3D scanning thread
3D scanning thread
I pledged for the Matterform scanner in Batch #1 http://www.matterform.net/our-scanner/ I hope they will be delivering soon but it is not clear. Supposedly they were shooting for the first of August for batch #1.
-
Robert Howle
- B9 Creator
- Posts: 6627
3D scanning thread
I'm in the last batch. Like all the improvements since fund raiser closed. I will be patient, I think since there are over a thousand people that pledged money I am just going to have to wait. Think I was one of the last 25 to jump in before close of business.
Dance like nobody's watching!
3D scanning thread
for non moving object I just use structured light, the cost of hardware/software was around 1000$ :
3D scanning thread
Cool, but when it comes to scanning live people... well that is almost hardest thing :)
3D scanning thread
@ hnphan
What structured light scanner have you used? And are the 3D data absolute values?
@ Tim
Even living people can keep still for some seconds if they are using a support.
What structured light scanner have you used? And are the 3D data absolute values?
@ Tim
Even living people can keep still for some seconds if they are using a support.
3D scanning thread
The software used for this is DavidScan with a projector and 1.2MP camera ;)
I've used many many 3d scanning software both as hobby and work and if its stationnary; DavidScan gives the best results so far as well as being very friendly user.
U mean if its in physical scale? then yes.
I've used many many 3d scanning software both as hobby and work and if its stationnary; DavidScan gives the best results so far as well as being very friendly user.
U mean if its in physical scale? then yes.
3D scanning thread
I didn't know that you are using the DAVID scanner, otherwise I wouldn't have asked for the out coming 3D data. Yes of course they are calibrated (in mm).
Good to hear that you are satisfied with the system. I am one of the moderators there.
Sitting on a chair and leaning the head against a head rest it is even possible to do an all around scan with a webcam:
http://forum.david-3d.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3415&start=15
And here the printed result as an Iron Man:
http://forum.david-3d.com/download/file.php?id=6622&mode=view
The B9 red was a bit white sprayed.
Good to hear that you are satisfied with the system. I am one of the moderators there.
Sitting on a chair and leaning the head against a head rest it is even possible to do an all around scan with a webcam:
http://forum.david-3d.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3415&start=15
And here the printed result as an Iron Man:
http://forum.david-3d.com/download/file.php?id=6622&mode=view
The B9 red was a bit white sprayed.
3D scanning thread
0_o
My kinect and reconstructMe are smoking somewhere in the far-far dusty corner comparing to that! I'm impressed with such a results!
My kinect and reconstructMe are smoking somewhere in the far-far dusty corner comparing to that! I'm impressed with such a results!
3D scanning thread
These are great but I was told they wont work on rings....
3D scanning thread
Hi guys,
I've noticed that Fuel3D has been mentioned in this blog; we thought we could address any feedback or questions you might have on here. Without damaging our reputation as being 'spammers', is there anything you might want answering about our product? We've got a comparison between what resolution our 3D scanner can capture against that of what the Kinect can capture here: http://kck.st/13ygzkR the picture features around 2/3rds of the way down the page.
Thanks, the Fuel3D team.
I've noticed that Fuel3D has been mentioned in this blog; we thought we could address any feedback or questions you might have on here. Without damaging our reputation as being 'spammers', is there anything you might want answering about our product? We've got a comparison between what resolution our 3D scanner can capture against that of what the Kinect can capture here: http://kck.st/13ygzkR the picture features around 2/3rds of the way down the page.
Thanks, the Fuel3D team.
3D scanning thread
My opinion is that it is too expensive for what it does. I can achieve almost the same results with PrimeSense Carmine 1.09 sensor (or even more detailed with glasses mod) but with automatic stitching for 200 bucks. Your 0.5 mm resolution is not the revolution here, moreover if considering the costs. If it will be 0.1 mm with fully automatic stitching then it will be game changer, probably. But now it's only "one more new kid on the block"
3D scanning thread
yeah because it's too shiny! Laser will just reflect off...
3D scanning thread
Laserscanning and structured light scanning (with projector) will work fine if the shiny object's surface was coated before:
http://forum.david-3d.com/viewtopic.php?p=11999#p11999
There are washable spays available.
http://forum.david-3d.com/viewtopic.php?p=11999#p11999
There are washable spays available.
