This is exactly what a good TH-cam channel should be - delivering engaging, non clickbatey content about things viewers didn’t realise were interesting. Thanks Matt.
We might want to mention Matt's Magical "gift for gab": Useful information infused with clever humor, including anecdotes and exaggerated visual cues, which aids the viewers in being better informed about 3D scanner features (along with making purchasing decisions). Yes folks, it's not "what you say"...it's "how you say it" that makes the difference for it to have any meaning. Preposterous comparisons can be effective in audience recall; the lesson here centers around "in all practicality".
I work in one of those professional 3D scanner companies in an engineering position. You are the first hobbyist on TH-cam that I've seen who said "professional tools are obviously much better but probably not worth it for hobbyists", instead of the "iphone does the same or better, don't bother with professional 3D scanners" which seems to be the consensus. Thank you for being objective and actually taking the time and putting in the effort to form an educated opinion instead of spewing clickbaity garbage.
Revopoint scanners are ok but not good. There is a difference between high end scanners and hobby scanners for sure. Most of it is the software. Einstar has really good software because it uses the software of higher end scanners from the same manufacturer. That said I ordered a Creality Raptor this week. First metrology blue laser scanner for a affordable price. Now I own a Creality Raptor, Einstar, Einscan-SP and Revopoint mini. 😂
The shop I'm at got an EinScan for dirt cheap like 2500$ used. To be honest will never mess with a cheap scanner again. Mainly because the details are unmatched and the fact it can scan colors and even can pick up the masking marks from a paint job from 20 years ago.
@@hairyneil it's fantastic the smallest part We have scanned was about 2" in diameter. The scan came out amazing. In fact the Ein Scan we have was used to scan a person's face with precise accuracy. To give an idea it could do eyelashes with really good details.
@@RC-fp1tl my boss bought it from a multi million dollar company who offered it to us because their company had just got the latest and greatest Ein Scanner. We do some machining and machine repair for them every so often so that's how they knew about us.
One thing that can make your Revopoint work a *lot* better is getting one of those stabilized selfie-stick things. Once I started using one of those, I discovered that the quality of my scans improved dramatically.
The software is what makes the difference in hand scanning, or using photogrammetry. Neither can ever replace the inherent precision of terrestrial lasers, however they can get close enough for many applications.
4:56 Put a few markers on the extremes of the object, then scale it in software after scanning. You can even average your multiple scaling references to get sub polygon accuracy.
@@rodrigomartinelli741 I wouldn't trust the rulers to be come out without being garbled, me thinks the markers at certain points and manual measuring them would be best
Hey man, great videos! I'm a geomatics engineer with a masters degree in optical metrology, specializing in digital imaging systems. This topic is RIGHT in my wheel house! First, great summary, there's very little I would add in the broad strokes. On the topic of photogrammety, I have mixed feelings. For your use case, its would be _possible_ to get sub-mm 3D models, but I doubt it would be worth your time. To do so, you would need a decent camera with a fixed focal length (i.e. at least a manual focus, no auto focus), you would need to calibrate the camera (it's possible to do that yourself, but it is very finicky, and easy to trick yourself you did a good job), and you would need to some kind of reliable scale reference. For us geos, we would probably use a total station to survey in a couple targets at the extreme extents of the measurement volume. For better results you your scanners, you probably want more "registration features," which could be those white dots, but I personally have used ping ping balls with great success. They're light-weight, highly spherical, a consistent radius, and if you hit them with a bit of matte white, also have consistent illumination across their surface. You could probably hot glue, or even super-glue the on the surface of the engine for you models, then just knock them off when your done. Just be careful not to deform their shape when you glue them, neither through heat, chemistry nor pressure. Also, **until you need to flip you engine over**, adding a nice checker-board pattern to your work bench would greatly improve your feature tracking, with no need for the ping pong balls. It's really important that during a scan, the subject (i.e. the engine) does not move relative to your registration targets (i.e. the check-board or the ping pong balls). You could also put the two together, use the pattern on the bench to scan in each orientation, and use the ping pong balls to register each scan together after you flip it over. Let me know if you have any quetsions. BTW, if you care to read it, I could link you my masters thesis, which features the ping pong balls in chapter 3
Ping pong balls sound quite large in diameter, how many would you use on an engine? Do you mean using just a few as "general reference points" to help with the tracking, with no use on the actual surface data?
@@HyperSculptor The answer, like all answers in engineering is "it depends". The purpose of the spherical targets in my example is to allow you to reliably register two or more different scans of your subject, even when the subject has otherwise changed orientation relative to its surroundings. Put another way, the purpose of the white dots is mostly to help the scanner track its own position _during_ the scan, the purpose of the spherical targets (which could be ping pong balls, but could be other things) is to allow the user to reliably match the subject's surface _after_ the scans are done. The spherical targets would probably _also_ help the scanner track its own position, but that's not why I suggested them. And yes, they would be a bit large, and obviously if your registration targets are blocking significant portions of your subject, that's a problem, but you do want them to be large enough that their surface measurements can be mapped to a sphere with reasonable precision and accuracy. Too small = not enough details = bad sphere model = bad registration.
@@HyperSculptor Oh also, if you're only using the ping pong balls to match subsequent scans, I'd say you want a minimum of 4 visible in every position you're scanning from. So if you're doing two scans, then you only need 4 as long as you make sure you can see them all in both scans.
@@Kruglord thanks for sharing your experience. I actually like the ping ping tek, am going to test it with photogrammetry and see if it helps the software. Anything optical is fascinating, my background is sculpting the human form in clay etc, then integrating digital tools years later. There are great optical techniques, some of them were already used thousands of years ago.
@@Kruglord I’m curious as to your opinion regarding using 3d printed cubes or similar items placed on the scan target. Obviously at bit more difficult to obtain than ping pong balls. Checkerboard table top seems to be a very good recommendation as well. Seems like a frame with a phone holder and skate wheels may be worth experimenting with too…
A couple of things that I have considered doing when I get around to scanning something. Make scale markers. These are things that will show up in the scan that are of a precise known size, usually a small cube and a square frame you can place on or around the object. Set up a frame of some sort around and over the object that you can use to steady your hand while scanning. The rafters in a garage might do the trick if you tie a line that you can hold with the scanning hand so you can pan in a stable arc. Turn tables are a must.
Somehow, you're already 3 steps ahead on everything I've attempted to understand. Thanks for the reassuring conclusion on the state of consumer 3D scanners, I was looking for the missing piece of the market for too long... It's looking like the Revopoint Pop 2 might bring the bar up a bit.
T-shirt cannons are for my kids to watch. I’ll watch you for real engineering. Thanks for pulling this together, it’s great to learn where the state of the art is with 3-D capture.
Thanks for the comparison. I've been passively interested in scanning kit car bodies and making form-fitting body panels and I learned quite a bit from your video. It's reassuring to know that I don't need a pro scanner for the kind of project I want to do.
FWIW with some surface treatment (developer spray, baby powder, etc) and a decent SLR you can get more detail out of photogrammetry than most pro scanners. Dimensional accuracy depends on the quality of your scale reference but I get very accurate results when I compare caliper measurements to scan dimensions. The point here is to say, there are a lot of middle ground options between phone scan and pro scan tool. Quality becomes less of a differentiating factor and its more about how much effort and time it takes to get your scan result. Processing images in good software like reality capture (expensive) requires a decently powerful computer(also expensive) and a lot of time.
I bought an Ein Scan 3 years ago for $10,000 with the Reverse engineering package. It's fairly accurate if you use it correctly. I can get hole locations to within .002", sometimes better with it. I've designed a couple parts with it. My favorite was adapting a brake caliper to a different model motorcycle. It came out flawless.
