""There is an absolute price advantage over products of the same class in the market. Significantly reduce the threshold of 3d scanning.""
https://www.creality.com/goods-detail/c ... -216430345
I have a Creality CR10-V3 3D printer, the build quality is very good, hopefully the same goes for their scanners.
The POP2 also looks pretty good for a cheap hand held scanner.
https://shop.revopoint3d.com/products/p ... gK2tvD_BwE
Regards,
Mike.
Yet another hand held 3D scanner
- Mike Annear
- V.I.P Member
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:45 am
- 14
- Full Name: Mike Annear
- Company Details: The Yard Brisbane
- Company Position Title: Manager - 3D Design and Scanning
- Country: Australia
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
- Location: Hemmant, Queensland, Australia
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 196 times
- Contact:
-
- V.I.P Member
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:32 pm
- 11
- Full Name: Massimo De Marchi
- Company Details: Massimo De Marchi
- Company Position Title: freelancer
- Country: Italy
- Skype Name: massimo_de_marchi
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 53 times
- Contact:
Re: Yet another hand held 3D scanner
I have the POP.
Not bad, but very short ranged, so it's sometimes tricky to keep the track, or to scan mid sized objects.
The nominal range is 275mm±100mm
Massimo
Not bad, but very short ranged, so it's sometimes tricky to keep the track, or to scan mid sized objects.
The nominal range is 275mm±100mm
Massimo
ing. Massimo De Marchi - +39 347 32 17 049 - www.studiodemarchi.net
- jcoco3
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1724
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:43 pm
- 12
- Full Name: Jonathan Coco
- Company Details: Consultant
- Company Position Title: Owner
- Country: USA
- Linkedin Profile: No
- Has thanked: 70 times
- Been thanked: 157 times
Re: Yet another hand held 3D scanner
Thank you both for sharing. I have been looking for something in a small scan volume that has very high accuracy for small part replication. The specs for the CR-Scan Lizard seem really optimistic, or I should just say I am pessimistic. "Up to 0.05mm" is a good way of saying "good luck!" Hope I am proven wrong The POP2 looks interesting at 0.1mm, but I can understand the limited scan volume pain.
- jcoco3
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1724
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:43 pm
- 12
- Full Name: Jonathan Coco
- Company Details: Consultant
- Company Position Title: Owner
- Country: USA
- Linkedin Profile: No
- Has thanked: 70 times
- Been thanked: 157 times
Re: Yet another hand held 3D scanner
I have been doing some reading and catching up on these small inexpensive handheld or turntable type scanners, and for now I have come to the conclusion that I would probably be better off sticking to my photogrammetry rig for my purposes. If I had enough projects requiring small parts to scan I could see making the investment in a high end scanner like a Faro scan arm, an Artec, or Einscan, and just skipping these smaller scanners.
This comparison video tends to confirm what I assumed about the inexpensive scanners. Edges are sometimes crucial and I have figured out ways to obtain them using photogrammetry, but I don't see how I could push the pop or similar to that level.
youtu.be/TNKtbIuoja4
Last project I used photogrammetry to scan a small part was a 13" prototype propeller. I found the leading edge to be quite a challenge. After many iterations of applying texture and changing my camera position to get in tight to the edge, and re-processing, I was able to obtain usable data, but the results were still less than perfect in my opinion.
If anyone thinks that type of thin edge something one of these small scanners can achieve with a few tricks, then I would love to learn the strategy, because while photogrammetry is great it has its own set of deficiencies. I do still find these small inexpensive scanners to be quite interesting as they can rival the cost of the photogrammetry software alone. Once you add the cost of the camera, lighting, backdrops, turntables, beefy computer, miscellaneous coatings, tweaking the setup, and processing time the small scanners are still a winner for some applications.
Anyone agree or disagree with my thoughts here? Would love to know what others think as my experience in this area is somewhat limited.
This comparison video tends to confirm what I assumed about the inexpensive scanners. Edges are sometimes crucial and I have figured out ways to obtain them using photogrammetry, but I don't see how I could push the pop or similar to that level.
youtu.be/TNKtbIuoja4
Last project I used photogrammetry to scan a small part was a 13" prototype propeller. I found the leading edge to be quite a challenge. After many iterations of applying texture and changing my camera position to get in tight to the edge, and re-processing, I was able to obtain usable data, but the results were still less than perfect in my opinion.
If anyone thinks that type of thin edge something one of these small scanners can achieve with a few tricks, then I would love to learn the strategy, because while photogrammetry is great it has its own set of deficiencies. I do still find these small inexpensive scanners to be quite interesting as they can rival the cost of the photogrammetry software alone. Once you add the cost of the camera, lighting, backdrops, turntables, beefy computer, miscellaneous coatings, tweaking the setup, and processing time the small scanners are still a winner for some applications.
Anyone agree or disagree with my thoughts here? Would love to know what others think as my experience in this area is somewhat limited.