Surphaser data in Scene?
-
- I have made 80-90 posts
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:32 am
- 9
- Full Name: Bob D. Hohimer Jr.
- Company Details: USLS
- Company Position Title: Point Wrangler
- Country: USA
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
- Location: Illinois
Surphaser data in Scene?
Can data from the Surphaser be processed with Scene? I am very intrigued by the level of quality that seems to be coming from this scanner, but am unsure of how it will be working with a moderate number of scans. Does anyone have experience with merging somewhat larger datasets from this scanner? 90-100+ scans.
BDH
-
- I have made 30-40 posts
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:55 pm
- 15
- Full Name: Paul Casson
- Company Details: multipass 3d laser scans ltd
- Company Position Title: Managing Director
- Country: UK
- Linkedin Profile: Yes
- Location: Cumbria. UK.
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: Surphaser data in Scene?
Hi.
Our workflow in the past has gone as follows.
Export from Surph express as PTX.
Import PTX into Scene.
You then can save the data from Scene into a scene project. The data will be converted to a "synthetic" fls, but will not display file property details / attributes such as scan resolution etc, since it is not a real fls file.
We have noticed a loss of brightness in the luminance data once the scan is converted to fls. Does anyone have a tweak for this?
If I understand your question, in terms of workflow and projects with large numbers of scans you should not notice any problems with hardware performance compared with using similar resolutions/file sizes from a real fls file).
There may be better ways to get the data from c3d (surphaser file) to fls, via other file formats. Anyone else have any experience?
Paul
Our workflow in the past has gone as follows.
Export from Surph express as PTX.
Import PTX into Scene.
You then can save the data from Scene into a scene project. The data will be converted to a "synthetic" fls, but will not display file property details / attributes such as scan resolution etc, since it is not a real fls file.
We have noticed a loss of brightness in the luminance data once the scan is converted to fls. Does anyone have a tweak for this?
If I understand your question, in terms of workflow and projects with large numbers of scans you should not notice any problems with hardware performance compared with using similar resolutions/file sizes from a real fls file).
There may be better ways to get the data from c3d (surphaser file) to fls, via other file formats. Anyone else have any experience?
Paul
-
- I have made 50-60 posts
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:11 am
- 11
- Full Name: Ricardo Oliveira
- Company Details: Murphy Surveys Ltd
- Company Position Title: Head of Digital Engineering
- Country: Ireland
Re: Surphaser data in Scene?
No so sure if Scene would be the best choice to actually evaluate the data.
Cyclone would be a better and more flexible tool to register and to inspect the scans in detail.
By the way what do you mean by:
Cyclone would be a better and more flexible tool to register and to inspect the scans in detail.
By the way what do you mean by:
bhohimer wrote:I am very intrigued by the level of quality that seems to be coming from this scanner
-
- V.I.P Member
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:50 pm
- 10
- Full Name: Arash Yaghoubi
- Company Details: Hypsometric
- Company Position Title: Director of Cartography
- Country: USA
- Linkedin Profile: No
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Surphaser data in Scene?
I think it means he cant believe how much better the Surphaser is over his focus 120. haha