<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[SoliForum - 3D Printing Community — Getting good scans]]></title>
		<link>https://www.soliforum.com/topic/11260/getting-good-scans/</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.soliforum.com/feed/rss/topic/11260/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Getting good scans.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 04:25:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/105002/#p105002</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>making a precision instrument of material that can change with humidity etc is a likely problem. maybe main frame/support of all alignment components should be made of a more stable material like extruded Aluminum.</p><p>at least paint/seal all parts from the ambient elements like we did model cars as kids.</p><div class="quotebox"><cite>arnaud.florence wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hi all,<br />I tried some scans this week-end (taking into account all the abbove remarks), and the results were ... disparate. My calibration was perfect, I tried several parameters, and my conclusion is that the light exposure is the most important thing: too bright leads to a lot of artefacts, holes, blurry parts, ..., and too dark is not ok as the PiCam results are quite bad in this kind of conditions. Natural light is the best, but not always available :-). So, artificial light is necessary... and the problem is to find out a good one, and a good installation (should be indirect, and mat). <br />Other interesting observation: my scans with default parameters are seeminlgy better than in high-res (same model, same moment of the day and calibration verified as ok). I don&#039;t understand why.</p><p>Anyway, I never succeeded to have a high quality result as you can have, Pirvan. The last one is almost perfect, well done.</p><p>One more remark: calibration is difficult, and not permanent. I have to re-calibrate the lasers after one or more days without use. I suppose this is due to ambiant temperature variations. But it quickly becomes an easy thing to do :-).</p><p>I&#039;ll try to continue to give a feedback as soon as I have made some progress with my Atlas 3D.</p></blockquote></div>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (n2ri)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 04:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/105002/#p105002</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104961/#p104961</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hi all,<br />I tried some scans this week-end (taking into account all the abbove remarks), and the results were ... disparate. My calibration was perfect, I tried several parameters, and my conclusion is that the light exposure is the most important thing: too bright leads to a lot of artefacts, holes, blurry parts, ..., and too dark is not ok as the PiCam results are quite bad in this kind of conditions. Natural light is the best, but not always available :-). So, artificial light is necessary... and the problem is to find out a good one, and a good installation (should be indirect, and mat). <br />Other interesting observation: my scans with default parameters are seeminlgy better than in high-res (same model, same moment of the day and calibration verified as ok). I don&#039;t understand why.</p><p>Anyway, I never succeeded to have a high quality result as you can have, Pirvan. The last one is almost perfect, well done.</p><p>One more remark: calibration is difficult, and not permanent. I have to re-calibrate the lasers after one or more days without use. I suppose this is due to ambiant temperature variations. But it quickly becomes an easy thing to do :-).</p><p>I&#039;ll try to continue to give a feedback as soon as I have made some progress with my Atlas 3D.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (arnaud.florence)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2015 06:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104961/#p104961</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104841/#p104841</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>carl_m1968 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>If these scans are mostly for printing, why does it matter if you have color data? Most can only print in one color anyways. I would sacrifice color for precision any day.</p><p>If you put a band pass filter on your camera that passes only 365nm or 380nm depending on the type of laser diodes being used you would get no noise from ambient light reflections. That frequency is found in very few sources of natural light and is do narrow and of low amplitude it is nearly undetectable by cameras with band pass filters. Only lasers can generate a sufficient amount of it to be detected. I did holigraphy for five years and am very familiar with that small line of the visual spectrum.</p></blockquote></div><p>true thats how laser and IR can be used to transfer digital data due to fine defined light waves like for fiber optics and pulses</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (n2ri)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2015 02:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104841/#p104841</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104840/#p104840</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>If these scans are mostly for printing, why does it matter if you have color data? Most can only print in one color anyways. I would sacrifice color for precision any day.</p><p>If you put a band pass filter on your camera that passes only 365nm (Correction, should be 635nm) or 640nm depending on the type of laser diodes being used you would get no noise from ambient light reflections. That frequency is found in very few sources of natural light and is so narrow and of low amplitude it is nearly undetectable by cameras with band pass filters. Only lasers can generate a sufficient amount of it to be detected. I did holography for five years and am very familiar with that small line of the visual spectrum.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (carl_m1968)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2015 02:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104840/#p104840</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104837/#p104837</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>No, if you put a color filter over the camera you can&#039;t get any color data. </p><p>Also white light is all colors combined, so even if you filter only red light, you&#039;ll still catch a reflection from white light since red is included in white.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (elmoret)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2015 01:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104837/#p104837</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104834/#p104834</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Am I missing something? I thought scanners where designed to see only the laser light or whatever emission it is using to scan with. The cameras or sensors are supposed to be fitted with lenses that only pass the reflected laser light. That being said ambient light should have little to no effect on a scan. What I see in these scans are shiny spots on the models causing spurious reflections that the camera is picking up and causing the bad and or distorted scans.