3D scanning thread
Yes, talcum powder can be used but it doesn't adhere as well as a spray like this:
http://www.zip-bit.com/whitening-spray-p-9-l-en.html
http://www.zip-bit.com/whitening-spray-p-9-l-en.html
3D scanning thread
Quote from Charlie01 on August 6, 2013, 07:35
we could address any feedback or questions you might have on here.
Thanks, the Fuel3D team.
As someone who was once wondering if his pickled liver (non smoker, garaged, runs good) or any other organ was barter-worthy for a $35k Creaform 3D scanner, I've got no issues with the Fuel3D pricepoint. There are however some questionable omissions not found in the Kickstarter campaign.
Concern #1. Zero mention anywhere of distance-to-object range(s). Red flag. The subject matter of the sample scans seems to indicate so far only close objects. Can it scan a bee? Can it scan a car?
Concern #2. The Fuel3D's scan-target requirement and single-shot scan is a mild bummer that pushes it more into the basic DIY category than waving around a game-changing Creaform. The Fuel3D's promise of stitching a multi-angle scan in downstream meshing software is just vaporware until proven. How smoothly will it be stitched? Again, sheer speculation at this point since Uformia has yet to develop this. If this scanner can't offer a better/smoother workflow for 360 degree captures, all the other scanners mentioned in this thread are back in the race.
Concern #3. For the jewelers amongst this crowd, a 0.5 or even 0.25mm resolution is not likely enough to scan gemstones for virtual mounting. The questionable scanning range and how it'll react with translucent gems and shiny metals will factor heavily into suitability for jewelers. (Form 1 made such a claim and has failed miserably)
Concern #4. Ergonomics. Someone was hell-bent on that triangular design above all else, huh? The sketches don't show a targeting reticle/viewfinder to provide feedback on whether everything is under the scanning envelope. That's the scanning noob in me asking what might be obvious. Some gadgets are so thoughtfully designed, it can be operated shortly after it's picked up for the first time. I'm doubting this is such a gadget. Fuel3D's answer to an incomplete scan might be "aim better, scan again". This won't provide solace to missing certain rare opportunities.
Thinking about 3D scanners now has me taking a broader view and envisioning the day some company will cram the processing power, the memory, the optics into a palm-sized device and spark the next generation of true 3D cameras. Much like how the first photography camera sparked its revolution. Instead of snapping old-timey digital PHOTOGRAPHY, the 3D scanning camera will shoot a scene and the file gets uploaded to grandma's computer where she can use her browser to trapse through the scene (VRML?) Then comes the 3D scanning camcorders. Forget the current baloney with stereoscopic images.
Who's gonna be first?
3D scanning thread
I think that people get too hung up on the question of stereoscopic imaging vs 3d scanning. It's not an either/or, they are just different technologies. Sure, you can sometimes mash one format into another but to me it seems pretty simple:
Stereoscopic imaging: Is the right tool when you want to present a single viewpoint in 3D to human eyes, such as 3D films or 3DTV.
3D scanning: Is the right tool when you want to capture a 3D model of an object.
Stereoscopic imaging: Is the right tool when you want to present a single viewpoint in 3D to human eyes, such as 3D films or 3DTV.
3D scanning: Is the right tool when you want to capture a 3D model of an object.
3D scanning thread
Thanks for your in depth comment CarterTG,
In line with your list of concerns:
#1
We are currently bringing together a detailed response to this question in a blog site post that will soon be uploaded here: http://www.fuel-3d.com/blog/
As a rough guide for now though, the capture range 'depth-of-field' is from around 35 to 50cm from the camera. Again, the area of capture through this range will be confirmed on the technical blog post. Currently however, (in the prototype systems) this is approx 35cm in the diagonal, so think A4 paper size (or US letter!). We will be looking at ways to increase this as we are still configuring the final design.
In terms of what the Fuel3D can and can't scan, we've listed some of examples in our Whitepaper (http://www.fuel-3d.com/product/technical-whitepaper/).
