Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'beta'.
Found 1 result
Carla, Erich et al: I have used DLN:CC a number of times to record both RTI and photogrammetry sessions, and can see it does accumulate useful information. However, whilst the RTI/photogrammetry sessions have significant numbers of frames exposed, the biggest number of subjects are documents (and to a lesser degree artefacts) which are ‘just’ photographed. Whilst doing so, I keep thinking that DLN:CC would be a great way to record such imaging. Unfortunately DLN:CC only allows “RTI” and “Photogrammetry” projects, so I have tried fudging it by having collections of images in a (not really) photogrammetry project. My first suggestion is that DLN’s scope is extended to allow for Photography (or some other similar description) as well as RTI & Photogrammetry? Taking this a step further, whilst not wishing to dilute the project, I wonder if there's an opportunity to get even more value from DLN:CC. In particular, I've been thinking about geophysical and other similar surveys (where there are equipment categories, models, s/n, operators, etc. - just like RTI or photogrammetry). So, I wonder if it might be possible to have the list of 'Imaging techniques' (or just 'Techniques') able to be expanded - probably in the first case by just allowing a couple of other capture techniques to be named? This could mean that in the one DLN project for an archaeological investigation one could have metadata for, say: site photogrammetry (from UAS), magnetometer survey, GPR, resistance survey, topo survey, trench photography, trench photogrammetry, artefact photographs, artefact RTI, artefact photogrammetry.... merely by allowing the user to add extra techniques called 'Photography', 'Topographical survey', 'Magnetometer survey', 'Resistance survey' and 'GPR survey'. Dave