Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Smithsonian Aims To Make Objects In Museum Collection 3D-Printable

Posted by Soulskill on from the print-yourself-a-v2-rocket dept.

PatPending writes with this excerpt from CNet: "With just 2 percent of the Smithsonian's archive of 137 million items available to the public at any one time, an effort is under way at the world's largest museum and research institution to adopt 3D tools to expand its reach around the country. CNET has learned that the Smithsonian has a new initiative to create a series of 3D-printed models, exhibits, and scientific replicas — as well as to generate a new digital archive of 3D models of many of the physical objects in its collection. ... They've got technology on their side — with minimally invasive laser scanners they can capture the geometry of just about any object or site with accuracy down to the micron level."

7 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright in sculptures still expires by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    The estate of a sculptor who died before 1942 has no case.

  2. Reason to get a 3D printer by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they release these models into the public doman this might just be the self justification I need to convince myself to get a 3D printer. They should sell the printers and printer consumables off their website, and give away the models for free.

    --
    Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    1. Re:Reason to get a 3D printer by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please not that. We've been down that road, and we know where it leads. HP will be selling 3D printer "ink" for $100 per microgram.

  3. totally and completely useless by holophrastic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    my interest in a museum has never been to see a reproduction of an historical achievement. I've no interest in seeing a photograph of the first telephone, nor in seeing a model of the first telephone, nor in seeing a drawing of the first telephone, nor an impressionist painting of the first telephone, nor a spot-on to-the-micron reproduction of the first telephone.

    my interest in a museum is to see the first telephone. Not something created ten minutes ago for me to see, but something created ages ago as an achievement.

    I could care less about the reproduction. Actually, that's a lie. I'd feel ripped off by it.

    Quite frankly, I'd be upset to hear that my country spent good money to create the reproduction, store the reproduction, and hide the original from me.

    show me the original, or destroy the original because it can't be shown.

    1. Re:totally and completely useless by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wow, you'd make a really terrible archivist.

      As someone who works with archivists and preservationists all over the country, every day, I can tell you that whether or not you feel "ripped off" is completely irrelevant to that community of folks. Archivists have two main missions. First and foremost, preservation: keeping the original artifact / object / document / etc. intact and protected, as close to its original state as possible. If this means keeping the original out of bright light, prohibiting flash photography, or even eliminating public access altogether and vaulting it, then so be it. This is becoming more and more of a popular trend in museums, for example at certain branches of the Smithsonian -- high-quality repros of paintings, documents, and photographs are displayed, and the originals are vaulted. Secondarily, access is another goal -- again, so long as the artifact can be protected. The high-profile case of theft of original presidential papers at the MD Historical Society last year has made archivists re-think public access to original artifacts, and sent shock waves through institutions all across the country. Digitization efforts, such as the one in TFA, have taken on an even more important role in terms of achieving the goal of increasing access.

      But don't think for a second that archivists value your selfish desire to view an object "in person" over the need to preserve that object, ever.

    2. Re:totally and completely useless by holophrastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no, you misunderstand me. my point is that you're doing neither. archivist want to protect an object so it can be used in future whatevers. if that means hiding from the public, then yeah, do it. but it's for that end goal. if it will absolutely never be used for anything, then there's no point in keeping it.

      and when it comes to granting access, your second goal, you need to actually grant access. granting access to something else doesn't count. a sand-printed version of archie bunker's chair doesn't grant the public access to anything. it doesn't show if it was hard or soft, what colour, what comfort, nothing. so it's entirely useless.

      archivists, and society in general, need to decide what the end-goal is. if it's to be able to know what was, then it needs to be protected for as long as possible, and studied only with gloved hands by the most esteemed and restricted experts. if it's to share the past with the present, then it needs to be shared. and certainly there's a balance of the two. and I'd be perfectly ok with saying that archie bunker's chair should be preserved until 2050, and then access until it degrades, because by 2055, nobody will care about a television chair anymore.

      I think we can all say that pride aside, having the original presidential papers is far less important than what they stood for. they aren't humanity's achievement, they are merely representitive of that achievement. same with archie's chair. and while I'd be dissappointed to hear that there are no originals of anything from 100 years ago, I'd be equally disappointment to hear that we kept everything for 1'000 years without allowing anyone to touch them.

      not to mention that there's the issue of scale. for the last 100 years, we've attempted to keep everything. so it 500 years from now, when you're living on venus, are you really going to care than 600 years earlier, a culture-busting tv show's chair is still being protected back on earth?

      I love archie bunkers chair. and I treat it with the greatest respect. but in and of itself, it has no value in 500 years.

      so what exactly are we saving? for whom and what for? do you really want to ressurect the dinosaurs, sure, there are loads of things that we could learn in doing so. do we really want to ressurect a mayan kitchen cabinet? there's a big difference there. more than one.

      and when the cost is to specifically hide archie bunker's chair from the people today who would really enjoy seeing it, or sitting in it. there is undoubtedly more money to be had by selling expensive tickets to sit in that chair than to orbit the planet. there are enough people who would pay over a thousand dollars to sit in the chair. and enough contract law, and insurance, to cover malicious intent.

      you can share the present, or you can protect the past, or you can do neither. both just isn't worth it.

  4. possibly obvious... Re:totally and completely usel by Fubari · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Some (possibly obvious) points; 1) this is about as close to backing up atoms (physical things) as we can get in 2012. Suppose a fire, or nuke, or whatever, takes out the originals (I for one would be grateful to have "just" replicas).
    2) The data points & measurements will surely be of interest to historians & scholars.
    3) I would love to see the scans in a high rez 3d display; could drive useful virtual reality tech. I don't have days (weeks?) to visit the actual museum. And if I ever do get the opportunity to go, I would love to preview the collection and come up with a short list of what I want to look at in person.
    4) Self funding: I suspect the Smithsonian doesn't have as much budget as they might wish. The museum could sell replicas. I wold love to be able buy a nice bit of sculpture or history to display. I'd love to see the patent office do this for some of their old-school "models".

    my interest in a museum has never been to see a reproduction of an historical achievement. I've no interest in seeing a photograph of the first telephone, nor in seeing a model of the first telephone, nor in seeing a drawing of the first telephone, nor an impressionist painting of the first telephone, nor a spot-on to-the-micron reproduction of the first telephone.

    my interest in a museum is to see the first telephone. Not something created ten minutes ago for me to see, but something created ages ago as an achievement.

    I could care less about the reproduction. Actually, that's a lie. I'd feel ripped off by it.

    Quite frankly, I'd be upset to hear that my country spent good money to create the reproduction, store the reproduction, and hide the original from me.

    show me the original, or destroy the original because it can't be shown.