Now (27&28th of August) on show at DROOG Amsterdam: True Replicas

foto: Jantien Roozenburg

The two projects presented here examine how 3D prototyping and virtual techniques can be utilised to bring the stories of our heritage back into daily life.

3D prototyping are emerging technologies that offer new possibilities to render physical objects into digital data and vise versa, such as 3D-scanning and -printing. With Augmented Reality one can add virtual layers of contextual information on to an object, that can than be discovered using an application on a smartphone or tablet.  With Augmented Reality, objects are enriched and transformed into information carriers that can enrich the story of an object beyond the walls of a museum, archive or a library. Bringing the story of our heritage to our kitchen tables.

The underlying questions we seek to answer with these projects are; What is the meaning stored  in  all these historical objects? How does the story behind an object change our perception and appreciation of that object? What is the relevance of these objects in our increasingly digital and virtual society? How are these stories relevant to us today? Augmented Reality and 3D prototyping offer opportunities to investigate answers to these questions.

foto: Jantien Roozenburg

foto: Jantien Roozenburg

foto: Jantien Roozenburg

Comparison of image processing software 3, by Kotryna Valečkaitė

After multiple emails and a Skype talk we finally acquired a trial version of Mimics. According to their representative, the program is mainly focused at medical uses. Most importantly how do bones, implants react to friction and temperature changes.
This got us interested, since this was also rather important in our project: we were using CT scans to determine the break-line positions and in the end also fill up the missing shards with (possibly) other materials. In other words, it would be very interesting to see how different connections between materials would influence the durability of the object. I must add, that this is only a presumption after a talk with their representative and we might not be able to go so deep in the subject due to the time limitations. Yet this could be very interesting as a research subject for future students.
Having only a week of work left till the presentation, we decided to only  check what were the possibilities of the translation (CT-scans to .stl) procedure and if the results could be better than from Avizo.
The interface seemed clear, but more limited to what was offered at the latter program. It seemed actually very similar to already mentioned Seg3D, which is also focused on medical use.

Interface of Mimics

After comparing multiple objects we came to conclusion that this program does not offer better translation. The meshing is coarser and even though the stepping is less visible, so are the break lines.

In conclusion, this program might offer higher possibilities going deep into material interaction(3-matic research), but for simple .stl translations Avizo is still the best option.
P.s. For post processing use MeshLab (open source!): there you can both reduce the fineness of the mesh and smooth it.

Posted in Week 4  

Reproduction Methods

As told in the planning, each of us would come up with a multiple reproduction methods for Harry. We pitched these ideas to each other and discussed which would suit the purpose of this project best. Afterwards everybody choose their favorite and best method, making sure we had a diversity of production techniques.
◄Click on me!
Sander Plaster Print
The goal of this technique is to recreate Harry as well as possible. Therefore, the existing cup will be plaster printed in several pieces. Af varnishing the inner and outer surface, these pieces will be glued together in order recreate the cracks. The holes shall be filled with separately (Ultimaker) 3D-printed parts.
Irene Paper printing
Using the technique of 3D printing paper it is possible to make a relatively inexpensive product using a 3D printer. We don’t expect this technique to be waterproof. By experimenting with lacquer or varnish we can find out the possibilities to make the cups usable for daily usage. To print the rough version of Harry it will cost €34,- euros.
Kotryna 3d printing/plastic injection molding
With this technique we could achieve a very sophisticated look for a high end product. With this design we would bring out the beauty of 3D printing by making an expressive carcass which will either support the cavities in the structure or the whole structure. This also accentuates the historical marks on the object, which is necessary because the original form is then recreated in transparent material. The latter can either be achieved by plastic injection molding (which is beneficial if this is produced in larger numbers) or by using a Objet500 Connex printer (very convenient, because the whole object can be printed out in one go). Moreover, this design would be very interesting if steel 3D printing could be achieved in very small diameters, since then the translucent material could be glass.
Jorinde Vacuum Forming
The main reason for choosing this technique is because 3d printing is too expensive for a consumer product, so the product is still not used for its purpose. The most used cup has got to be the plastic disposable cup. This cup is made with the technique thermoforming, but this is not achievable in the short amount of the we have. Therefore the simplified technique vacuum forming will be used. With vacuum forming s sheet of plastic is heated and forced against the mold by the suction of air. It is important that form is mold-releasing.
With this technique it isn’t possible to use different materials or make holes. To preserve the historic character of the cup the difference between the shards will be made visible with a difference in height. CNC milling at PMB cost 10 euros.

