Computational Imaging for Cultural Heritage: Recent developments in spectral imaging, 3-D surface measurement, image relighting, and X-ray mapping
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because art is inherently visual, the use of imaging has long been an important way to understand its structure, form, and history. Recently, new ways of engaging with objects from our shared cultural heritage are possible with advances in computation and imaging that allow scientists to analyze art noninvasively, historians to pose new social questions about the art, and the public to explore and interact with art in ways never before possible. There is a rich history in applying image processing techniques to conventional photographic images of works of art, many of which have been highlighted in previous special issues of IEEE Signal Processing Magazine (e.g., the 2008 and 2015 July issues). Building on these contributions, this article comprises a survey of techniques where computation is central to the image acquisition process. Known as computational imaging, the methods being pioneered in this field are increasingly relevant to cultural heritage applications because they leverage advances in image processing, acquisition, and display technologies that make scientific data readily comprehensible to a broad cohort of nontechnical researchers interested in understanding the visual content of art. Presently, only a small research community undertakes computational imaging of cultural heritage. Here we aim to introduce this growing new field to a larger research community by discussing: 1) the historic background of imaging of art, 2) the burgeoning present day community of researchers interested in computational imaging in the arts, and finally, 3) our vision for the future of this new field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it