The Ribadeo I Wreck—Multi-Year Photogrammetric Survey of a Spanish Galleon of the Second Armada
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper explores the workflows for collecting, developing and interpreting photogrammetry data as the basis for further 3D modelling, created and used to support both study, evaluation of changes in time, and finally dissemination to the public.
The paper presents the work done with several subsequent digitization campaigns, showing the dataset produced (3D models) and describing the post-processing approaches and sw tools used. The technical content is correct and well described.
In terms of innovation, the paper does not present any brand-new technical solution; technically, the degree of innovation is low. But the paper is interesting as an example of a quite complex and professional digitization project, lasting for several years.
The discussion at the end is also interesting.
In terms of dissemination to the public I was expecting something more. This theme is mentioned, but not really developed (at least not in the current manuscript).
3D models have been uploaded on the ADS archive, figure 1 is produced with the 3DHOP web-based viewer which has been endorsed by ADS, but this open-source tool is not mentioned in the paper (https://3dhop.net/).
Minor comments
- Page 1: 2011 2011, repeated twice
- Page 4: caption of fig 2 is wrongly numbered (Figure 1)
Author Response
This paper explores the workflows for collecting, developing and interpreting photogrammetry data as the basis for further 3D modelling, created and used to support both study, evaluation of changes in time, and finally dissemination to the public.
The paper presents the work done with several subsequent digitization campaigns, showing the dataset produced (3D models) and describing the post-processing approaches and sw tools used. The technical content is correct and well described.
In terms of innovation, the paper does not present any brand-new technical solution; technically, the degree of innovation is low. But the paper is interesting as an example of a quite complex and professional digitization project, lasting for several years.
The discussion at the end is also interesting.
In terms of dissemination to the public I was expecting something more. This theme is mentioned, but not really developed (at least not in the current manuscript).
Author Response:
Dissemination is not a central theme of this paper. It is mentioned because it is clearly related, but is beyond the present scope, as stated in line 382.
3D models have been uploaded on the ADS archive, figure 1 is produced with the 3DHOP web-based viewer which has been endorsed by ADS, but this open-source tool is not mentioned in the paper (https://3dhop.net/).
Author Response:
Additional reference to the ForSEAdiscovery archive on the ADS portal has been added at line 95. However, the authors perceive this as out of scope for the current discussion and believe that this should be the subject of a separate paper focussed on these clearly important issues.
Minor comments have been corrected in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Fine as far as it goes. Asks some interesting questions which are then (by the authors own admission) not really examined or answered in detail. From an interest point of view I would like to have seen a bit more discussion (paragraph) on the changes recognised on the site from the photogrammetry from season to season - what this could tell us in terms of monitoring and if anything surprising was revealed that was not perhaps recognised through diving alone.
Author Response
Fine as far as it goes. Asks some interesting questions which are then (by the authors own admission) not really examined or answered in detail. From an interest point of view I would like to have seen a bit more discussion (paragraph) on the changes recognised on the site from the photogrammetry from season to season - what this could tell us in terms of monitoring and if anything surprising was revealed that was not perhaps recognised through diving alone.
Author response:
These are interesting aspects which will certainly be explored in a future paper on the subject as the work is still very much in progress. Discussion of the archaeology of the ship has been deliberately avoided in this manuscript as this is dealt with in another paper appearing in the same volume (Castro et al., The Ribadeo I shipwreck, Galleon “San Giacomo di Galizia” – from Excavation to Interpretation), and we refer you to this paper following publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article raises two important aspects of the procedure of documentation, management, analysis and interpretation of archaeological data from an excavation: the workflow itself and its methods and procedures, and the way to integrate a multidisciplinary team in which not all members have to be experts and knowledgeable in all parts of the work process.
Regarding the first aspect, the manuscript shows sufficient solvency and demonstrates the authors' training in the subject, although we must make some minor considerations, which we will explain below.
The second aspect is well considered, and the discussion of the problems established within the dynamics of the work team is adequate. But it is not clear how the authors resolve this controversy, either in the discussion or in the conclusions. It seems to be deduced that the option chosen by the authors was to share, in the best possible way, data and information among all team members, also advocating for the development of software that combines the potential of GIS and 3D modelling to resolve the issue. We consider that the authors should explain, in a broader way, how this new software would solve the problems they raise, taking into account that it would be a software that requires learning and control of archaeological data and handling of 3D modelling by the same person.
Below we list a series of corrections and/or recommendations:
- In line 15: Although the bibliographical reference offered is very interesting, it seems insufficient to show only one. A few more references exemplifying this aspect should be taken into consideration.
- In line 30, the year 2011 is repeated twice.
- In line 65: Although the bibliographical reference offered is very interesting, it seems insufficient to show only one. A few more references exemplifying this aspect should be taken into consideration.
- The word datum would not be the correct term for control points, perhaps it would be better to use: ground control point GCP, or benchmark.
- Revise reference 4 because some strange numbers appear in the title and in the source book.
- Lines 391-394: there is talk of models optimised for web platforms, but this is inconsistent with the generation of high-poly models, which due to their heavy weight are very difficult to serve via the internet, and even if you had a good server that could serve it, the bottleneck that would be generated in the users' devices would make it useless and ineffective; unless the authors want to refer to other uses of high-poly models, which should be mentioned to avoid confusion.
- Figures 6 and 7 should have the same point of view in order to better understand and correctly visualise the application of the colouring of the timber selection made with ZBrush.
- Figure 9 is not referenced in the text.
- Lines 446-447: it should be explained, even if only briefly, why you want to export the sections to Rhinoceros 3D.
- Lines 448-450: if there are publications on these advances, they should be indicated, and if they have not yet been produced, since they are mentioned, at least a brief explanation should be given of what these advances consist of.
- Line 540: the bibliographical reference mentioned, where the existence of a 3D GIS software is being discussed, seems rather ambiguous to us. The Orca 3D plugin for Rhinoceros 3D facilitates the reconstruction and analysis of a 3D model, but within the field of naval architecture. Although this could be similar to what a GIS software should do: document, manage and analyse vector data, it is inappropriate to qualify this software as a GIS, especially with respect to the specificity of its scope, which is far from the transversality that a true GIS should have. In this sense, we ask the authors to explain this issue better and, in the event that they do consider Orca 3D to be a true GIS, to substantiate and explain it adequately.
- Line 548: the bibliographic reference number 1 should be number 13.
Author Response
The article raises two important aspects of the procedure of documentation, management, analysis and interpretation of archaeological data from an excavation: the workflow itself and its methods and procedures, and the way to integrate a multidisciplinary team in which not all members have to be experts and knowledgeable in all parts of the work process.
Regarding the first aspect, the manuscript shows sufficient solvency and demonstrates the authors' training in the subject, although we must make some minor considerations, which we will explain below.
The second aspect is well considered, and the discussion of the problems established within the dynamics of the work team is adequate. But it is not clear how the authors resolve this controversy, either in the discussion or in the conclusions. It seems to be deduced that the option chosen by the authors was to share, in the best possible way, data and information among all team members, also advocating for the development of software that combines the potential of GIS and 3D modelling to resolve the issue. We consider that the authors should explain, in a broader way, how this new software would solve the problems they raise, taking into account that it would be a software that requires learning and control of archaeological data and handling of 3D modelling by the same person.
Below we list a series of corrections and/or recommendations:
Reviewer Comment:
- In line 15: Although the bibliographical reference offered is very interesting, it seems insufficient to show only one. A few more references exemplifying this aspect should be taken into consideration.
Author response:
Additional references cited.
Reviewer Comment:
- In line 30, the year 2011 is repeated twice.
Author response:
Corrected
Reviewer Comment:
- In line 65: Although the bibliographical reference offered is very interesting, it seems insufficient to show only one. A few more references exemplifying this aspect should be taken into consideration.
Author response:
Additional reference has been added. To date, this work has been largely education and outreach focussed and we are currently considering how to address the archive and work undertaken for peer review and publication in a future publication series.
Reviewer Comment:
- The word datum would not be the correct term for control points, perhaps it would be better to use: ground control point GCP, or benchmark.
Author response:
Acknowledged. Reference to multiple site datums, where this would usually be singular, is incorrect. Updated all references to datums throughout.
Reviewer Comment:
- Revise reference 4 because some strange numbers appear in the title and in the source book.
Author response:
Corrected. Now reference 6.
Reviewer Comment:
- Lines 391-394: there is talk of models optimised for web platforms, but this is inconsistent with the generation of high-poly models, which due to their heavy weight are very difficult to serve via the internet, and even if you had a good server that could serve it, the bottleneck that would be generated in the users' devices would make it useless and ineffective; unless the authors want to refer to other uses of high-poly models, which should be mentioned to avoid confusion.
Author response:
Clarified that these are not the same uses or model versions; that different resolutions can be applied for different audiences/applications/use cases.
Reviewer Comment:
- Figures 6 and 7 should have the same point of view in order to better understand and correctly visualise the application of the colouring of the timber selection made with ZBrush.
Author response:
Figure 6 has been updated to match the view shown in Figure 7.
Reviewer Comment:
- Figure 9 is not referenced in the text.
Author response:
Reference to Figures 7-9 has been added at line 427.
Reviewer Comment:
- Lines 446-447: it should be explained, even if only briefly, why you want to export the sections to Rhinoceros 3D.
Author response:
This has been briefly expanded upon in the text.
Reviewer Comment:
- Lines 448-450: if there are publications on these advances, they should be indicated, and if they have not yet been produced, since they are mentioned, at least a brief explanation should be given of what these advances consist of.
Author response:
The archaeology of the ship has deliberately been ommitted from this paper to avoid repetition. It is detailed in another paper submitted for publication in the same edition. We refer you and now the reader to Castro et al., The Ribadeo I shipwreck, Galleon “San Giacomo di Galizia” – from Excavation to Interpretation.
Reviewer Comment:
- Line 540: the bibliographical reference mentioned, where the existence of a 3D GIS software is being discussed, seems rather ambiguous to us. The Orca 3D plugin for Rhinoceros 3D facilitates the reconstruction and analysis of a 3D model, but within the field of naval architecture. Although this could be similar to what a GIS software should do: document, manage and analyse vector data, it is inappropriate to qualify this software as a GIS, especially with respect to the specificity of its scope, which is far from the transversality that a true GIS should have. In this sense, we ask the authors to explain this issue better and, in the event that they do consider Orca 3D to be a true GIS, to substantiate and explain it adequately.
Author response:
This is an unfortunate numbering error causing conflation of different issues. The reference should have indicate the article on McCarthy and al which highlights the issues and limitations of currently available 3D GIS platforms.
The mention of Orca and with regard to the Newport Ship is relevant, but only to illustrate the important work that has been undertaken to develop three dimensional abstraction of archaeological information derived from the source material (or 3D models). While this certainly does not constitute a substitute for full GIS, it illustrates a work-around or preliminary stage to capture the type of information that could later be incorporated within a 3D geodatabase.
The reference number has been corrected and the paragraphs expanded to clarify these points.
Reviewer Comment:
- Line 548: the bibliographic reference number 1 should be number 13.
Author response:
As per the template instructions to authors, references in the conclusion section have now been removed.