	Basic (existing) shape	Cracks	Holes	Speciality
Sander	Plaster, several separately printed parts	Through glueing the parts together	Seperately 3D-Printed	Trying to recreate Harry as well as possible
Irene	Paper		Different colour	Low budget
Jorinde	Plastic, vacuum formed as one part	height difference between the shards	Holes have to be filled, visable with height difference	Making an old thrown away cup into a useable and disposable product
Kotryna	Plastic, (partially) 3D printed (and plastic molding)	Surface texture, carcass deformations	Carcass or carcass deformations (depends on the final design)	Showcase of 3D printing possibilities and accentuating historical footprint in newly added  details

CNC milling and 3D printing, by Kotryna Valeckaite

Today as a part of our minor our student group was introduced to CNC milling and 3D printing with Ultimaker2. Since we were free to choose the tryout objects, we decided on one of the .stl files we extracted from the CT scans. “Harry”, as our focus object, seemed like a great begin. Yet just after loading the files to Cura (the Ultimaker software), we noticed that the model was not completely straight. That was due to its original position during the scan. In other words, the object nested in-between two other objects was not completely parallel to the ground plane. This we tried to fix by manually rotation in Cura. In the end, it was not perfect and due to that the bottom edge of the cup was sketchy. Moreover, Ultimaker 2 seemed not like the right machinery for such task. That was mostly because we had many open, hanging edges and pieces which had to be supported. The latter is possible with the same material, but that leaves clear marks on the surface.

Removing support structure

Final product (1:2)

Parallel to 3D printing we also did some CNC milling. Just like in Ultimaker, we used “Harry”. For this production technique we used DeskProto. This program both translates the files for the machine and helps to create a frame for the object (mostly necessary to get a clear reference point). However, the latter can also be manually done in other CAD software.
Production of the object took merely 15 minutes, but we did not strive for the highest resolution. That meant that we took the biggest cutter available (d8mm) and got a sketchy cup with clear stepping. Moreover, due to the cavity in the cup and flexibility of the material, mistakes were made (seen in the picture below) and the model was very flaky.

“Harry” from foam (1:1)

Since we had more than 1,5h left, we proposed to make another model in CNC machine. This time to see how much detail we could achieve. For this task we chose “Hermione” as the model, yet due to the time limitations we could only take a piece of it.  We worked on the object from 3 sides, starting with 8mm cutter and finishing with 4mm. This procedure took at least twice as long as the previous one. What is more, during the first try the foam melted, completely destroying the model. In the end, results of the second one were not as clear as in the digital model, but still quite amazing: knowing that we used very soft foam, could not precisely put the model on the reference point and that we did not use the smallest cutter.

Foam “Hermione” (1:1)

In conclusion, the CNC milling could be an option for the final product, if we went for a single material transparent/translucent look. This would be possible by milling stacked and glued plexiglass. 3D printing in single material is also very interesting, but with this we would have to sacrifice some of the qualities of the end product (historical footprint, practicality, aesthetics).

3D scanning and priorities, by Kotryna Valečkaitė

As the project slowly went into motion we had the first digitizing session in the laboratory of Geosciences&Engineering. Our group was provided with the luxury to first hand observe both micro- and macro-CT scanners in working. Both with their advantages and limitations, they gave us a new perspective of how to order and process given archaeological objects.
When Maaike came in with boxes full of ceramics from the Archaeological archive of Amsterdam, we understood that it was neither efficient, nor possible to scan them all. At this point selection was crucial. At first sight we had three main groups of objects: lice combs (highest level of detail), broken colored ceramics bound with metal strings (necessity to make more detailed scans to understand the technique) and sets of white ceramic tableware lacking multiple shards.

The latter seemed to be the closest to the issues visible in the goal of the project. Yet the other two gave us interesting side paths which would improve overall understanding of the methods and possibilities of 3D scanning. Based on this, we made a queue sorted by importance, which would lead to at least one object of a group scanned.

After the first inspection of the digitized forms we were rather amazed that the precision of 0,3mm was not sufficient for some of the fine-detailed specimens. E.g. the combs lost their teeth, metal bindings were muffled, crack lines barely visible. Consequently we were offered to work with much finer machinery (micro-CT scanner) mostly used for small scale material research. Yet the time and money needed for this method led to only two specimens scanned: the finest ivory comb and a detail of a metal connection. In total we got 13 scans, excluding identical scans in higher precision. The notes and conclusions after this are as follow:
1. There are 2 CT-scanners in the Geoscience&Engineering laboratory:

• Macro-scanner can be used to scan rather big objects, but the fine details are almost completely neglected; object is stationary, thus there is a small chance of damage. Precision 0,3mm.
• Micro-scanner is very slow (1h per object) and has very limited object size: till 100-120mm in diameter; object is rotating, thus it needs to either be glued or fixed, which requires extra attention not to damage the object. Precision 0,03mm.
• Both scan only the form and not color; they can detect cavities, but not slight changes in the material density

2. The digitized forms are saved as 2D images of section cuts in .dcm or .ima file format, which need multiple steps to be converted into editable 3D objects. Even though we were informed that it is a very quick procedure, to gain fine details it is necessary to have a powerful computer(16GB RAM) and correct software (which is usually paid).

Minor Advanced Prototyping: lets get started!

Welcome to the logbook of the research project Augmenting Prototypes: Smart Replicas. This project is a part of half year bachelor program “Advanced prototyping” in TU Delft.
Smart Replicas is the result of a collaboration between Archaeological department Amsterdam and design studio Maaike Roozenburg. The latter supervises 4 students preparing material for this blog: Kotryna Val (Architecture), Sander Pliakis (Industrial Design), Jorinde Smitser (Industrial Design), Irene(Industrial Design).
The focus of the project is the usage of CT scans to recreate and analyse repaired and/or unusable archaeological findings of everyday use.The aim of this is to replicate and improve given objects, while not losing the historical footprint. In other words, the blog will revolve on modern techniques of digital and physical reproduction.
The simplified planning will follow the scheme provided below. Each set of steps will be described in a weekly report, which will complimented with an occasional review of the field.

Objecten selecteren: Kammen

De derde en laatste groep die we geselecteerd hebben voor dit project zijn kammen. Een echt dagelijks gebruiksvoorwerp (luizen werden ermee bestreden) waar er veel van zijn opgegraven en die wonderschoon zijn in hun detaillering, materiaalgebruik (hout, been, ivoor, hoorn), slijtage en verval. Echt (technisch) uitdagende objecten voor de 3D scanner en ze bieden de mogelijkheid experimenten te doen met combinaties van ‘historische’ en high tech materialen in een design object.

Kammen uit de collectie Monumenten en Archeologie Amsterdam

Kammen uit de collectie Monumenten en Archeologie Amsterdam

KAT-34-9: kam in ivoor1625-1675

LU-6: kam in ivoor 1500-1650

PH-20-13: kam in Buxus 1525-1550

ANJ-1-46: kam in been

HE-3-1 kam in been

ANJ-1-3 kam in been, nagel paardenhoef 1625-1750

Objecten selecteren: gerepareerd gebruiksgoed

De tweede groep van geselecteerde objecten bestaat uit gerepareerd gebruiksgoed, uit willekeurig welke periode. Juist in de vindingrijke, aandachtige en vaak arbeidsintensieve manieren waarop mensen in het verleden gebruiksgoed repareerden is hun liefde voor bepaalde voorwerpen af te lezen. Daarnaast toont dit ook heel mooi wat de waarde van voorwerpen was en dat de arbeid die gestoken werd in de reparatie blijkbaar op woog tegen de kosten van een nieuw schoteltje, kam of kopje. Deze reparaties vormen een interessant uitgangspunt om in 3D scans en 3D prototypen te ‘vangen’ en te tonen.

Objecten selecteren: 'industrieel' aardewerk

De eerste groep van objecten die ik geselecteerd heb bestaat uit vroeg industrieel aardewerk. Dit is het echte ‘niets aan de hand’ dagelijkse en onopvallende gebruiksgoed van de 19^e eeuw. Juist dit aardewerk is alleen uit opgravingen ‘over gebleven’ en komt nauwelijks voor in museale collecties. Op deze opgegraven voorwerpen zijn goed de sporen van productie, gebruik, slijtage en afdanken terug te zien. Deze sporen wil ik een hoofdrol laten spelen in nieuwe ontwerpen.

Hier onder kun je een selectie van deze objecten zien: (zijn ze niet bloedstollend prachtig!)

OZV7-17-61

OZV7-17-61

OZV7-17-61

OZV7-17-163

OZV7-17-163

OZV7-17-163

OZV7-17-163

OZV7-17-18

OZV7-17-18

OZV7-17-18

reconstructing the past: contructing stories

The last months animator Jasper Duivenstijn has started woring on the '3D construction' of the stories behind the 17th century Japanese teacup. He has been using all kind of historical 'sources' like paintings, ceramic plates, maps, the model of a ship or tableware form a broad variety of national and international museums. The first screenshots can be seen here, with the related 'sources' from the collection of Rijks Museum Amsterdam:

3D 'reconstruction' by Jasper Duivenstijn

3D 'reconstruction' by Jasper Duivenstijn

  Gezicht op de Gouden Bocht in de Herengracht vanuit het westen, Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde, 1672

 

Amsterdamse grachtenhuizen aan de Herengracht 474-478,  Cornelis Danckerts (II), 1696 - 1706