Things which work well with the Fuel3D scanner:
• Skin, e.g. faces and body parts
• Fabrics
• Organic subjects e.g. plants, leaves
• Stone, masonry, brick
• Food
• Artwork, e.g. paintings, statutes @jessops, @camerastore, @pcworld
…and some examples of subjects which are more challenging
• Glassware, and reflective objects e.g. mirrors
• Jewellery
• Metal objects, e.g. knifes & forks
• Plain objects e.g. cups and saucers
• Animate objects, e.g. things which are deforming
• Hair, e.g. hairy animals or body parts
You can begin to see what type of object the Fuel3D is best suited for.
#2
We've (only yesterday) added registration and stitching for joining multiple meshes together as a stretch goal for our campaign:
'Help us reach 350 units of the Fuel3D and MeshUp bundle and we will add painless automated merging of multiple scans to create single unified models.'
The current capabilities of Uformia's MeshUp software in merging multiple meshes together can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVbKR6ewM7Q
Uformia are confident that they will be able to create a software package that will, quote, 'seamlessly' stitch multiple scans together. They have already been doing work in this area for a while but the tools have just not yet been incorporated into MeshUp. We will bring you more news as things progress.
The comparison with Creaform (and some people have also compared us with Artec) is an interesting one: we are hand-held, so are they; they do continuous capture, we need to do multiple scan registration and stitching; we are selling at $1000 and they (from my understanding) are selling at $30,000 and Euro15,000 respectively. The 3D scanning market has matured significantly since the early days and there are many good technologies available each well suited to different applications, so there is plenty of space for these to co-exist.
#3
You are correct. As with any scanner we have our 'sweet spot' of types of surfaces that work well and range of measurement the system is designed to capture - there is no one 3D scanner that can do everything. Jewellery is an example of an object that is more challenging for the Fuel3D to scan, as would other very small finely detailed objects. You would need an incredibly high resolution scanner to image a gem stone or gold/silverware, and that is not taking into account the difficulties that many other optical scanners would face in capturing transparent or reflective surfaces. The best suited technology for scanning reflective surfaces with fine detail are typically based on 'conoscopic holography'.
That said, we think we have something that we can contribute to jewellery makers in providing an affordable way to capture 3D textures and organic shapes for reproduction (and typically reduction in size) in jewellery designs. We have had people express interest in applying a face scan to customise jewellery, which we showed an example of on our Kickstarter content. We are working on some further examples using natural objects and will show those on our KS and website shortly.
#4
Fuel3D is tethered to a PC (laptop) so we use the computer screen as the 'rangefinder' - using the earlier comparison; this is the same method that Artec, Creaform and other higher-priced handheld laser-scanners use as these are attached to articulated measuring arms. We would have loved to include an on-board screen and data processing but there is no way we could have hit our target sub $1000 price point.
Hopefully this helps clarify our strategy intentions.
The Fuel3D Team
In line with your list of concerns:
#1
We are currently bringing together a detailed response to this question in a blog site post that will soon be uploaded here: http://www.fuel-3d.com/blog/
As a rough guide for now though, the capture range 'depth-of-field' is from around 35 to 50cm from the camera. Again, the area of capture through this range will be confirmed on the technical blog post. Currently however, (in the prototype systems) this is approx 35cm in the diagonal, so think A4 paper size (or US letter!). We will be looking at ways to increase this as we are still configuring the final design.
In terms of what the Fuel3D can and can't scan, we've listed some of examples in our Whitepaper (http://www.fuel-3d.com/product/technical-whitepaper/).
Things which work well with the Fuel3D scanner:
• Skin, e.g. faces and body parts
• Fabrics
• Organic subjects e.g. plants, leaves
• Stone, masonry, brick
• Food
• Artwork, e.g. paintings, statutes @jessops, @camerastore, @pcworld
…and some examples of subjects which are more challenging
• Glassware, and reflective objects e.g. mirrors
• Jewellery
• Metal objects, e.g. knifes & forks
• Plain objects e.g. cups and saucers
• Animate objects, e.g. things which are deforming
• Hair, e.g. hairy animals or body parts
You can begin to see what type of object the Fuel3D is best suited for.
#2
We've (only yesterday) added registration and stitching for joining multiple meshes together as a stretch goal for our campaign:
'Help us reach 350 units of the Fuel3D and MeshUp bundle and we will add painless automated merging of multiple scans to create single unified models.'
