Successfully reported this slideshow.

Collections Cubed: Into the Third Dimension

2

Share

Loading in …3
×
1 of 32
1 of 32

More Related Content

Related Books

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Collections Cubed: Into the Third Dimension

  1. 1. Collections Cubed Intothe Third DimensionRichard J. Urban – SchoolofInformation – Florida State University
  2. 2. #collections3D
  3. 3. Digitize Allthe things
  4. 4. Digitize Allthe things*» but only in 2 dimensions
  5. 5. Costandavailabilityof3D 1 1 (Hess, 2015)
  6. 6. SurveyMethod » Qualtrics survey » Distributed to community listservs and social media » Museum-L, MCN-L, AAM Media & Technology, iDigBio, Museums & the Web, SPNCH, etc. » Primarily focused on North America (but received a few responses from UK)
  7. 7. OrganizationType (n=48)
  8. 8. Limitations » Small number of respondents » Significant survey fatigue (of more than 100 starts only 48 useful responses, 13 completed surveys) » few art or historical museums
  9. 9. Organization Size (Staff n=38) (Budget n=36)
  10. 10. Motivations » Research documentation » Conservation concerns » Public access to collections » Education & Outreach activities
  11. 11. Focus ofdigitization efforts (bynumber ofobjects)
  12. 12. 3D Digitization Method (n=28)
  13. 13. Software Used (n=28)
  14. 14. File Formats (n=28)
  15. 15. Brieflydescribeyour 3D digitizationworkflow: It'sComplicated
  16. 16. Access (n=20) » Ad-hoc access via researcher requests » some use of existing content systems (ContentDM, WordPress, etc.) » Lack of support of OpenGL » curiously no mentions of Thingiverse or other 3D social sites
  17. 17. Metadata(n=14) <mine />
  18. 18. IntellectualProperty (n=16)
  19. 19. Accessto 3D Printers (n=15)
  20. 20. evaluation » Most respondents don't have a solid evaluation plan in place. » some web analytics tracking use of materials » no formal educational evaluation » some pilot studies working with educators
  21. 21. Challenges » Institutional support » Unknown value proposition » Most projects relying on soft grant money » Staffing » Hard to find people with 3D expertice or experience
  22. 22. Challenges » Rapidly evolving technical environments » No long-term digital preservation » Hardware/software changing quickly » Lack of best-practice guidelines » Evaluation? » How are 3D collections being used? » How can evaluation help grow support/ value?
  23. 23. RichardJ. Urban SchoolofInformation FloridaState University rurban@fsu.edu - @musebrarian
  24. 24. Photogrammetry
  25. 25. Laser Scanning
  26. 26. ComputerAidedDesign(CAD) 2 2 http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/IndArch3D
  27. 27. Structured Light
  28. 28. ComputedTomography(CT)
  29. 29. ContactScanning
  30. 30. ReflectanceTransformation Imaging(RTI)
  31. 31. File Formats

×