Great video! I'm obviously one of the eight people who are very interested in 3D Scanners, but I am also just a tinkerer who doesn't want to pay 10.000 USD or more for a descent scanner. I made about two scans with my Revopoint with one of them being just about usable, but the part was so simple I could have just measured it with calipers and now the scanner is collecting dust. I hope there will be something available soon for around 1.000 USD, that would be great. Please let us know if you find a scanner in that price range.
For what it's worth, I found this video 10x more fascinating than a t-shirt cannon. Have you put any thought/research into Kinect-based solutions? I know those have been around for a decade now and are likely very far from state-of-the-art but this seems like a problem that is 10% hardware 90% software/algorithm, and I'm curious how the Kinect's community solutions compare to commercial ones.
@@lesdmark Yeah the hardware has a focusing range for the structured light of maybe between 60cm and 5m, with the golden range being preferably far enough from these extremes. You can't even get it closer to the subject to get that much more detail in.
I use an Xbox One Kinect and tbqh its not much better than the Revopoint. The software is probably a bit better on the Kinect tho since it was made by Microsoft. That and Kinect 2s can be had for next to nothing used.
I started out engineering in metrology and got to work with ATOS scanners (manual and automated) and Romer arms. It spoiled me. Structured blue light scanning is amazing but the cost is so high only large OEMs can justify the cost. I'd love to have an ATOS in my garage. 3D scanning is such a game changer when you realize what you can do with that data.
Been using GOM systems for many years, I tried a $40k Zeiss handheld scanner recently and was shocked at how bad it was in comparison, resolution, speed and ease of use.
If you're scanning an old Jag you might as well add the serial number to the file description. I've worked on a few old Jags and they are as one off as any purpose built race car I've worked on. I helped on repairing a damaged passenger door hinge and latch on an XK120 that was in an accident. We had access to two cars the same year and found there are very few interchangeable parts, even the doors would not fit each other. The hinges looked liked they were flame cut and all three were made to different shapes. Inside the door skin is a wood frame and even that was made differently across the three cars. I'm not saying the cars weren't well made they were just repeatability wasn't highly sought after.
I've used Heges before, just to add and FYI, it also has ipad-via-wifi-to-remote-capabilities built in. Thanks for making this video, very comprehensive, been here before and back then I was looking for a video like this but couldn't find it. Now I know I don't/do need to spend many bucks to buy a hardware scanner based on the project :)
Happy New Year, Matt! Thanks for all your great content in 2021. Looking forward to another fun, exciting, dangerous year of your projects. All hail the algorithm!
The BMW engine is not going in the Honda. The Honda is getting another Honda engine. It's in the video near the end sitting next to the BMW engine. What's the BMW going into? It's in next week's video! There's also a pretty big hint hidden in this video.
I assume it's going into the tool chest, it's SO unfast to have to roll it around manually. Interested to see what kind of transmission you use to drive the casters.
Photogrammetry is being eclipsed by LiDAR. However, using it from photographs, the images need to be taken from a calibrated camera, and lens distortions mapped and corrected for, or the "sensors" (digital cameras on the phone) distortions calibrated. They can be very accurate when used correctly, but any distortions that are not calibrated out, it doesn't take a lot of distortion to create large measurement errors, especially in the vertical plane (relative to the position of the camera..... if the camera is moving around, the vertical plane is also moving around with it and that error gets distributed ALL over the place). (I was a photogrammetrist (aerial photography, surface mapping) in a previous lifetime, btw). I love your channel.
In my experience using both I've found that LIDAR is great for efficient large scale mapping but can't capture small objects in a meaningful capacity. The good thing about photogrammetry is that size is all relative so as long as the camera can see it pretty much anything is fair game.
We professionally use the Arte Leo scanner. Very expensive (out of the scope of what you mention in the video (garage work) But gets the job done without problems. With a bit of experience, it never loses track of where you are, and even when it does it easily finds it back soon enough. In software later on you can manually stitch together parts of the same scan, but the "automatic stitching" of the software works so well that we never do it manually. Last but not least we never use markers, and we can even scan black surfaces. Have a look online, borrow one (or ask for a demonstration). It worths the video -review if you have the chance.
I hope 3d scanning tech does what 3d Printing did. And sees a massive uptick in quality coupled with a huge slash in price over a decade or so. I want to be able to laser scan my cars to model them into Assetto Corsa. But right now, I just can't afford to. The ultimate endgame would be to scan the local back road I like to drive at night.
I appreciate your content so very much. I find your videos so compelling, not because they are comedic genius but because they are so information dense. You give info how you got the info why you got the info make a quip that makes me chuckle repeat like 50 times and the video is less than 20 minutes long. Any other youtuber conveying as much info as you do would take 45 minutes and would need a part 2.
If they were a bit cheaper, there might be a business model around hiring out the high quality scanners. A bit like people can hire expensive tools they only nee once a year, or expensive camera lenses or things like that.
@Romulus III Yeah just pop the BMW 1000 RR engine under your arm and walk into the local scan shop :-) I can just about lift one on a good day and maybe pivot 20 degrees then quickly put it down !!!
I looked into this -- it's hilariously expensive. Like $3k/week. Line up all your buddies and do a group rent maybe but there will be something you forgot to scan. I ended up going the DIY photogrammetry route.
There is definitely a use case in aerospace. My friend gets sent all over scanning in old parts that no longer have drawings or models. It's also often more handy than CMM for complex 3D prints where programming the CMM could be a pain
The Pop 2 looks like a big improvement on the Pop although it looks like it still has issues with certain surfaces but it comes with stickers and you can use a temporary spray on covering to make scanning easier.
What a lot of people do not understand is going from Mesh/point cloud to solid model. It’s not just a easy let me scan this and I’ll have a model. I professionally use a Creaform Metrascan 750 for metrology work. We have scanned random things and reverse engineering parts and depending on what we scanned it was a pain or not.
It's a lot of work. For one of my graphics classes I implemented a surface splatting algorithm for point cloud data (basically just surface interpolation from point clouds). It took most of the semester just to recreate the work that other people had already done, and it still wasn't 100% functional. It's obviously not exactly the same thing, but it's pretty similar to how scanners convert the data they capture to models.
@@TacohMann Yea same concept. I scanned my Subaru fog light mount and man even making that a model took forever. Now doing a door cover like Matt was doing wouldn't be too bad. With software I have at work I can pretty much make a surface model in minutes.
One advantage of using an actual digital camera is that you have a broad choice of lenses and the sensor is ***MUCH*** larger. I used CHDK on a Canon running a custom script to automatically create focus-stacked, exposure-bracked image sets for macro work. It would be trivial to add a rotating platform and Arduino control to the system so I could automatically take 360-degree image sets for use in photogrammetry/etc.
"There will be like 8 people who watch this video", has 7.7K likes. Don't underestimate the combination of engineers, fabricators, and 3d printing geeks.
I use an app called EM3D with my iPhone. I’ve found the measurements it gives me are accurate. Then again I’m using it for clay sculptures and then retopologising to get a less dense mesh. Works for my needs.
There is a middle ground between cheap and expensive scanners - borrow, or rent an expensive one. Also there are companies that will do the scans for you for quite reasonable prices. So there are options to get good scans without spending a fortune. Also - do you really need a scanner for couple of scans per year or less?
"Also - do you really need a scanner for couple of scans per year or less?" I take it you haven't seen his (multiple) videos of spending 4 figures on tools to make a 3 figure part instead of buying a commercially available one for slightly more 😆
Problem with renting tools is that doesn't give you much time to learn how to use them. Sure, you can get something done. But it usually takes a few days to really master a tool. Even longer when something heavily software dependent is involved. Nobody wants to rent the tool for longer than they need to just so they can figure it out before using it.
Dang I was hoping the news would be better on this. If you can get away with modeling 1 face at a time what I do is take a picture with a ruler laying on the part you need a model of. Then in solidworks (and other CAD software too, Im sure) you can insert a picture into a sketch. After using the ruler to set the scale you can just trace the picture into the sketch. As long as the part isnt too big (or camera too close) to get perspective errors this works incredibly well. But isnt 3D 😔. Very quick and simple for 2D sketches though!