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (carl_m1968)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2015 00:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104834/#p104834</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104833/#p104833</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Here are the settings I used on the scan above</p><p><span class="postimg"><img src="http://www.soliforum.com/misc.php?action=pun_attachment&amp;item=9142" alt="http://www.soliforum.com/misc.php?action=pun_attachment&amp;amp;item=9142" /></span></p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (pirvan)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2015 00:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104833/#p104833</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104796/#p104796</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Thanks a lot for your help. <br />I did installed the latest software version, and ran the auto-calibration in addition to the calibration grid. I didn&#039;t used the table liner as I thought my small support (in fact, a foam cube) would be enough. I couldnt&#039;t figure out that the model was sliding on the table, I mean, that a microscopic shift could constitute a major issue for the scan... I&#039;ll definitely try the liner.</p><p>I&#039;ll do a lot of other tests, for sure. I&#039;ll buy also a RGB LED strip to be able to change the light, and I&#039;ll try to resorb reflections with talcum or tanning powder. I&#039;ll keep you informed. Once again, thanks a lot fo the help.</p><p>Pirvan, what are generally your parameters for your scans? High res and both lasers? What threshold for the laser? Only one table revolution?</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (arnaud.florence)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 07:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104796/#p104796</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104786/#p104786</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Here is a fairly simple model, with very few hidden areas.&nbsp; It still required some cleanup, but it was pretty straight forward.<br />The cleaned up point cloud on the left, the reconstructed mesh on the right.&nbsp; No additional retouching was done.</p><p><span class="postimg"><img src="http://www.soliforum.com/misc.php?action=pun_attachment&amp;item=9141" alt="http://www.soliforum.com/misc.php?action=pun_attachment&amp;amp;item=9141" /></span></p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (pirvan)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 05:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104786/#p104786</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104773/#p104773</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>wow this is exciting seeing not only the support on this scanner here but whats possible with it and being as open source as SD printers etc for tweaks/mods. cant wait til I can buy one.</p><p>think I will make a tent to use it in for better control of light also</p><p>PS like homers halo lol</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (n2ri)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 23:06:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104773/#p104773</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104772/#p104772</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Excellent point.&nbsp; The jerky nature of the motor stepping will shift the model around, so you need to prevent that.</p><p>For my scans, instead of the liner that came with the scanner, I&#039;m using a piece of double face tape (carpet mounting tape works great and it&#039;s very thin).</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (pirvan)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 23:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104772/#p104772</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104763/#p104763</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>The above comments are right on.&nbsp; Also, it also looks as if the model may have been sliding around a bit.&nbsp; Make sure you use the table liner to prevent the model from moving.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (hairu526)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 22:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104763/#p104763</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104756/#p104756</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Here are a couple of things to consider:</p><ul><li><p>The calibration grid is fine to get everything lined up mechanically, but you should also use the Auto-calibration after that.&nbsp; Some of your models look like mine before auto-calibration was introduced.</p></li><li><p>If you haven&#039;t already done so, upgrade to the latest version (v.1.9).</p></li><li><p>My LED&#039;s are RGB, so I can change their color.&nbsp; I found that, if you have a lot of white or light blue or green&nbsp; colors in your model, putting a yellow/orange light on helps the camera see the laser better.&nbsp; On very red, dark orange and brown colors, I use a green/yellow light.&nbsp; Bright white doesn&#039;t usually yield good scans.</p></li><li><p>There is no such thing as a common denominator in terms of settings which will work across the board.&nbsp; At a minimum you&#039;ll have to adjust the laser threshold.</p></li><li><p>Reflective surfaces are the root of all evil.&nbsp; I used talcum/baby powder, and lately I&#039;ve used (stolen) my wife&#039;s makeup kit and I use tanning powder applied with a makeup brush to darken the light surfaces and cut down the reflection and glare.</p></li></ul><p>Even with all these preparations, I still end up doing 3-4 tries before I get a usable scan.&nbsp; Also there&#039;s always a lot of clean up to do to the point cloud.&nbsp; </p><p>You can adjust the light and laser threshold until it gets rid of most of the noise (stray pixels), but then you&#039;ll also loose a lot of details in the dark areas of your model.&nbsp; When you adjust the threshold to pick up all that detail, you will inevitably pick up a lot of noise.&nbsp; &nbsp;It&#039;s just nature of the beast.</p><p>But with some patience, and some post-scan clean up work, I&#039;m sure you&#039;ll be able to achieve some nice results.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (pirvan)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 20:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104756/#p104756</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104748/#p104748</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Exact, the main source of light is coming from the right (due to the way the scanner is installed on my desk)... This could lead to part of my problems. Concerning the reflection, I&#039;ve tried to expose my model(s) with direct front light exposure (halogen lamp). It seems it was not the best idea as the result was even worst. Should I use low power LEDs (as Pirvan does)?</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (arnaud.florence)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 14:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104748/#p104748</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Getting good scans]]></title>
			<link>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104745/#p104745</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Two things in lighting. You have light coming from the side, it should probably be coming from the front to make the scan more equal left to right. </p><p>Also, you have a reflection on the model, flat lighting will prevent the reflection. You can do this with tissue paper over light sources or bounced lighting. In addition, consider reducing the shine on the object using some talcom powder to soften the reflection. </p><p>If your light source is coming from the right, maybe rotating the scanner 90 degrees left would help.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (ggunners)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 14:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.soliforum.com/post/104745/#p104745</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
