charter on Digital Heritage [150] provides a framework for practitioners in 3D reconstruction to create scientifically sound 3D models. It is up to the people involved in the reconstruction process to make use of them and to share their work with the scientific community and beyond.

  • The AHDS Guides to Good Practice for CAD [149] provides comprehensive information and practical advice on data creation (suitable CAD data formats, terminology conventions), documenting the 3D reconstruction process, and archiving of the resulting data.

  • The Community Standards for 3D Data Preservation (CS3DP) initiative was established to examine 3D data documentation, dissemination, and preservation practice. On that base, it developed recommendations for standardization and 3D data preservation [150].

  • The London Charter, initiated in 2006 [151, 152], “defines principles for the use of computer-based visualization methods in relation to intellectual integrity, reliability, documentation, sustainability and access.”

  • Principles of Seville: As stated in the London Charter, some areas of studies may refine the principles according to their specific needs. This was the case for archaeology, publishing “The Principles of Seville. International Principles of Virtual Archaeology” [153] in 2011 with the latest version in 2017 [154]. They encompass eight principles: interdisciplinarity, purpose, complementarity, authenticity, historical rigor, efficiency, scientific transparency, training, and evaluation. Unlike the London Charter, they include Principle 4: Authenticity for archeological remains, Principle 1: Interdisciplinarity, and Principle 7: Scientific Transparency.

Kuroczyński sees the use of a virtual research environment (VRE) as a fundamental method for ensuring the scientific nature of 3D reconstructions: “The basic prerequisite is that open-source applications are used and the requirements of linked data technologies are taken into account so that the digital research results can be networked and made available on a web-based basis (open science). In addition, the 3D datasets must be integrated and visualized within the VRE as part of the research data” [155, p. 176]. Related to this, it has turned out to be difficult because there are so many standards for dealing with historical contents.

The scientific nature of 3D models also depends on whether the data is machine-readable and accessible. A standard here is the 5-Star Model for Open Data by Tim Berners-Lee [156].

For traceability and sustainable documentation (→ Documentation), a written publication in which the creation process of a 3D reconstruction is documented is still the common way to make the scientific objective and strategy behind the 3D model, as well as the argumentation and the conclusions resulting from the work with the model, comprehensible and received in the long term.

Summary

This chapter offers an overview of the contexts in which 3D reconstructions are created, challenges that may arise in the reconstruction process, and how to deal with them. It shows the reader how to ensure a scientifically sound 3D reconstruction using specific charters, standards, and guidelines.

Standards and guidelines

  • Denard, H. (2009) The London Charter. For the Computer-Based Visualization of Cultural Heritage, Version 2.1. [152].

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2016). DFG-Praxisregeln “Digitalisierung” [157].

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2013). Grundlagen guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis [147].

  • Principles of Seville. International Principles of Virtual Archaeology. Ratified by the 19th ICOMOS General Assembly in New Delhi, December 2017 (http://sevilleprinciples.com, accessed on 1.2.2023).

Projects

  • 4D-Browser: Open online research tool to search, find, and analyze historical photographs in a spatiotemporal way within a 4D model of a city, developed by the junior research group HistStadt4D (UrbanHistory4D) in 2016–2021, in further development at the Friedrich-Schiller-Universität and Technische Universität Dresden [158]. https://4dbrowser.urbanhistory4d.org, accessed on 1.2.2023.

  • Bamberg 4D: The project “4D city model of Bamberg around 1300” is developing a scientifically sound reconstruction of the medieval cathedral city from around 1300. https://www.uni-bamberg.de/bauforschung/forschung/projekte/digitales-stadtmodell/4d/, accessed on 1.2.2023.

  • Utopian Theatres: 3D reconstruction of three theaters planned in the 1920s and 1930s, which were never built, by Rachel Hann 2006–2009 with explicit reference to the principles of the London Charter [159]. http://www.utopiantheatres.co.uk/, accessed on 1.2.2023.

Key literature

  • Beacham, R.; Denard, H.; Niccolucci, F. An Introduction to the London Charter. In Papers from the Joint Event CIPA/VAST/EG/EuroMed Event, Ioannides, M., Arnold, D., Niccolucci, F., Mania, K., Eds.; 2006; pp. 263–269 [151].

  • Bentkowska-Kafel, A., H. Denard and D. Baker (2012). Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage. Burlington, Ashgate [160].

  • Kuroczyński, P.; Pfarr-Harfst, M.; Münster, S., (Eds.) Der Modelle Tugend 2.0: Digitale 3D-Rekonstruktion als virtueller Raum der architekturhistorischen Forschung. Heidelberg University Press: Heidelberg, 2019 [161].

  • Münster, S. Digital 3D Technologies for Humanities Research and Education: An Overview. Applied Sciences 2022, 12, 2426 [162].