I agree with your point about the scaling problem using photogrammetry but including a ruler in the images resolves this. Would love to see you do a video using meshroom or something similar just to see how it does.
I own and use a Creaform Handyscan 700 for my business on a weekly basis. Having the detail is essential for some projects. This thing will realistically go down to 3-5 thousandths but it was also $50k. I do simplify and reduce my meshes. Depends on the job. Einscan makes nice scanners for the most part. LIke you said, anything under about $5k is a toy/joke including the iPhone Lidar but they do have their uses.
I've used the creaforms for a few years now for work and love them. Much easier to use than our zeiss scanners, but there is a tradeoff there obviously. I also built a scanner with a kinect, but it was clear pretty quickly why that's not used for actual reverse engineering or inspection...
Absolutely with you on the +/- 1000 buck scanner option . I often wonder why the price of good quality scanners hasn't dropped in recent years. Loved the vid Cheers
I sell Lavanti3D ProScan Scanners, new to the market and coming in cheaper and BETTER than Einscan Sturctured Light Scanners -dual fields of views and 3x the capture rate. Also comes with free software, none of that subscription stuff... They start at $7500 USD.
I think 3d scanning is really great, and it has alot of applications apart from engineering. its nice to see a comparison between different levels of the tech and if they can make the professional ones cheaper, then i might consider getting a scanner some day.
I was positively surprised when i 3d printed a Touch guard for an ABB RCD and just found the whole cad model (at least the outer shell) on their website free to download. Made modelling around it much, much easier
Pop scanner scan can be corrected by pausing scan and hitting back a few times and then hit play again. It will pick back up just before where it fell off.
Obviously this item is the perfect candidate for a tool library, I have borrowed thermal cameras to detect thermal gaps in my house from my local library in Melbourne, Australia.
#9 here. I run a 3D printing business and have occasional need for professional level scans. Have found the middle ground: just hire the pro gear! I rented a $50,000 Creaform Handyscan Black Elite, which is basically the same deal as the pro scanner you used but even higher spec, for a couple of days (over a weekend because the 3D community are lovely people). Came with laptop setup, dots, the works. Cost more than a consumer scanner, but it came out of the project budget. If you synchronised with a few people and had a little scan party the cost per item scanned can drop quickly...
7:37 - "I wish there was a middle ground" - there is, my friend. Just get yourself a used professional scanner from between 10-20 years ago. It wont cost you more than a couple of grand and will give you just as good resolution as the Einscan (although depending on the system you might have to take longer scanning and/or processing/editing). Oh and get yourself a better poly decimator - you can retain a lot of that detail whilst still making the mesh less heavy/dense. At the end of the day though you're better off just using the dense mesh to spline/surface over.
What a great video. To the point, not a bunch of wasted time blabbing on and on lol. I wish all comparison videos were this efficient! All the knowledge right up front the whole time. Exactly what I was looking for. Nice work!
There is a relation between balance improvement and the facilitation of sensory feedback related to the activation of the plantar cutaneous mechanoreceptors. From a clinical point of view, the application of additional tactile cues may have therapeutic benefits in relation to fall prevention or to improve specific types of chronic pain. Postural Insoles are a great way to help optimize joint alignment. They use wedge and frequency technology to target specialized sensory receptors in the skin of your feet, allowing your brain to create new neural pathways to "activate" otherwise "lazy" muscles.
I have used large expensive commercial scanners like the FARO and even they are not as good as you would hope, models generated through them still require a ton of tweaking to be useful. The lack of progress in this field is one of the reasons we still don't have reliable 100% automated vehicles, they need the lidar scanners and software that can determine what things are to be bullet proof and basically boilerplate level refined.
I get the impression that most of this has to do with software. I was trying to use an Occipital Structure scanner (gen 1) a few years back to do interiors of houses for VR tours. The same scanner was more than capable of tracking details, objects, etc.... except when it wasn't (in bad software). Occipital are doing a great job of bringing this stuff to consumers. Cool video, Matt. Thanks for putting it together!
I'm not in the market for a 3d scanner. I am not sure why I am watching this video but here I am. Since I watched it, it was a good video, well paced and gets good information across with good visuals. well done.
I wrote stereo stitching in college. You have a mill. Get two high quality cameras, mount them as far apart as is practical, load one of N many apps that perform stitching - I wrote one in C if you hate yourself, and go to town. Plenty produce ply outputs, some are fancy and can stitch a room. If you want help picking, let me know. You can have as much resolution as you please. Fun fact. The woman that created the Loreal makeup tester app backend was in my class.
There is a third middle ground, contract a professional company to do your part scan. If they can come out to you it's usually a good deal when you NEED detail, otherwise it's economical to just send it out for 3D scanning.
Thats a good quality content, I've watched your video entirely without skipping stuff as I did for half of that t-shirt cannon you have mentioned in the end
Having taken quite a wild ride attempting to use photogrammetry (meshroom and some other stuff) to do similar stuff to what you're talking about here, I can confirm it's a real rats nest and the part about scaling -- I've run into exactly that issue with it. I'm very happy you did this because of course I'm now targeted with tons of advertising from time to time -- these 3d scanner solutions and I've been dubious about pretty much all of them. Thanks for taking the time to share this -- love your videos man.
I actually just used the creality CR-Scan 01 on my car. Sprayed it down with an iso/baby powder mix. It took a long time, but it did really well with the details, it even picked up some of the flaws in the paint.
Glad to see this market overview and to see you've exceeded the 8 views you expected. Seems to me this might make for an interesting side gig. Start up costs under 10K and interesting work as well
"The revopoint struggles with dark and reflective surfaces" Thank goodness for affordable sublimating 3D scanning sprays! Not saying they'll make the Revopoint etc. as good as pro gear, but they certainly help with scanning issues like that, and leave little to no residue after sublimating.
Great video. And you are so right: the scanner needs to be selected according to the requirements. But please, do not use food powder spray anymore! Use AESUB Scanningspray. It is a thin, vanishing spray. Cleaning is not necessary anymore! BTW: AESUB has also targets.
This is why I love your channel, this is exactly the kind of info I was wanting to know but don't have the resources to access. However, I guess that means I'll stick to using an iPhone for scanning since that's what I've got!
me: "what is a video about 3d scanning doing in my subscriptions?" -about to scroll past when i see the uploader- "oh it's from superfastmatt? in that case i'll watch it; i'm sure it'll be interesting" and it certainly was. i love your videos, you make everything interesting even if i don't particularly care about the subject or when you go into something that's way beyond my knowledge base lol
I recently backed the Revopoint Pop 2 scanner....essentially the same as yours, but they've improved the resolution and hopefully the software. Having used Faro arms and 3D scanners in a professional engineering setting, I'm probably setting myself up for disappointment, but I need some relatively accurate models of subframe mounts on a car I need to modify for an alternative differential solution. A mid-tier option in the $1000-2000 range that could provide true 0.2mm accuracy with decent software I think would be a valuable tool for a lot of smaller custom work shops or garages or serious tinkerers..
The biggest thing holding POP back is the software. The hardware is actually pretty damned good. If they'd just get the bundle adjustment sorted out in the software, we'll really get some good results from it.
@@noiwonttellyoumyname.4385 I agree. Now that I have it....I hate the software. Its so difficult to get a good scan. I'm considering switching to an Einstar just for the software improvement.
@@jarhead_jr Their software is absolute cancer. I'd hoped POP2 would be an improvement, but it absolutely hasn't been. I've been doing a ton of photogrammetry lately and getting decent results, but I'm just about at the point of building my own damn scanner, because I really want large objects, room-scale stuff, etc.