The current capabilities of Uformia's MeshUp software in merging multiple meshes together can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVbKR6ewM7Q
Uformia are confident that they will be able to create a software package that will, quote, 'seamlessly' stitch multiple scans together. They have already been doing work in this area for a while but the tools have just not yet been incorporated into MeshUp. We will bring you more news as things progress.
The comparison with Creaform (and some people have also compared us with Artec) is an interesting one: we are hand-held, so are they; they do continuous capture, we need to do multiple scan registration and stitching; we are selling at $1000 and they (from my understanding) are selling at $30,000 and Euro15,000 respectively. The 3D scanning market has matured significantly since the early days and there are many good technologies available each well suited to different applications, so there is plenty of space for these to co-exist.
#3
You are correct. As with any scanner we have our 'sweet spot' of types of surfaces that work well and range of measurement the system is designed to capture - there is no one 3D scanner that can do everything. Jewellery is an example of an object that is more challenging for the Fuel3D to scan, as would other very small finely detailed objects. You would need an incredibly high resolution scanner to image a gem stone or gold/silverware, and that is not taking into account the difficulties that many other optical scanners would face in capturing transparent or reflective surfaces. The best suited technology for scanning reflective surfaces with fine detail are typically based on 'conoscopic holography'.
That said, we think we have something that we can contribute to jewellery makers in providing an affordable way to capture 3D textures and organic shapes for reproduction (and typically reduction in size) in jewellery designs. We have had people express interest in applying a face scan to customise jewellery, which we showed an example of on our Kickstarter content. We are working on some further examples using natural objects and will show those on our KS and website shortly.
#4
Fuel3D is tethered to a PC (laptop) so we use the computer screen as the 'rangefinder' - using the earlier comparison; this is the same method that Artec, Creaform and other higher-priced handheld laser-scanners use as these are attached to articulated measuring arms. We would have loved to include an on-board screen and data processing but there is no way we could have hit our target sub $1000 price point.
Hopefully this helps clarify our strategy intentions.
The Fuel3D Team
3D scanning thread
Charlie,
Thank you for clarifying. The candor is appreciated. At $1000, I'm not expecting the world, but at the same time I need to figure out exactly what limitations lie ahead and whether they're significant obstacles for the way I'd like to use the tool.
While the scanning range is quite limited, there's still a subset of things on my project list that it'd be compatible with. In THAT regard the greatest new concern is how Fuel3D chose 35cm as the convergent sweet-spot.
Since there isn't a traditional photo of your Evi model to compare against, I'd have to suspect some level of barrel distortion (fisheye). It's hard to tell from downloading and scrutinizing the STL and OBJ models. Getting fisheye from shooting too close in photography is one thing... fixable to some extent in Photoshop. Getting fisheye in 3D data means having to remanipulate It in post. If things have to routinely get manipulated, we're deviating from what's supposed to be an accurate scan, no?
Although the Fuel3D's resolution and other things make jewelry scanning impractical, I can still see some use in acquiring reference scans for retopologizing. Unlike the B9 printer campaign, it'll be a long tough decision on whether the Fuel3D is right for me. Best of luck to the Fuel3D team!
Thank you for clarifying. The candor is appreciated. At $1000, I'm not expecting the world, but at the same time I need to figure out exactly what limitations lie ahead and whether they're significant obstacles for the way I'd like to use the tool.
While the scanning range is quite limited, there's still a subset of things on my project list that it'd be compatible with. In THAT regard the greatest new concern is how Fuel3D chose 35cm as the convergent sweet-spot.
Since there isn't a traditional photo of your Evi model to compare against, I'd have to suspect some level of barrel distortion (fisheye). It's hard to tell from downloading and scrutinizing the STL and OBJ models. Getting fisheye from shooting too close in photography is one thing... fixable to some extent in Photoshop. Getting fisheye in 3D data means having to remanipulate It in post. If things have to routinely get manipulated, we're deviating from what's supposed to be an accurate scan, no?
Although the Fuel3D's resolution and other things make jewelry scanning impractical, I can still see some use in acquiring reference scans for retopologizing. Unlike the B9 printer campaign, it'll be a long tough decision on whether the Fuel3D is right for me. Best of luck to the Fuel3D team!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest