3D print for ancient sculpture restoration

dfodaro · August 31, 2024, 4:42pm

Hello everyone,
This is my first post.
I am a professional art conservator specialized in sculpture conservation.
I have bought a Bambulab A1 with AMS lite two months ago.
I using 3D technologies in my profession field from ten years.
I present the first (where used of Bambulab A1) my restoration/reconstruction test of a sculpture.
The subject is a 16th-century cerubin head: the marble surface is finely carved, but heavily obscured by the presence of dirt, dust, and treatment residues. 3D scanning allows all details, tool marks, and damage to the marble to be highlighted.

The sculpture was scanned with Revopoint MIRACO Scanner.

)

As you can see the sculpture is damaged and part of the nose is missing.

One of the possibilities of 3D technologies in the field of cultural heritage restoration is precisely to record by 3D scanning the shape and from that use it to reconstruct missing parts.

In this case I proceeded by printing with Bambulab A1 a portion of the scan:

The part was printed with Pla grey, 0.2 layer.

The next step was to reconstruct on 3D printing the missing part (using plasticine):

After that I scanned the part with the nose reconstructed (again with Miraco scanner):

The next step was to create a 3D model of the missing part of the nose by performing Boolean subtraction operations between the scan of the reconstructed model and the one with the missing part:

I checked the consistency by aligning the reconstructed part with the complete 3D model of the sculpture:

At this point having obtained the reconstructed part (a kind of fragment of the original), it was necessary to verify the design by making the physical prototype by printing it (draft quality scaled 1:2):

As you can see, the result simulates a detached fragment that is repositioned on the original.

Test run on the original sculpture: the 3D printed ( 0.16 layer, Pla, printed 1:1 scale) reconstruction fit perfectly the lacuna.

Below, the test print I made is 1:2 scale, placed near to the original. This shows that if you work with the right tools and in the correct way you can work with in scale without this affecting the result. Working in scale (for 3D printing) means significantly reducing time and costs.
I am very satisfied, and impressed, about quality and use experience of Bambulab A1.

cesare.tanassi · August 31, 2024, 6:45pm

Wow! Great job man, and incredible effective technique.

Keep up the good work!

dfodaro · August 31, 2024, 7:03pm

Thanks for appreciation

I will share more works here

MZip · August 31, 2024, 7:31pm

That is a very cool application! Very nice work!

dfodaro · August 31, 2024, 7:45pm

Many thanks for your message

user_3026326371 · September 1, 2024, 12:46am

That is a very great post indeed - thanks for sharing!

I did similar for a while, just not for ancient artwork, just machine and car parts.
Scanned the affected part/area, got thinking but then did basically all on the computer.
Your little nose job with clay or such would take me many hours and I would never like the look - totally useless creating nice things with my hands…
You make it look soooo easy…

If you don’t mind, I would like to ask how far you might want to go with the computer work here.
For broken out or missing parts I preferred to use a negative model created from the original scan.
You can ‘fill’ voids and such digitally in a negative model much easier that on a complex positive model.
The added benefit here is that you can just subtract the negative from the cleaned up model to get just the fixed up areas as individual parts.
In a final step you could then add these parts to the positive model in order to fix any surface imperfections that might be visible.
I like this approach as I could work on the repair from both sides so to speak while also getting properly matching parts I could use to create a mould for casting.
Quite handy if the final part had to be cast in aluminium anyway.

From a restoration and preservation point of view it would make at least sense in terms of documenting exactly what was fixed, where and with what materials.
might not matter today but maybe in another 100 years when the next refurbishment is due.
Either way, seeing what you do and in such a well documented way is a pleasure.
The work you guys do never seems to be appreciated, we just take it for granted that someone does but never really know how they do it…

dfodaro · September 1, 2024, 5:33am

Hi,
Thanks a lot for your appreciation and for the message, very articulate and argued.

Technologies in general, and 3D technologies in particular, which find application in the conservation and restoration of works of art, are always borrowed from other fields. For this reason it is necessary to try to find the correct way to use them. As a professional in the field, I believe that technology should be used cum grano salis, Latin phrase meaning “with a minimum of common sense”. Let me try to explain better.
The reasons that justify the use of a technology in the field of restoration and conservation (technologies often very distant from those used to create works of art) I believe must be essentially three:

I can do something that I can’t do with other technologies
I can do something better and faster
It allows you to carry out phases and operations without operating directly on the original, avoiding any contamination or alteration of the same (very important thing).

In short, I think we should avoid using a technology, especially 3D, because it’s more cool than useful.

dfodaro · September 1, 2024, 5:34am

Thanks a lot for this consideration

dfodaro · September 1, 2024, 5:38am

This allows me to make another consideration: I believe that a mixed approach, in which one can switch back and forth from a digital to an analogue approach, and vice versa, is more suited to conservation and restoration work.