For many scanner I can see on the datasheet the resolution written with a distance beetwin points on a 10m distance.
For exemple: 6mm on 10m or 12mm on 10m
On the datasheet of the brand Z+F it is written differently.
For exemple: 5'000 pixels/360 or 10'000 pixels/360
Can someone help me convert those pixel/360 into distance beetwin points (x mm / x M)
It will help me understand the time needed to scan on the field.
Thank you,
Keith
Z+F Imager resolution
- landmeterbeuckx
- V.I.P Member
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 5:19 pm
- 11
- Full Name: Lieven Beuckx
- Company Details: Studiebureau Beuckx
- Company Position Title: Owner
- Country: Belgium
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
- Has thanked: 183 times
- Been thanked: 548 times
Re: Z+F Imager resolution
I don't know it but why don't you just pick up the phone and call them? I'm sure they won't bite
- smacl
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:12 pm
- 13
- Full Name: Shane MacLaughlin
- Company Details: Atlas Computers Ltd
- Company Position Title: Managing Director
- Country: Ireland
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
- Location: Ireland
- Has thanked: 627 times
- Been thanked: 657 times
- Contact:
Re: Z+F Imager resolution
Very roughlyKeith wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:45 pm For many scanner I can see on the datasheet the resolution written with a distance beetwin points on a 10m distance.
For exemple: 6mm on 10m or 12mm on 10m
On the datasheet of the brand Z+F it is written differently.
For exemple: 5'000 pixels/360 or 10'000 pixels/360
Can someone help me convert those pixel/360 into distance beetwin points (x mm / x M)
It will help me understand the time needed to scan on the field.
Thank you,
Keith
5000 pixels/360 degrees = 13.8 pixels per degree.
Degrees per pixel = 1 / 13.8 = 0.07246
sin(0.07246 degree) x 10 metres = (0.001256 x 10) = 12mm at 10m resolution
10000 pixels/360 degrees = 27.8 pixels per degree.
Degrees per pixel = 1 / 27.8 = 0.036
sin(0.036 degree) x 10 metres = (0.00062 x 10) = 6mm at 10m resolution
-
- I have made 20-30 posts
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:25 pm
- 3
- Full Name: Patrick Hughes
- Company Details: Position Partners
- Company Position Title: Customer Success Manager
- Country: Australia
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Z+F Imager resolution
Hi Keith,
I have attached a table that outlines the resolution vs quality specs and the time it takes to capture scan data for those settings. Remember capture speed isn't everything, you also have to consider the effects of the capture speed on the noise range of those points recorded.
The table also includes the native file size for scans done at 'Normal/Balanced' quality, these files sizes are approximate as it all depends on the scene captured and the compression.
I noticed that you have been looking closely at the Z+F images over the last few weeks, I would definitely recommend reaching out to the team at Z+F. They provide great support and will answer any questions you have on their systems, no question is a stupid question!
I have attached a table that outlines the resolution vs quality specs and the time it takes to capture scan data for those settings. Remember capture speed isn't everything, you also have to consider the effects of the capture speed on the noise range of those points recorded.
The table also includes the native file size for scans done at 'Normal/Balanced' quality, these files sizes are approximate as it all depends on the scene captured and the compression.
I noticed that you have been looking closely at the Z+F images over the last few weeks, I would definitely recommend reaching out to the team at Z+F. They provide great support and will answer any questions you have on their systems, no question is a stupid question!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- Keith
- I have made 30-40 posts
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:15 pm
- 4
- Full Name: Keith Rey
- Company Details: Rey Scan Sàrl
- Company Position Title: CEO
- Country: Switzerland
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: Z+F Imager resolution
Hi Pat,
Thank you, yes I just wrote them and and they sent me some good informations
Thank you, yes I just wrote them and and they sent me some good informations
-
- I have made 70-80 posts
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:04 pm
- 11
- Full Name: Christoph Held
- Company Details: Zoller+Froehlich GmbH
- Company Position Title: Z+F Team
- Country: Germany
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Z+F Imager resolution
Hi Keith,
I’m sorry for the confusion. We specify like this, because it is a range independent and accurate method to establish the point spacing.
As the others pointed out already, pixels/360 means that for each profile, the scanner will capture for example 5,000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 pixels.
To get the point spacing, the easiest is to calculate it in rad, as you can assume for small angles that the angular increment in rad * distance is your point spacing in meters: 360° in rad is 2*pi, so the formula is: 2 * pi / pixels per profile * distance to object.
Thus at 10m the high resolution will provide of point spacing of
2 * 3.14 / 10000 * 10 = 0.0063m = 6.3mm
I agree, it is not as straight forward as it could be and I will discuss internally and see if we add the notation you suggested. If there is anything else, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Thanks to the others for their quick help on this!
Best regards,
Chris
I’m sorry for the confusion. We specify like this, because it is a range independent and accurate method to establish the point spacing.
As the others pointed out already, pixels/360 means that for each profile, the scanner will capture for example 5,000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 pixels.
To get the point spacing, the easiest is to calculate it in rad, as you can assume for small angles that the angular increment in rad * distance is your point spacing in meters: 360° in rad is 2*pi, so the formula is: 2 * pi / pixels per profile * distance to object.
Thus at 10m the high resolution will provide of point spacing of
2 * 3.14 / 10000 * 10 = 0.0063m = 6.3mm
I agree, it is not as straight forward as it could be and I will discuss internally and see if we add the notation you suggested. If there is anything else, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Thanks to the others for their quick help on this!
Best regards,
Chris