There are also 3D measuring arms. If you are only concerned about a few mounting point locations than scanning the whole thing. They run for 20'000+ €. But its more widely used and its more likely you can find a service that has these. No paint or reflective points required.
We have a FARO arm at work with a 3D scanner attachment. Best of both worlds, you can scan the object and also superimpose very accurate flat plains and hole centre data with the arm probe to construct CAD features later of key location features. Scanner losing its place never seems to be an issue, it probably cross references to the arms position in space.
As always a great video. I love your storytelling with the simple cards with text for the sections in the video. The themed music for certain parts of the video is also amazing.
I got to use an Artec scanner at work and I was really happy with the thing. So much better then the consumer stuff. It's kinda sad that there really isn't a "mid range" option. You either have to buy the pro scanners or deal with the consumer stuff
Amazing video Matt! Whenever you'll be doing aerodynamic analysis of the Jag can you please make it a little more in depth because that's something i've been interested in doing with my 240 :) i know there's probably only 6 other people who are interested but i'd be very thankful :)
Years ago in university Formula SAE times, I spent a month of one summer painfully trying to model the mounting points and oil pan flange of our CBR600 engine. At first I started with a 3-axis CMM we had in a lab, which was a nightmare and was soon given up on. I ended up using a flatbed scanner for the flange and scaling with caliper measurements. Might have been a lot easier with 3D scanners.
Throughout some of these scanning experiments I started to wonder, is there not already anyone who has CAD models or professional scans of a lot of engines and car frames out there? This seems like a business model that someone could really make a decent living with. The models would be cheaper than buying the equipment and the business investment in decent scanning equipment would likely be recovered quickly.
yes and no, because let's face it, to do that you'll need both a good scanner and a good ammount or cars ready to be disassembled and put back together. and unless you're the one doing all that work it would cost a lot more than any money you'd make selling car cad's
Yes they do. If your a SEMA member you can get authorized to access the OEMs CAD libraries. Its simplified, and you couldn’t manufacture your own corvette from it but its intended for aftermarket use. Thats how a lot of lift kit manufacturers and aftermarket people get a base cad model to start from.
I use a 40'000 euro scanner at my job and oh boy is it good. It's a newer design that can track with way less dots (or none) while staying accurate to a tenth of a millimeter. As you might guess, it's used for reverse engineering.
I really wish there was an in between. There are a lot of things I've struggled with using iPhone scans and measuring for my Ecoboost swap. I could also convince some buddies to go in on it for their projects as well
Never even thought about using the FRONT face scanner for lIDAR - thankyou!, this video now has put me off my ambitions to buy an iphone for its lidar. i'll stick to photogrammetry right now
- Some 3D modeling programs have functions that can reduce the details of meshes selectively and using different algorithms to produce different kinds of results depending on what you're looking for. - It looks the stitched-together surfaces can sometimes create more problems than it's worth. Even if it's not pretty, a raw point-map would much more useful for details rather than the inferred surfaces created by the processors for the cheap scanners. - I'm not sure if it's supported, but using guide blocks would go a long way towards maintaining position. Basically it's just a cube with different images on each surface that the processor can use to assert camera position, and if you affix it to the target object, it'll give you a very reliable relative position between camera and target. Just stick it onto unimportant features. - Again, I'm not sure if it's supported but for non-LIDAR scanners you could also use colored lights shining from different angles to increase the contrast on harder-to-read surfaces, or use patterned lights like from those cheapish laser pointers with shaped apertures that create shapes you can project onto surfaces. - There's a bunch of good research on stitching together multiple photos to create some really good quality 3D models, which would be hella easier to manage. All you'd need is to take some pictures with a half decent camera and send the photo gallery through the processor, and if needed, just take more pictures and process it again. No need for careful real-time scanning and wasting all your time from minor mistakes or hardware/software deficiencies. That being said, I'm not sure just how good the quality is or how long until research turns into accessible products. Some of these types of research do release their source code or even the bare-bones programs they used, though, so if you look around you might luck out.
i dont usually comment but ive reached this same conclusion with 3d scanner apps/iphone and i want to please the algorithm so you make more videos like this.
In combination with software like Geomagic Design X that can turn a scanned mesh into CAD, the scanner makes even more sense, and with a good camera, photogrammetry can pick up much more detail than the LiDAR and intel and revopoint, only difference being the processing time since it needs a ton of resources when it comes to computing
@@777MAV when paying 12k€$£ for the entry level scanner that isn't a toy.. XD .. it's the feature Fusion360 is trying to emulate and failing hard with the mesh conversion option, maybe they'll catch up in the upcoming year.. I was at Formnext 2021, was quoted 15-150,000€ for 3d scanners , was only able to roll my eyes, managed not to faint or run screaming lol.. I use my xiaomi phone for Photogrammetry and manual CADification lol
I use a professional, survey grade laser scanner for industrial, civil and architectural work; dams, buildings, aircraft, interchanges, mines and quarries, archeological sites, ships, name it, I've probably scanned it. The high-end scanners are VERY expensive. Some are static, some are mobile, even vehicle-mounted and airborne.
The economies of scale argument was eluding me, but then again the augmented reality around the corner future from FB and Google though inevitable, has been vehemently opposed by people like you and me, i.e people with spectacles! Thank You very much for not making t-shirt canons.
I have a pretty inexpensive (paid 1500$) 3d scanner and I have found I get the best results if I use some powder and also target dots here and there, then I built a lazy Susan that's trying enough to hold something like a motorcycle engine as well as a tripod for the camera. I also use really good lighting so i don't get any shadows. Then I start the scan and turn on the lazy Susan and it slowly rotates
This is exactly what a good TH-cam channel should be - delivering engaging, non clickbatey content about things viewers didn’t realise were interesting. Thanks Matt.
We might want to mention Matt's Magical "gift for gab":
Useful information infused with clever humor, including anecdotes and exaggerated visual cues, which aids
the viewers in being better informed about 3D scanner features (along with making purchasing decisions).
Yes folks, it's not "what you say"...it's "how you say it" that makes the difference for it to have any meaning.
Preposterous comparisons can be effective in audience recall; the lesson here centers around "in all practicality".
Truer words were never spoken
I work in one of those professional 3D scanner companies in an engineering position. You are the first hobbyist on TH-cam that I've seen who said "professional tools are obviously much better but probably not worth it for hobbyists", instead of the "iphone does the same or better, don't bother with professional 3D scanners" which seems to be the consensus. Thank you for being objective and actually taking the time and putting in the effort to form an educated opinion instead of spewing clickbaity garbage.
Revopoint scanners are ok but not good. There is a difference between high end scanners and hobby scanners for sure. Most of it is the software.
Einstar has really good software because it uses the software of higher end scanners from the same manufacturer.
That said I ordered a Creality Raptor this week. First metrology blue laser scanner for a affordable price.
Now I own a Creality Raptor, Einstar, Einscan-SP and Revopoint mini. 😂
The shop I'm at got an EinScan for dirt cheap like 2500$ used. To be honest will never mess with a cheap scanner again. Mainly because the details are unmatched and the fact it can scan colors and even can pick up the masking marks from a paint job from 20 years ago.
How is it at scanning small parts? Might see if my work feel like treating me, I mean, investing in some totally necessary equipment.
@@hairyneil it's fantastic the smallest part We have scanned was about 2" in diameter. The scan came out amazing. In fact the Ein Scan we have was used to scan a person's face with precise accuracy. To give an idea it could do eyelashes with really good details.
How did your shop get one so cheap? Asking for a friend, because that's pretty awesome?
@@RC-fp1tl my boss bought it from a multi million dollar company who offered it to us because their company had just got the latest and greatest Ein Scanner. We do some machining and machine repair for them every so often so that's how they knew about us.
@@collynfalzitto6 That's quite a steal! good deal. There is no way those deals will come around again.
One thing that can make your Revopoint work a *lot* better is getting one of those stabilized selfie-stick things. Once I started using one of those, I discovered that the quality of my scans improved dramatically.
