#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Cobus |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Nigel! That is one Awesome Piece right there. And reasonable priced as well. 500 bux and you're scanning pretty nearly any and everything. I'm curious to see anyone else that has one, use it to make a Full sized Buck for a Car. I would buy it in a heart beat if I had the understanding of how to do it... but I will likely buy it anyway, because I think it will work out really well.
Gonna contact a buddy of mine that does the imaging thing to see if this will do what I want to do.
__________________
Scott Making Waves, and Curves and Shapes..... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Don't want to hijack this thread as it is a really good one but I looked into the structure scanning sensor. It relies on knowing where it is by using the accelerometers and gyros in the Apple device. Those things are there for games and making sure the window is aligned with the device etc. They are not ultra high precision sensors like you find in a military aircraft nor were they intended to be.
Gyros measure angular rates and accelerometers measure linear acceleration. To turn those into angles and position it has to do a bunch of math and any errors add up over time. So i think the resulting accuracy would be suspect and one would have to tweak and stretch the image to fit some known dimensions. Also, it doesn't work with shiny objects very well. So if you lay down your money and expect to be able to effortlessly scan a car in 5min with perfect accuracy you might be disappointed.
__________________
Scott in Montreal |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you for that input, Scott. Never thought about it much on that level. What I want is something that I can use to make a scale version of another, the accuracy is only mildly important, but proportions would be VERY important in the overall project.I kind of don't suspect the program or equipment to manage the crazy stuff, just the simple stuff. After reading what they are claiming on the 3D scanning equipment, it sounds like it takes a bunch of it's won possible inaccuracies into consideration... Like I said. I have a friend looking at it for me already... He'll probably tell me the same things you just told me... LOL, but I'm curious to his take on it. He also Has a Milling business making 3D objects already... so e'll definitely have some insight into possible shortcomings. his software is several thousand dollars worth, but does no Scanning without another investment dollar amount (we talkeed about this about a year ago). Between the two of us we may be able to use this stuff to do what we want, and split the cost as well.
__________________
Scott Making Waves, and Curves and Shapes..... |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Perhaps Will Cronkrite will speak about what he's learned working with the professor from Pennsylvania who has been scanning a car at Jim Hery's.
I understood about every 10th word that Will and the Professor were saying but I had the distinct impression that there is not yet a 'simple and inexpensive' way to make a solid model and get the data into a solid modeling program. The stereoscopic scanner they were using was pretty high dollar...70K comes to mind but I could be wrong.
__________________
Kerry Pinkerton |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Having looked into getting a 3d scan in the uk, by a pro, a cobra body would cost about £600-£800, if I wanted it sectioned for stations for a buck.
The guy had previously scanned a Ferrari, so asked him to send me a cross section to see the clarity of what I could expect, it wasn't usable in my opinion, too much editing required to get the smooth shapes expected to make an accurate buck. Therefore from what I saw, you need someone that understands car shapes and has the required skills to work out the inaccuracies of the scan, whilst retaining the important dimensional structure to make an accurate buck. Ive started using Rhino5 and don't find it as daunting as first thought, but I'm a long way off working with meshes and editing scans, but it's something I think I can achieve, like metal shaping, it's another tool to learn. I can see me getting the iPad scanner just to play with, got to start somewhere.
__________________
Cheers Martin No matter how clever you think you are, stupidity is always one step ahead!!!! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Free 3D capture
http://www.123dapp.com/catch
I played with it a few months back, works great for irregular shapes like people and animals, which is why they have so many examples of those shapes. I then tried a pickup truck with a cell phone, and it gave some pretty weird results. I'm going to try again with a better camera. If I understand the fine print correctly, it's free for a certain number of renderings, after that it's a subscription based service.
__________________
Mark from Illinois |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
No Hardware needed on that one... and the video shows cut sections and A Basic buck for even the human figure... This is all crazy stuff.
Edit: A Quick read shows that you cannot save your 3D scans to a hard drive at all... the scans are saved to the Autodesk Peoples' hard drives... You access them through their site. Not friendly for that part... Somehow you'd have to be able to utilize the data... That's the part no one has been clear on so far.
__________________
Scott Making Waves, and Curves and Shapes..... Last edited by SCOTTRODS; 02-08-2015 at 12:09 PM. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
AllyBill hired a Faro 3D scanner which worked well in Autocad: http://allmetalshaping.com/showthrea...scanner&page=4
Rentals are in the region of $500/day which isn't too cheap but saves a lot of time. http://scanable.com/faq/ Would be helpful if a member can start a thread with this topic and share the experience. The more points on the body scanned, the more accurate the model as the mesh in a 3D program will adjust the curve between two points based on its own criteria and not necessarily that of the body. 3D scanning does millions of points so it automatically sorts this problem.
__________________
Cobus |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
A friend of mine is an engineer who has worked extensively with scanning devices took a look at my request.
The problem for "us", as he sees it, is the fact that the device returns "cloud point" data, which it technically difficult and requires a lot of computing power and a person versed in dealing with that sort of data conversion to get results workable and convenient to our needs. But, a better solution is just months away! mjb
__________________
Marc |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|