## 5 Conclusions and Further Work  
The article presents a comparison of the results of safe and non-contact digitisation of objects from museum exhibitions using two different methods: the 3d Structural-Light Scanning (3D SLS) and the Structure from Motion (SfM) methods. It has been shown that it is possible to select programs and tools, as well as devices enabling the creation of low-cost 3D mesh models using the SfM method, using free software (Meshroom, Blender) and commonly owned devices and computer equipment (camera, laptop). Using modern information technologies, it has been shown that it is possible to carry out works when employees of partner units are located in different geographic locations in Lublin (Poland) and Samarkand (Uzbekistan). Each team can focus on activities related to professional preparation, sharing their knowledge at the same time, in order to gain new competences in the future in the field of creating digital copies of real models or tangible cultural heritage. By combining the competences of both teams, a synergy effect occurs, which makes it easier to solve emerging problems. In the light of the research consisting in the creation of digital 3D models of museum objects using the 3D SLS and SfM methods and a comparative analysis of the obtained results, it became possible to formulate the following conclusions:  
1. Scanning with the 3D SLS method with the use of Artec Spider and Artec Eva scanners is perfect for mapping museum objects due to the lack of contact with them (the emitted light is neutral for the scanned objects, thanks to which it is possible to scan very delicate, old and valuable objects). It enables effective in situ data acquisition, which significantly simplifies the digitisation process and the necessary formalities to carry it out. 2. Performing the proper postprocessing of the data obtained in the 3D SLS scanning process allows to obtain a faithful 3D mesh model with the applied texture, which can be exported to a file in.obj format with a size many times smaller than the original data obtained. 3. Optimisation of the 3D model mesh using the 3D SLS method and reducing it by up to 10 times while reducing the texture dimension by a factor of 2 does not result in the loss of good visual quality of these objects. This remark applies to very small objects (a 14 cm high jug and a 270 cm high oven). It should be added that the total size of model and texture files is reduced by about 6 to 8 times. As a result, these models are well suited for placement on museum websites. 4. The low-cost SfM method has an unquestionable advantage (over 35 times), which can be an attractive alternative when creating digital 3D models of museum objects. The results of the comparative studies, however, show some of its shortcomings, which means that the obtained three-dimensional digital models are usually of lower visual quality. In addition, due to the improvement of their quality (e.g., surface smoothing), their size increases significantly and is about 3-5 times larger than the size of model files and texture files from the 3D SLS method after optimisation. This may mean that inserting such large model files on museum websites may discourage potential users due to the long download times. 5. The use of the SfM method to create digital 3D models of objects of medium or small size (e.g., a jug with a height of 14 cm) gives much better results when the process of cropping the photo is carried out so that the object is in the centre of the photo. The amount of noise generated in the background of the photo is reduced. Although the 3D models generated by the SfM method were obtained from a small number of photos, about 30-50 (photos taken by partners from Uzbekistan), the quality of these models turned out to be quite good. This is especially true of a small jug--an object in its main axisymmetric shape. So attention should be paid to getting much more photos of the subject (from 80 to 140). 7.