A gimbal?
@@nicolask1901 yeah, basically. Thing that lets you do steadicam stuff with your camera.
Great tip, I've just ordered the 2nd one to replace my kinex 360.
good point!
The good thing is, people like you buying, using, and giving feedback on things like this,, are paving the road for future products to work better.
The software is what makes the difference in hand scanning, or using photogrammetry. Neither can ever replace the inherent precision of terrestrial lasers, however they can get close enough for many applications.
4:56 Put a few markers on the extremes of the object, then scale it in software after scanning. You can even average your multiple scaling references to get sub polygon accuracy.
yes! photogrammetry can be very precise.. he should have tested it.. :(
This just gave me an idea. Use stickers of known dimensions.
@@S_Roach just throw two rulers on different directions.. or a square, so you can scale X and Y easier..
Or print markers straight from reality capture. Make a “scale bar”.In ppi this would probably cost less than $5.
@@rodrigomartinelli741 I wouldn't trust the rulers to be come out without being garbled, me thinks the markers at certain points and manual measuring them would be best
Hey man, great videos! I'm a geomatics engineer with a masters degree in optical metrology, specializing in digital imaging systems. This topic is RIGHT in my wheel house! First, great summary, there's very little I would add in the broad strokes.
On the topic of photogrammety, I have mixed feelings. For your use case, its would be _possible_ to get sub-mm 3D models, but I doubt it would be worth your time. To do so, you would need a decent camera with a fixed focal length (i.e. at least a manual focus, no auto focus), you would need to calibrate the camera (it's possible to do that yourself, but it is very finicky, and easy to trick yourself you did a good job), and you would need to some kind of reliable scale reference. For us geos, we would probably use a total station to survey in a couple targets at the extreme extents of the measurement volume.
For better results you your scanners, you probably want more "registration features," which could be those white dots, but I personally have used ping ping balls with great success. They're light-weight, highly spherical, a consistent radius, and if you hit them with a bit of matte white, also have consistent illumination across their surface. You could probably hot glue, or even super-glue the on the surface of the engine for you models, then just knock them off when your done. Just be careful not to deform their shape when you glue them, neither through heat, chemistry nor pressure.
Also, **until you need to flip you engine over**, adding a nice checker-board pattern to your work bench would greatly improve your feature tracking, with no need for the ping pong balls. It's really important that during a scan, the subject (i.e. the engine) does not move relative to your registration targets (i.e. the check-board or the ping pong balls).
You could also put the two together, use the pattern on the bench to scan in each orientation, and use the ping pong balls to register each scan together after you flip it over.
Let me know if you have any quetsions. BTW, if you care to read it, I could link you my masters thesis, which features the ping pong balls in chapter 3
Ping pong balls sound quite large in diameter, how many would you use on an engine? Do you mean using just a few as "general reference points" to help with the tracking, with no use on the actual surface data?
@@HyperSculptor The answer, like all answers in engineering is "it depends". The purpose of the spherical targets in my example is to allow you to reliably register two or more different scans of your subject, even when the subject has otherwise changed orientation relative to its surroundings.
Put another way, the purpose of the white dots is mostly to help the scanner track its own position _during_ the scan, the purpose of the spherical targets (which could be ping pong balls, but could be other things) is to allow the user to reliably match the subject's surface _after_ the scans are done. The spherical targets would probably _also_ help the scanner track its own position, but that's not why I suggested them.
And yes, they would be a bit large, and obviously if your registration targets are blocking significant portions of your subject, that's a problem, but you do want them to be large enough that their surface measurements can be mapped to a sphere with reasonable precision and accuracy. Too small = not enough details = bad sphere model = bad registration.
@@HyperSculptor Oh also, if you're only using the ping pong balls to match subsequent scans, I'd say you want a minimum of 4 visible in every position you're scanning from. So if you're doing two scans, then you only need 4 as long as you make sure you can see them all in both scans.
@@Kruglord thanks for sharing your experience. I actually like the ping ping tek, am going to test it with photogrammetry and see if it helps the software. Anything optical is fascinating, my background is sculpting the human form in clay etc, then integrating digital tools years later. There are great optical techniques, some of them were already used thousands of years ago.
@@Kruglord I’m curious as to your opinion regarding using 3d printed cubes or similar items placed on the scan target. Obviously at bit more difficult to obtain than ping pong balls. Checkerboard table top seems to be a very good recommendation as well. Seems like a frame with a phone holder and skate wheels may be worth experimenting with too…
A couple of things that I have considered doing when I get around to scanning something.
Make scale markers.
These are things that will show up in the scan that are of a precise known size, usually a small cube and a square frame you can place on or around the object.
Set up a frame of some sort around and over the object that you can use to steady your hand while scanning. The rafters in a garage might do the trick if you tie a line that you can hold with the scanning hand so you can pan in a stable arc.
Turn tables are a must.
Somehow, you're already 3 steps ahead on everything I've attempted to understand. Thanks for the reassuring conclusion on the state of consumer 3D scanners, I was looking for the missing piece of the market for too long... It's looking like the Revopoint Pop 2 might bring the bar up a bit.
T-shirt cannons are for my kids to watch. I’ll watch you for real engineering. Thanks for pulling this together, it’s great to learn where the state of the art is with 3-D capture.
Thanks for the comparison. I've been passively interested in scanning kit car bodies and making form-fitting body panels and I learned quite a bit from your video. It's reassuring to know that I don't need a pro scanner for the kind of project I want to do.
Passively interested. That's an interesting and also precise phrase I'll try to remember and use sometime.
FWIW with some surface treatment (developer spray, baby powder, etc) and a decent SLR you can get more detail out of photogrammetry than most pro scanners. Dimensional accuracy depends on the quality of your scale reference but I get very accurate results when I compare caliper measurements to scan dimensions. The point here is to say, there are a lot of middle ground options between phone scan and pro scan tool. Quality becomes less of a differentiating factor and its more about how much effort and time it takes to get your scan result. Processing images in good software like reality capture (expensive) requires a decently powerful computer(also expensive) and a lot of time.
I bought an Ein Scan 3 years ago for $10,000 with the Reverse engineering package. It's fairly accurate if you use it correctly. I can get hole locations to within .002", sometimes better with it. I've designed a couple parts with it. My favorite was adapting a brake caliper to a different model motorcycle. It came out flawless.
Great video! I'm obviously one of the eight people who are very interested in 3D Scanners, but I am also just a tinkerer who doesn't want to pay 10.000 USD or more for a descent scanner. I made about two scans with my Revopoint with one of them being just about usable, but the part was so simple I could have just measured it with calipers and now the scanner is collecting dust. I hope there will be something available soon for around 1.000 USD, that would be great. Please let us know if you find a scanner in that price range.
A scanner that goes down on you.?
Decent, descent.
The structure scanner attaches to an iPad and costs like $300-$400 I think…it works extremely well
Not even 1000, 2000 would still be an acceptable price tbh
can 3d scanners be used to make gears for an electric motor? or is the resolution too low?
It's really weird to describe usd with a period instead of a comma
For what it's worth, I found this video 10x more fascinating than a t-shirt cannon. Have you put any thought/research into Kinect-based solutions? I know those have been around for a decade now and are likely very far from state-of-the-art but this seems like a problem that is 10% hardware 90% software/algorithm, and I'm curious how the Kinect's community solutions compare to commercial ones.
@@lesdmark Yeah the hardware has a focusing range for the structured light of maybe between 60cm and 5m, with the golden range being preferably far enough from these extremes. You can't even get it closer to the subject to get that much more detail in.
I use an Xbox One Kinect and tbqh its not much better than the Revopoint. The software is probably a bit better on the Kinect tho since it was made by Microsoft. That and Kinect 2s can be had for next to nothing used.
