As demonstrated in the material/materiality article by JeeHee Hong, the concept of materiality has been hotly debated for centuries. But amidst the continued dispute between physicality and spirituality, materiality can most modernly be defined as “that which constitutes the ‘matter’ of something”. Something has materiality when there is value in its material form– whether it is of physical value or of symbolic value. So then, as museums have begun implementing technological adaptations of such pieces as substitutions for the material form in this day and age, we must ask: is materiality compromised by the digitalization of museum content?
To examine this question, I think back to when my peers and I were delicately scavenging through George P. Johnson’s Negro Film Collection at the Young Research Library. Having known how active Johnson was in the African American film industry from the online archive, we were all filled with a sense of awe and curiosity about what we would discover in his memorabilia. The file we opened contained several newspaper clippings relaying information about the movement to desegregate public schools in Los Angeles. As our eyes scoured the page to digest as much information as we possibly could, we kept wondering: what must Johnson have thought and felt at that time?
In this way, my experience of looking through these tangible objects and analyzing its content was meaningful in that it felt utterly and unabashedly real. In other words, being able to physically see the uniquely discolored paper and tattered edges of each piece brought its unphysical substance to life. Consequently, in experiencing the reality of the piece itself, I came to realize the reality of the content as a true part of history and therefore the reality of Johnson’s passions and motivations as he collected these pieces. I immersed myself into George P. Johnson’s perspective, if only for a while, and what was once a distant and foreign thing of the past became authentic in that moment. However, the Smithsonian’s X3D Exhibit did not incite the same kind of empathy. I consumed more information at a faster rate online than in the library, but I was also left more distracted by the technology and disinterested in the piece itself. Thus, while digitalization does provide a means of relaying more thorough and detailed explanations of pieces for educational purposes, it can never be substituted for the empathetic feeling that physical materiality provokes. 
I would agree that being able to handle objects and view them in such an intimate setting allows for an indescribable sensation. There is a sense of connection, yet it is neither nostalgic nor longing. It is a strange melding of apprehension and appreciation. However, as others have mentioned, though the 3D exhibit did may not have offered as compelling of an emotional experience, it was able to provide more personal interaction. Most people do not have the opportunity to interact directly with historical objects, especially with those displayed at museums, so removing the glass, and allowing people to manipulate and study an object without fear of causing harm or affecting history, per se, provides a more personal experience, while also simultaneously being accessible to a wider audience. Perhaps models that were more photo-realistic would provide a more “convincing” experience.
I definitely agree with you that seeing these items in person is a better experience than viewing the same items online. I think it’s interesting that you mentioned you were able to consume the information at a faster rate online but you were disinterested. With the wealth of information available to us online, we can easily get disinterested just because there is so much to look at that it is almost overwhelming. I think that’s why all of us had such a similar experience with feeling so much more connection to the items and remembering more about them when we saw them in person; it is such a unique and exciting experience that most of us had never had before.