I think this concept could eventually be a success just because it has the potential to be a lot cheaper than a fully automated/mechanized solution.
Just like the Scanman was a lot cheaper compared to the very expensive flatbed scanners of the 80s. Smaller, lighter, zero/minimal amounts of moving parts, etc. Perhaps not good enough for professional use, but the pro market was kinda small anyway.
I guess the endgame is that high-end 3d scanning functionality gets built into regular smartphones.
I think this concept could eventually be a success...
I worked for a sister division of Ametek (Creaform's parent corp) a while ago. It's a real company and this is a real product line (I think this is the 3rd or 4th gen product by now).
Ametek is big on precision metrology for industrial/aerospace use and Creaform is a bet on the future. The corporation also owns Taylor Hobson from the UK. They're not looking to put this into smartphones.
Sorry, I was being unclear. I guess in my mind innovations that have obvious mainstream applications aren't really full-blown successes until they have reached the mainstream.
> They're not looking to put this into smartphones.
That probably means that someone else will be making money off this kind of feature.
Yes, there is a huge amount of profit to be made by just serving the traditional 'boring' industries. A company can be extremely well off without ever dipping into consumer market.
See for example Oracle as an example closer to programming.
>I think this concept could eventually be a success just because it has the potential to be a lot cheaper than a fully automated/mechanized solution.
It's already a success, it's just priced beyond the reach of consumers by a couple of orders of magnitude. Creaform are the market leaders in a very competitive field.
I guess the endgame is that high-end 3d scanning functionality gets built into regular smartphones.
We will likely see 3D sensors get embedded into smartphones very soon but there are substantial trade offs in terms of size, power consumption, cost and performance. Also the consumer use-cases for 3D scanning are quite unclear. Hence what's going to be in phones will likely be used for enhancing AR applications / "Lenses" (proven use case) as opposed to capturing an accurate 3D representation of the world.
I think there are lots of clear consumer use cases for this.
Like:
a) Scan a friend's face/head and then use an app to replace the hairstyle with something different.
b) Get a friend to scan your body (or scan your own feet) using your smartphone, then use that data to order custom outfits or shoes that fit perfectly.
I did some work to attempt this sort of thing using a kinect, back when they were newish. We were trying to automate the sizing of custom-fitted clothing. It was easy enough to get rough measurements, but very difficult to get repeatable and accurate measurements.
I suppose if you were just looking to see which of a set of sizes would work best for a person, it might be easier. Also, today's technology is better and I didn't really know what I was doing. :)
But still... fabric measuring tapes are cheap and easy to use, and they won't invade your privacy or try to sell you stuff like phone app developers inevitably will.
Something like this should have (at least) millimeter-precision. Way enough precision for clothing/footwear sizing.
> But still... fabric measuring tapes are cheap and easy to use
I disagree.
People tend to come in very unique shapes. Even a something "as simple" as a foot probably needs at least like 3-5 different measurements to something that really fits perfectly.
This is already happening with some of the low-cost mobile 3D sensor accessories out there (like Structure Sensor). Having it built into the phone is obviously where a lot of people want to see things go but there's definitely a prosumer class popping up that were priced out of traditional 3D scanners previously.
I had a Fit3D total body scan done at a local clinic when starting a weight loss program. I was surprised by the detail level for something that cost me $5/scan. I had to switch to wearing bicycle shorts during the scans because the first time I wore just underwear and the result produced an inappropriate amount of detail in that area. My plan is to 3D print my "before" body and display it in my exercise area to motivate me. Might have to make a pair of shorts for it to wear or edit out those details in the obj file.
That's a pretty interesting idea. Can't see any reason why it wouldn't work. I'm only looking to lose 50 lbs so it probably wouldn't even need any additional rafting.
Would be pretty easy to cut and join the models in blender for a single print. You could even get creative with the cut too, instead of a sagittal cut you could do multiple horizontal bands or a helix...
Much like the 3D printer market of fifteen years ago, the problem isn't so much a lack of selection as the price. When out of the box 3D scanners get below $300 I'll get excited.
They all suck. I've tried so many from cellphones to $5k devices. Until you get into $20k systems, don't expect a workable scan that doesn't required many hours of CAD work for cleanup.
I would really suggest learning Fusion 360 for mechanical or blender for organic modeling and build from scratch. It's a great toolset to know and can be very rewarding. It will teach your core skills that you can apply all the time with your 3d printer. If you have never done any 3d work before, start with tinkercad.com until you feel comfortable.
Tangentially related but I've had a 3D printer for years but only just recently learned Fusion 360; it has been a real game changer in terms of the kind of projects I can tackle. Can't recommend it enough.
SolidWorks is $5000/seat, right? At least, for the non-Student version?
And the Student version is only available to people with a valid current student ID, and saves files in a format that is intentionally incompatible with the normal version?
Student files are not incompatible, but as soon as a student licensed copy touches a part or assembly, it becomes "tainted" (such that it says "student edition" in the corner or something). I worked at a university-based company where we had a bunch of student licenses and a couple pro licenses, and we had to be very careful about separating the files and making sure that the student edition never touched our professional files.
You think? I could never figure out how to do anything in SolidWorks, whereas I could just pick up Fusion and create. Fusion's interface seemed much more intuitive to me, and I had zero experience with CAD before. Plus, it's free.
Nowadays I use OnShape because it's decent and the only thing that works on Linux. I do miss some of the more advanced features, though (e.g. simulation, or variables).
I'd disagree with 2 and 3, at least at the hobbyist level. Fusion can import STEP files, which at least in my experience are far more common that SolidWorks files. And there's a huge number of Fusion tutorials and videos online, not to mention that Autodesk has a large selection of howto videos on their website.