I started out engineering in metrology and got to work with ATOS scanners (manual and automated) and Romer arms. It spoiled me. Structured blue light scanning is amazing but the cost is so high only large OEMs can justify the cost. I'd love to have an ATOS in my garage. 3D scanning is such a game changer when you realize what you can do with that data.
Been using GOM systems for many years, I tried a $40k Zeiss handheld scanner recently and was shocked at how bad it was in comparison, resolution, speed and ease of use.
@@cncgeneral yeah GOM is way ahead. Interesting that zeiss bought GOM. I will be watching to see what they do with it.
I've used a romer arm too, that thing is a piece of technological wizardry.
If you're scanning an old Jag you might as well add the serial number to the file description. I've worked on a few old Jags and they are as one off as any purpose built race car I've worked on. I helped on repairing a damaged passenger door hinge and latch on an XK120 that was in an accident. We had access to two cars the same year and found there are very few interchangeable parts, even the doors would not fit each other. The hinges looked liked they were flame cut and all three were made to different shapes. Inside the door skin is a wood frame and even that was made differently across the three cars. I'm not saying the cars weren't well made they were just repeatability wasn't highly sought after.
I've used Heges before, just to add and FYI, it also has ipad-via-wifi-to-remote-capabilities built in.
Thanks for making this video, very comprehensive, been here before and back then I was looking for a video like this but couldn't find it. Now I know I don't/do need to spend many bucks to buy a hardware scanner based on the project :)
Happy New Year, Matt! Thanks for all your great content in 2021. Looking forward to another fun, exciting, dangerous year of your projects. All hail the algorithm!
Well, we saw it. We saw the R1000RR engine and now we want the video ASAP. Can we call your new/old car a Bonda? :P
The BMW engine is not going in the Honda. The Honda is getting another Honda engine. It's in the video near the end sitting next to the BMW engine. What's the BMW going into? It's in next week's video! There's also a pretty big hint hidden in this video.
@@SuperfastMatt IS IT GOING INTO THAT SMART??? @6:43
@@SuperfastMatt I believe the BMW engine goes to the Smart. Am I right? looking forward to the next videos
@@igorschannel that would follow the pattern of keeping the brands the same as Smart is made by BMW last I checked.
I assume it's going into the tool chest, it's SO unfast to have to roll it around manually. Interested to see what kind of transmission you use to drive the casters.
I use a regular camera and photogrammetry software, and my output is phenomenal and accurate af.
Photogrammetry is being eclipsed by LiDAR. However, using it from photographs, the images need to be taken from a calibrated camera, and lens distortions mapped and corrected for, or the "sensors" (digital cameras on the phone) distortions calibrated. They can be very accurate when used correctly, but any distortions that are not calibrated out, it doesn't take a lot of distortion to create large measurement errors, especially in the vertical plane (relative to the position of the camera..... if the camera is moving around, the vertical plane is also moving around with it and that error gets distributed ALL over the place). (I was a photogrammetrist (aerial photography, surface mapping) in a previous lifetime, btw). I love your channel.
In my experience using both I've found that LIDAR is great for efficient large scale mapping but can't capture small objects in a meaningful capacity. The good thing about photogrammetry is that size is all relative so as long as the camera can see it pretty much anything is fair game.
We professionally use the Arte Leo scanner.
Very expensive (out of the scope of what you mention in the video (garage work)
But gets the job done without problems. With a bit of experience, it never loses track of where you are, and even when it does it easily finds it back soon enough. In software later on you can manually stitch together parts of the same scan, but the "automatic stitching" of the software works so well that we never do it manually. Last but not least we never use markers, and we can even scan black surfaces.
Have a look online, borrow one (or ask for a demonstration). It worths the video -review if you have the chance.
I hope 3d scanning tech does what 3d Printing did. And sees a massive uptick in quality coupled with a huge slash in price over a decade or so.
I want to be able to laser scan my cars to model them into Assetto Corsa. But right now, I just can't afford to. The ultimate endgame would be to scan the local back road I like to drive at night.
I appreciate your content so very much. I find your videos so compelling, not because they are comedic genius but because they are so information dense. You give info how you got the info why you got the info make a quip that makes me chuckle repeat like 50 times and the video is less than 20 minutes long. Any other youtuber conveying as much info as you do would take 45 minutes and would need a part 2.
If they were a bit cheaper, there might be a business model around hiring out the high quality scanners. A bit like people can hire expensive tools they only nee once a year, or expensive camera lenses or things like that.
This is already done.
@Romulus III Yeah just pop the BMW 1000 RR engine under your arm and walk into the local scan shop :-) I can just about lift one on a good day and maybe pivot 20 degrees then quickly put it down !!!
You can basically assume a 3d scanner is junk after someone who doesn't care about it has touched it
I looked into this -- it's hilariously expensive. Like $3k/week. Line up all your buddies and do a group rent maybe but there will be something you forgot to scan. I ended up going the DIY photogrammetry route.
There is definitely a use case in aerospace. My friend gets sent all over scanning in old parts that no longer have drawings or models. It's also often more handy than CMM for complex 3D prints where programming the CMM could be a pain
The Pop 2 looks like a big improvement on the Pop although it looks like it still has issues with certain surfaces but it comes with stickers and you can use a temporary spray on covering to make scanning easier.
What a lot of people do not understand is going from
Mesh/point cloud to solid model. It’s not just a easy let me scan this and I’ll have a model. I professionally use a Creaform Metrascan 750 for metrology work. We have scanned random things and reverse engineering parts and depending on what we scanned it was a pain or not.
It's a lot of work. For one of my graphics classes I implemented a surface splatting algorithm for point cloud data (basically just surface interpolation from point clouds). It took most of the semester just to recreate the work that other people had already done, and it still wasn't 100% functional. It's obviously not exactly the same thing, but it's pretty similar to how scanners convert the data they capture to models.
@@TacohMann Yea same concept. I scanned my Subaru fog light mount and man even making that a model took forever. Now doing a door cover like Matt was doing wouldn't be too bad. With software I have at work I can pretty much make a surface model in minutes.
I like your projects! Never thought of using a scanner. But I KNEW you would present the subject well... so here I am.
One advantage of using an actual digital camera is that you have a broad choice of lenses and the sensor is ***MUCH*** larger. I used CHDK on a Canon running a custom script to automatically create focus-stacked, exposure-bracked image sets for macro work. It would be trivial to add a rotating platform and Arduino control to the system so I could automatically take 360-degree image sets for use in photogrammetry/etc.
"There will be like 8 people who watch this video", has 7.7K likes. Don't underestimate the combination of engineers, fabricators, and 3d printing geeks.
I use an app called EM3D with my iPhone. I’ve found the measurements it gives me are accurate. Then again I’m using it for clay sculptures and then retopologising to get a less dense mesh. Works for my needs.
There is a middle ground between cheap and expensive scanners - borrow, or rent an expensive one. Also there are companies that will do the scans for you for quite reasonable prices. So there are options to get good scans without spending a fortune.
Also - do you really need a scanner for couple of scans per year or less?
"Also - do you really need a scanner for couple of scans per year or less?"
I take it you haven't seen his (multiple) videos of spending 4 figures on tools to make a 3 figure part instead of buying a commercially available one for slightly more 😆
Problem with renting tools is that doesn't give you much time to learn how to use them. Sure, you can get something done. But it usually takes a few days to really master a tool. Even longer when something heavily software dependent is involved. Nobody wants to rent the tool for longer than they need to just so they can figure it out before using it.
Dang I was hoping the news would be better on this. If you can get away with modeling 1 face at a time what I do is take a picture with a ruler laying on the part you need a model of. Then in solidworks (and other CAD software too, Im sure) you can insert a picture into a sketch. After using the ruler to set the scale you can just trace the picture into the sketch. As long as the part isnt too big (or camera too close) to get perspective errors this works incredibly well. But isnt 3D 😔.
