Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
When you encounter questions about digital preservation, you're really being tested on your understanding of how technology mediates our relationship with cultural objects. Each scanning technique represents a different set of trade-offs between accuracy, accessibility, scale, and invasiveness—and these trade-offs directly impact what kinds of heritage we can preserve and how authentically we can represent it. The choice of scanning method isn't just technical; it reflects deeper questions about materiality, documentation ethics, and the democratization of cultural access.
These techniques also connect to broader themes you'll see throughout the course: the tension between preservation and interpretation, the role of digital surrogates in scholarship, and how emerging technologies reshape art historical methodology. Don't just memorize which scanner uses lasers versus light patterns—know what each technique reveals (and conceals) about an object, and when you'd choose one method over another for a specific heritage challenge.
These techniques use projected light patterns to map an object's exterior geometry. The core principle: when structured light hits a surface, distortions in the pattern encode depth information that cameras can interpret.
Compare: Structured light vs. white light scanning—both project patterns to capture surface geometry, but white light's broader spectrum handles color data and tricky materials more effectively. If asked about scanning a gilded medieval altarpiece, white light is your answer.
Laser scanning techniques measure distances using light's predictable behavior. The principle varies: triangulation calculates angles, while time-of-flight measures speed.
Compare: Laser triangulation vs. ToF scanning—both use lasers, but triangulation prioritizes precision at close range while ToF sacrifices detail for speed and distance. For a single ivory figurine, use triangulation; for a cathedral interior, use ToF.
These methods derive 3D data from 2D images through computational analysis. The underlying principle is stereoscopic vision: overlapping photographs from different angles allow software to triangulate point positions.
Compare: Ground-based vs. aerial photogrammetry—same computational principles, but aerial capture excels at revealing spatial relationships across sites while ground-based work captures architectural detail. Combine both for comprehensive site documentation.
Some heritage questions require seeing inside objects without damaging them. These techniques capture internal structure, not just exterior form.
Compare: CT scanning vs. surface-based methods—while photogrammetry and laser scanning capture what you can see, CT reveals what's hidden inside. For analyzing a bronze sculpture's casting technique or a mummy's burial goods, only CT provides the data you need.
Not all scanning happens in controlled lab environments. These techniques address real-world fieldwork constraints.
Compare: Contact-based vs. handheld scanning—contact methods offer superior accuracy but require stable, accessible objects; handhelds sacrifice some precision for portability and speed. For a fragile archaeological find still in the ground, handheld is your only option.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Highest geometric accuracy | Laser triangulation, contact-based scanning |
| Large-scale site documentation | LIDAR, ToF scanning, aerial photogrammetry |
| Most accessible/lowest cost | Photogrammetry, handheld scanners |
| Internal structure analysis | CT scanning |
| Fine surface detail and texture | Structured light, white light scanning |
| Non-invasive for fragile objects | CT scanning, photogrammetry, LIDAR |
| Fieldwork and remote sites | Handheld scanners, aerial photogrammetry, LIDAR |
| Archaeological discovery | LIDAR (vegetation penetration), aerial photogrammetry |
Which two scanning techniques both use lasers but differ fundamentally in how they calculate distance—and when would you choose each one?
A museum wants to document a polychrome wooden saint sculpture with original gilding and fragile paint layers. Which scanning technique would you recommend and why?
Compare photogrammetry and structured light scanning: what do they share in terms of output, and what key limitation affects photogrammetry that structured light avoids?
An archaeologist suspects buried structures beneath dense jungle canopy at a Maya site. Which technique would reveal these features, and what principle makes this possible?
If an FRQ asks you to evaluate the ethics of different scanning approaches for sacred Indigenous objects, which techniques raise the most and least concern about physical intervention—and why does this matter for heritage practice?