There's a two or three parter on youtube where some main Autodesk dude makes a widget. It's something like 90 minutes all-in, and that was enough to give me the traction I needed to start experimenting. From there it's re-watch bits as needed, and googling around---mostly ending up at the Fusion 360 help forums.
I used lynda.com myself. In many cities in the USA you can get free access to the site through your local library. I found it easier then searching for a video here and there on youtube.
Totally agree. The only "cheap" 3d scanners that work even somewhat well are the ones designed to scan small objects via a rotating table and laser/diode array. I've had decent results with a friend's Einscan SP ($2,500) and a ~3 inch model, but awful results with every handheld I've tried under 20k, even at CES this year.
Seconded for Fusion360. Lots of great guides online and an intuitive UI. I started using it when i got a CNC router and eventually transitioned to 3D printing. I did not have a modeling background and felt comfortable making things after about a month
I’ve used an Einscan-SE/SP. How do the 20k+ scanners reduce the part-to-cad workflow? Is the software that’s included do a 10x better job of cleaning up the scan?
Generally, the depth cameras don't provide enough precision in the data to be able to manage anything usable. If you want to scan an object to recreate something close it'll generally work ok but if you wanted to scan the object to build around it, and have things like up accurately then it's not good enough.
They do work, just not well enough to be useful for scanning. I have a handheld infrared SLAM scanner, and when it encounters moderately reflective or dark surfaces, it interprets them as voids because they absorb or scatter the IR. Anything translucent or refractive is similarly a nonstarter. The surfaces it does scan are not very accurate (covered in slight bumps from inaccuracies). This means it can't scan most objects, and the ones it can scan still require a ton of cleanup.
well it looks like its a multiview structured light and another type of camera.
So I suspect it is a SLAM system (how else can it make up an accurate mesh like that) but with a calibrated and well integrated depth sensor on there as well.
At the hobbyist level currently the best results (in terms of cost/quality and time/quality and overall capability) can be achieved using photogrammetry in conjunction with processing in Meshroom and post processing in Meshlab or Blender or editor of your own selection. This works for really tiny stuff right up through drones scanning entire buildings, and the workflow is the same. That's not to say there isn't a knack to it or things you have to learn. But it's the right direction to explore right now.
There are alternative workflows and "low cost" commercial hardware and software products even for photogrammetry in the market. Nearly every technique I have tried or seen produces a much lower quality result than the above, costs a lot more, or has some other limitation (such as the size of the object you can scan) that radically limit its usefulness.
This is of course until you get to the high end scanners like the one linked here which use one or more high resolution LIDAR sensors in conjunction with cameras, lights, motion sensors, etc: alll selected and calibrated to give precision results. If you can stomach the price they are awesome.
But to some degree, commercial solutions regardless of cost will often promise their output will require "no editing or post processing" You should be aware that this is total baloney. You will absolutely have to devote a little time and effort into learning how to edit, clean, and simplify meshes regardless of what you intend to do with them.
All this being said, this advice only really applies to objects where 3d scanning has some merit. If you want to 3d print something like a replacement part for a broken appliance, often 3d scanning even with an expensive commercial scanner is not the best approach. Many times it's considerably faster to pull out a pair of calipers and simply model the object in some CAD software like Fusion360 or for real simple stuff, even TinkerCAD.
Nothing works. I promise. I’ve even used these extremely high end scanners like the creaform ones and they suck.
Here’s how I get _good_ results on complex objects. Use agisoft photoscan, a cheap SLR and a stepper motor controlled turntable. You need to put all this in a photo tent and light it as flatly as possible. Then, you need to do surface prep. Spray your object with magnaflux spotchek. This is a white powder in acetone which will go down on the surface and make it temporarily matte. It wipes off when done.
When you’re done, process the images, process the mesh, and pull it into Rhino to repair it. If you’re modeling for a functional replacement, pull out your calipers and take measurements and use your 3D scan essentially to pick off profiles that you can loft to remodel the final object.
A knob for a vintage oscilloscope. It’s entirely possible that myself and the guy that maintained it in the architecture dept of my school just weren’t well versed in its intricacies.
For $400 you can get the Occipital Structure Core [1] with Skanect Pro scanning software bundled. I've used Structure Cores for other purposes, and they seem pretty good. Not sure what your accuracy will be though.
I had some minor luck with capturing 3D objects in Meshroom, then using Blender to refine/simplify the model, before taking it into Meshmixer to prepare for actual 3D printing.
I don't know how phone cameras hold up, but I was able to achieve decent results with a DSLR and some daylight lighting.
As others have said, if you want to replace an existing part, it's probably actually better to redesign it. I use OpenSCAD to do simple 3D designs in code. It's easy to get started if you're a developer.
As for scanning, I've used Trnio on iPhone for artistic scans. e.g. I scanned my dog and printed a tiny replica. My nephew thought it was a pile of melted yogurt, but I knew what it was. :-)
The accuracy they state is a maximum, it depends on how close you are to the object. The closer, the higher the resolution. It appears to be a structured light technique so it is limited by the resolution of the projector and camera setup.
I think this concept could eventually be a success just because it has the potential to be a lot cheaper than a fully automated/mechanized solution.
Just like the Scanman was a lot cheaper compared to the very expensive flatbed scanners of the 80s. Smaller, lighter, zero/minimal amounts of moving parts, etc. Perhaps not good enough for professional use, but the pro market was kinda small anyway.
I guess the endgame is that high-end 3d scanning functionality gets built into regular smartphones.