Very quick and simple for 2D sketches though!
I agree with your point about the scaling problem using photogrammetry but including a ruler in the images resolves this. Would love to see you do a video using meshroom or something similar just to see how it does.
I own and use a Creaform Handyscan 700 for my business on a weekly basis. Having the detail is essential for some projects. This thing will realistically go down to 3-5 thousandths but it was also $50k. I do simplify and reduce my meshes. Depends on the job. Einscan makes nice scanners for the most part. LIke you said, anything under about $5k is a toy/joke including the iPhone Lidar but they do have their uses.
I've used the creaforms for a few years now for work and love them. Much easier to use than our zeiss scanners, but there is a tradeoff there obviously. I also built a scanner with a kinect, but it was clear pretty quickly why that's not used for actual reverse engineering or inspection...
Sir how can I export my scanning data to the cnc machine
@@BB-km5nv You can't. You need to model it first.
@@jesscneal what about
Stl , obj , ply format
@@jesscneal revopoint working on ply ,obj , stl and then my cnc machine can handle the drawings
Absolutely with you on the +/- 1000 buck scanner option . I often wonder why the price of good quality scanners hasn't dropped in recent years. Loved the vid Cheers
I sell Lavanti3D ProScan Scanners, new to the market and coming in cheaper and BETTER than Einscan Sturctured Light Scanners -dual fields of views and 3x the capture rate. Also comes with free software, none of that subscription stuff... They start at $7500 USD.
I think 3d scanning is really great, and it has alot of applications apart from engineering. its nice to see a comparison between different levels of the tech and if they can make the professional ones cheaper, then i might consider getting a scanner some day.
I was positively surprised when i 3d printed a Touch guard for an ABB RCD and just found the whole cad model (at least the outer shell) on their website free to download.
Made modelling around it much, much easier
Pop scanner scan can be corrected by pausing scan and hitting back a few times and then hit play again. It will pick back up just before where it fell off.
Obviously this item is the perfect candidate for a tool library, I have borrowed thermal cameras to detect thermal gaps in my house from my local library in Melbourne, Australia.
#9 here. I run a 3D printing business and have occasional need for professional level scans. Have found the middle ground: just hire the pro gear! I rented a $50,000 Creaform Handyscan Black Elite, which is basically the same deal as the pro scanner you used but even higher spec, for a couple of days (over a weekend because the 3D community are lovely people). Came with laptop setup, dots, the works. Cost more than a consumer scanner, but it came out of the project budget. If you synchronised with a few people and had a little scan party the cost per item scanned can drop quickly...
You any good at 3d modeling? I have a great business model!
7:37 - "I wish there was a middle ground" - there is, my friend. Just get yourself a used professional scanner from between 10-20 years ago. It wont cost you more than a couple of grand and will give you just as good resolution as the Einscan (although depending on the system you might have to take longer scanning and/or processing/editing). Oh and get yourself a better poly decimator - you can retain a lot of that detail whilst still making the mesh less heavy/dense. At the end of the day though you're better off just using the dense mesh to spline/surface over.
Your first 3d scanner video is how i discovered your channel. If only the algorithm showed me earlier.
I think 3D scanning on any phone and CAD experience is amazing this is truly good nie just to learn how to use it all
Thank you for the review/comparison. These topics are hard to find and the tech is changing all the time, so, thanks for your time and experience!
As a engineer that likes to wrench on cars myself, this is my favorite car channel on TH-cam!
First time a TH-cam video answers all my questions and questions I did not know I had. Great info.
What a great video. To the point, not a bunch of wasted time blabbing on and on lol. I wish all comparison videos were this efficient! All the knowledge right up front the whole time. Exactly what I was looking for. Nice work!
There is a relation between balance improvement and the facilitation of sensory feedback related to the activation of the plantar cutaneous mechanoreceptors.
From a clinical point of view, the application of additional tactile cues may have therapeutic benefits in relation to fall prevention or to improve specific types of chronic pain.
Postural Insoles are a great way to help optimize joint alignment. They use wedge and frequency technology to target specialized sensory receptors in the skin of your feet, allowing your brain to create new neural pathways to "activate" otherwise "lazy" muscles.
This is Fantastic. The iPhone LiDAR Scanner is incredible!
Just purchased this exact scanner for work. This video made me happy I did. Well done.
I have used large expensive commercial scanners like the FARO and even they are not as good as you would hope, models generated through them still require a ton of tweaking to be useful. The lack of progress in this field is one of the reasons we still don't have reliable 100% automated vehicles, they need the lidar scanners and software that can determine what things are to be bullet proof and basically boilerplate level refined.
Part of the audience that's there. Definitely a market for mid-priced scanner. Well done.
I get the impression that most of this has to do with software. I was trying to use an Occipital Structure scanner (gen 1) a few years back to do interiors of houses for VR tours. The same scanner was more than capable of tracking details, objects, etc.... except when it wasn't (in bad software). Occipital are doing a great job of bringing this stuff to consumers.
Cool video, Matt. Thanks for putting it together!
I'm not in the market for a 3d scanner. I am not sure why I am watching this video but here I am. Since I watched it, it was a good video, well paced and gets good information across with good visuals. well done.
So only 8 people are interested in 3D scanners but 2,900 people liked this video because of your amazing personality.
I was literally looking at financing a Peel 1 or 2 scanner, this has made me reconsider...THANK YOU!
I wrote stereo stitching in college. You have a mill. Get two high quality cameras, mount them as far apart as is practical, load one of N many apps that perform stitching - I wrote one in C if you hate yourself, and go to town. Plenty produce ply outputs, some are fancy and can stitch a room. If you want help picking, let me know. You can have as much resolution as you please. Fun fact. The woman that created the Loreal makeup tester app backend was in my class.
There is a third middle ground, contract a professional company to do your part scan. If they can come out to you it's usually a good deal when you NEED detail, otherwise it's economical to just send it out for 3D scanning.
Thats a good quality content, I've watched your video entirely without skipping stuff as I did for half of that t-shirt cannon you have mentioned in the end
Have you seen the Einstar now? It’s the scanner you wanted
What a kickass way to perhaps tease the new engine for the Honda
Having taken quite a wild ride attempting to use photogrammetry (meshroom and some other stuff) to do similar stuff to what you're talking about here, I can confirm it's a real rats nest and the part about scaling -- I've run into exactly that issue with it. I'm very happy you did this because of course I'm now targeted with tons of advertising from time to time -- these 3d scanner solutions and I've been dubious about pretty much all of them. Thanks for taking the time to share this -- love your videos man.
I actually just used the creality CR-Scan 01 on my car. Sprayed it down with an iso/baby powder mix. It took a long time, but it did really well with the details, it even picked up some of the flaws in the paint.
I would also love that middle ground price point. If there was one I'm sure it would do well as there would be no competition in that price point.
Glad to see this market overview and to see you've exceeded the 8 views you expected. Seems to me this might make for an interesting side gig. Start up costs under 10K and interesting work as well
Reference dots can just be printed out on sticky back paper, they don't need to be super precise so long as they're the correct nominal size
"The revopoint struggles with dark and reflective surfaces" Thank goodness for affordable sublimating 3D scanning sprays! Not saying they'll make the Revopoint etc. as good as pro gear, but they certainly help with scanning issues like that, and leave little to no residue after sublimating.
Scanners and 3D printers will go along so nicely :)
Great video. And you are so right: the scanner needs to be selected according to the requirements.
But please, do not use food powder spray anymore! Use AESUB Scanningspray. It is a thin, vanishing spray. Cleaning is not necessary anymore!
BTW: AESUB has also targets.
