Pro tip: The push for 3D scanning at every dig site is a waste of time and money

I just finished a project in southern Utah where we spent over 40 hours 3D scanning a simple rock shelter. The data was huge and took weeks to process. Meanwhile, a colleague on a similar site in Arizona just used standard photogrammetry and a total station, finishing his full record in two days. The difference was the goal: we were told to get 'perfect' digital records, but his method captured all the needed data for analysis and publication at a fraction of the cost. The extra detail from our scanner didn't change a single interpretation of the site's use. Has anyone else been pressured to use flashy tech when simpler tools did the job just as well?

3 comments

3 Comments

brian_hart15d ago

But did it actually hurt the project?

oliviabutler14d ago

The 2018 rewrite of the third act added six months to the schedule. That extra time burned through the contingency budget meant for final polish. You can see the rushed textures in the last zone because of it. So yeah, the constant changes did hurt the finished product.

the_faith14d ago

So you're asking if burning the polish budget on a rushed rewrite didn't hurt it? What do you call those blurry textures everyone complains about in the final area then?