Positive algorithm engagement comment! That's not a Honda engine.... @2:38
This is why I love your channel, this is exactly the kind of info I was wanting to know but don't have the resources to access. However, I guess that means I'll stick to using an iPhone for scanning since that's what I've got!
me: "what is a video about 3d scanning doing in my subscriptions?" -about to scroll past when i see the uploader- "oh it's from superfastmatt? in that case i'll watch it; i'm sure it'll be interesting"
and it certainly was. i love your videos, you make everything interesting even if i don't particularly care about the subject or when you go into something that's way beyond my knowledge base lol
I also came to the same conclusion. There's two tiers of scanners. Useless ones, and ones that are too expensive to consider.
Searched a video like this for ever. Perfect, just perfect.
on the pop you dont have to start over, you just press the back button or the undo until your back where you left off before the messup.
I recently backed the Revopoint Pop 2 scanner....essentially the same as yours, but they've improved the resolution and hopefully the software. Having used Faro arms and 3D scanners in a professional engineering setting, I'm probably setting myself up for disappointment, but I need some relatively accurate models of subframe mounts on a car I need to modify for an alternative differential solution. A mid-tier option in the $1000-2000 range that could provide true 0.2mm accuracy with decent software I think would be a valuable tool for a lot of smaller custom work shops or garages or serious tinkerers..
The biggest thing holding POP back is the software. The hardware is actually pretty damned good. If they'd just get the bundle adjustment sorted out in the software, we'll really get some good results from it.
@@noiwonttellyoumyname.4385 I agree. Now that I have it....I hate the software. Its so difficult to get a good scan. I'm considering switching to an Einstar just for the software improvement.
@@jarhead_jr Their software is absolute cancer. I'd hoped POP2 would be an improvement, but it absolutely hasn't been. I've been doing a ton of photogrammetry lately and getting decent results, but I'm just about at the point of building my own damn scanner, because I really want large objects, room-scale stuff, etc.
great video matt didnt know the diference but it semms is prety big
This video is easily 30x better than a t-shirt Canon video. 👍
There are also 3D measuring arms. If you are only concerned about a few mounting point locations than scanning the whole thing. They run for 20'000+ €. But its more widely used and its more likely you can find a service that has these. No paint or reflective points required.
We have a FARO arm at work with a 3D scanner attachment.
Best of both worlds, you can scan the object and also superimpose very accurate flat plains and hole centre data with the arm probe to construct CAD features later of key location features.
Scanner losing its place never seems to be an issue, it probably cross references to the arms position in space.
As always a great video. I love your storytelling with the simple cards with text for the sections in the video. The themed music for certain parts of the video is also amazing.
I got to use an Artec scanner at work and I was really happy with the thing. So much better then the consumer stuff. It's kinda sad that there really isn't a "mid range" option. You either have to buy the pro scanners or deal with the consumer stuff
Amazing video Matt! Whenever you'll be doing aerodynamic analysis of the Jag can you please make it a little more in depth because that's something i've been interested in doing with my 240 :) i know there's probably only 6 other people who are interested but i'd be very thankful :)
Years ago in university Formula SAE times, I spent a month of one summer painfully trying to model the mounting points and oil pan flange of our CBR600 engine. At first I started with a 3-axis CMM we had in a lab, which was a nightmare and was soon given up on. I ended up using a flatbed scanner for the flange and scaling with caliper measurements. Might have been a lot easier with 3D scanners.
Throughout some of these scanning experiments I started to wonder, is there not already anyone who has CAD models or professional scans of a lot of engines and car frames out there? This seems like a business model that someone could really make a decent living with. The models would be cheaper than buying the equipment and the business investment in decent scanning equipment would likely be recovered quickly.
yes and no, because let's face it, to do that you'll need both a good scanner and a good ammount or cars ready to be disassembled and put back together. and unless you're the one doing all that work it would cost a lot more than any money you'd make selling car cad's
Yes they do. If your a SEMA member you can get authorized to access the OEMs CAD libraries. Its simplified, and you couldn’t manufacture your own corvette from it but its intended for aftermarket use. Thats how a lot of lift kit manufacturers and aftermarket people get a base cad model to start from.
I use a 40'000 euro scanner at my job and oh boy is it good. It's a newer design that can track with way less dots (or none) while staying accurate to a tenth of a millimeter.
As you might guess, it's used for reverse engineering.
I really wish there was an in between. There are a lot of things I've struggled with using iPhone scans and measuring for my Ecoboost swap. I could also convince some buddies to go in on it for their projects as well
Never even thought about using the FRONT face scanner for lIDAR - thankyou!, this video now has put me off my ambitions to buy an iphone for its lidar. i'll stick to photogrammetry right now
- Some 3D modeling programs have functions that can reduce the details of meshes selectively and using different algorithms to produce different kinds of results depending on what you're looking for.
- It looks the stitched-together surfaces can sometimes create more problems than it's worth. Even if it's not pretty, a raw point-map would much more useful for details rather than the inferred surfaces created by the processors for the cheap scanners.
- I'm not sure if it's supported, but using guide blocks would go a long way towards maintaining position. Basically it's just a cube with different images on each surface that the processor can use to assert camera position, and if you affix it to the target object, it'll give you a very reliable relative position between camera and target. Just stick it onto unimportant features.
- Again, I'm not sure if it's supported but for non-LIDAR scanners you could also use colored lights shining from different angles to increase the contrast on harder-to-read surfaces, or use patterned lights like from those cheapish laser pointers with shaped apertures that create shapes you can project onto surfaces.
- There's a bunch of good research on stitching together multiple photos to create some really good quality 3D models, which would be hella easier to manage. All you'd need is to take some pictures with a half decent camera and send the photo gallery through the processor, and if needed, just take more pictures and process it again. No need for careful real-time scanning and wasting all your time from minor mistakes or hardware/software deficiencies.
That being said, I'm not sure just how good the quality is or how long until research turns into accessible products. Some of these types of research do release their source code or even the bare-bones programs they used, though, so if you look around you might luck out.
i dont usually comment but ive reached this same conclusion with 3d scanner apps/iphone and i want to please the algorithm so you make more videos like this.
In combination with software like Geomagic Design X that can turn a scanned mesh into CAD, the scanner makes even more sense, and with a good camera, photogrammetry can pick up much more detail than the LiDAR and intel and revopoint, only difference being the processing time since it needs a ton of resources when it comes to computing
Let's not mention how much that software costs :)))
@@777MAV when paying 12k€$£ for the entry level scanner that isn't a toy.. XD .. it's the feature Fusion360 is trying to emulate and failing hard with the mesh conversion option, maybe they'll catch up in the upcoming year..
I was at Formnext 2021, was quoted 15-150,000€ for 3d scanners , was only able to roll my eyes, managed not to faint or run screaming lol..
I use my xiaomi phone for Photogrammetry and manual CADification lol
I can recommend the handyscan black series if you got deep pockets, its 100 micron point distance is unbeatable
I have 3d printed a piece that holds a mirror over the front facing camera iphone scanner so you can view the screen at the same time. It works well.
I use a professional, survey grade laser scanner for industrial, civil and architectural work; dams, buildings, aircraft, interchanges, mines and quarries, archeological sites, ships, name it, I've probably scanned it. The high-end scanners are VERY expensive. Some are static, some are mobile, even vehicle-mounted and airborne.
Dude you have the best sense of humour! I crack up during every video! Also I learn a ton too! Thanks!
The price difference is mostly down to software and patents. Once those patents expire much cheaper high accuracy scanners will start appearing.
The economies of scale argument was eluding me, but then again the augmented reality around the corner future from FB and Google though inevitable, has been vehemently opposed by people like you and me, i.e people with spectacles!
Thank You very much for not making t-shirt canons.
I have a pretty inexpensive (paid 1500$) 3d scanner and I have found I get the best results if I use some powder and also target dots here and there, then I built a lazy Susan that's trying enough to hold something like a motorcycle engine as well as a tripod for the camera. I also use really good lighting so i don't get any shadows. Then I start the scan and turn on the lazy Susan and it slowly rotates