Welcome to the SeeMeCNC Community

Anybody tried the Atlas 3D Scanner?

gary

I backed the campaign, just a donation - no reward or anything, so I had a set of the printable files early on. Always intended to do something with them, but never really started the project.

I haven't shopped scanners in a while, but when I did it seemed like the Atlas was the best no-nonsense design in that price/complexity range.

Let us know if you end up buying/building one!

A comment on scanners...

I have a Cyclops scanner - pretty similar in design and capabilities to the Atlas. It assembled beautifully, a very nicely designed machine. The issue is the software tool chain. No one that I'm aware of has "scan to STL" software. You scan and get a point cloud. The process to go from the point cloud to a printable STL is, in my opinion, a nightmare for mortal users. Even with my image processing experience it was a pain. Cyclops has Horus - a nicely done scanner interface/control application. From there you have to use a 3rd party tool like meshlab. It's like giving a box of bolts, buts, wires, aluminum sheet and rod and other raw materials along with a machine shop and saying "here, build an airplane" (tip of the hat to Gene)!

Heh.

I needed a unique scan done recently (left combiner glass frame for the HUD in the F-15) and I took it to a place called FabLab Tacoma. The guy that runs the place is awesome.

They've got a scanner that will take a pretty good sized object - roughly 18-24" tall. I don't recall the name of the scanner but it was made by Roland, was purple-ish and sent the data to the host over a serial cable.

It uses a turntable to turn the part and a laser to do the scanning. The software will directly output STL files, but unfortunately the scanner couldn't get a usable result. The suspicion was that due to the dark surface that the scanner was unable to really do a proper job. It sucks because I REALLY need that thing scanned and I cannot let that part out of my sight. I've thought about building my own scanner but found that the only one I knew about (Davide) has gotten so snooty about their tool chain that you can't even get pricing from their website. You have to ask for a quote from a "Reseller".

f' that, yo.

g.

I just bought a dev kit with the intel realsense f200 and r200 3d cameras, they work well but the software isn't there yet. It does work on win 10 on the hello function and 3d systems has an app call 3dme that works. I have alot of reading before I can start righting my own apps for it.

Geneb,

One of the techniques used to scan transparent objects with a laser is to powder them.

So if you dusted it with say flour, the scanner might eork.




Random info: During a phd thesis where my friend was building a scanner for transparent objects we used IR cameras and an IR laser. I think the same technique should work here aswell.

Photogrammetry is better than any of the other budget methods of scanning. Get auto desk memento or 123d catch, and a decent camera.

It's not transparent, it's cast titanium I think.

g.

shiny and clear are hard to get in photogrammetry but still works the best.

Also, if you're trying to scan clear or translucent surfaces (like a helmet with a visor) you can use masking tape to cover the surface. Takes some prep work, but works like a charm and cleans up easily.

As someone who manages a 3d scanning lab I can say that the Atlas looks a lot better than most of the "inexpensive" scanners out there. Especially the NextEngine, which we have had since the hardware beta for it. I may look into buying one for research purposes... The David system is an ok scanner as far as that goes. A little expensive, since just the software is around $2500 the last time I checked. It may have come down since then however.

Gene, If the part you want scanned is 100% metal 99.99 % of industrial scanners will capture it without modification. The guy you went to may be using one of the 0.1% that don't Reguardless, powdering it (not with flour but with talc or gypsum, MUCH smaller grain size on these ) will allow the scanner to see it. At least that's been my experience over the last 10+ years of doing this.

As far as photogrammetry being cheaper and easier... wellllllllll, um.... no. Not reallly

To do photogrammetry right required a professional camera ($1000+), professional lenses ($500+ per lens), and a professional lighting set up ($1000 per light, minimum of three). Software like Autodesk's consumer photogrammetry suites (Momento, 123d, etc) are designed for use with your cell phone camera, tablet camera, etc. and produce very low accuracy models. To get the kinds of accuracy you want for your models through photogrammertry you would need one the professional suites, which aren't cheap. They also take ENORMOUS amounts of time to process and a monster computer to handle the minimum system requirements for the software (minimum specs usually are a quad core, with 32 gig ram. Recommended is 16 to 32 cores, 256+ gig ram). The guys at Autodesk can process things in the cloud so fast because they have a few thousand servers dedicated to nothing but processing other people's images.

Unfortunately for you my lab is way the hell over here in Idaho. We do contract work, but you'd have to ship us the part or travel with it (or pay to have us travel to you). I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that isn't in the cards

Robert

geneb wrote:Heh.

I needed a unique scan done recently (left combiner glass frame for the HUD in the F-15) and I took it to a place called FabLab Tacoma. The guy that runs the place is awesome.

They've got a scanner that will take a pretty good sized object - roughly 18-24" tall. I don't recall the name of the scanner but it was made by Roland, was purple-ish and sent the data to the host over a serial cable.

It uses a turntable to turn the part and a laser to do the scanning. The software will directly output STL files, but unfortunately the scanner couldn't get a usable result. The suspicion was that due to the dark surface that the scanner was unable to really do a proper job. It sucks because I REALLY need that thing scanned and I cannot let that part out of my sight. I've thought about building my own scanner but found that the only one I knew about (Davide) has gotten so snooty about their tool chain that you can't even get pricing from their website. You have to ask for a quote from a "Reseller".

f' that, yo.

g.

If you paint it with white spray plasti-dip it might scan OK. You should be able to peel the layer of plastic off the part without damaging it. maybe. don't blame me if it ruins the part somehow!

The idea in my post was, if it does not "see" it because of reflections, you can mask the reflective surfaces with a powder.

I like Robert's idea with the talc. Air blasting that off won't harm the serial number ink stamp. If it works, I'll post a pic of the scan here.
Thanks!

g.

Gene, what about just drawing the part in CAD, printing it and then scanning it? You can print it with a low reflectivity filament or even paint it afterwards. No chance on damaging the original part you want to scan then.

(fyi, the above was a joke)

Well, if a part is simple enough, calipers may be enough to constrain a workable model...

Another option would be taking a splash off it in a non-reflective material and taking the negative of the splash.

*throws wet sponge at mhackney*

The problem is that the part has a couple of bends in it that make it damn difficult to measure.
Here's a side view of the frame: http://www.geneb.org/images/hud-left-side.jpg

It's the upper most part - it holds the two combiner glass panes.

I did a pretty fair approximation of it by scanning it in a flatbed scanner and then tracing the part in SolidWorks, but it's still not good enough.

g.

schlrobe wrote:As someone who manages a 3d scanning lab I can say that the Atlas looks a lot better than most of the "inexpensive" scanners out there. Especially the NextEngine, which we have had since the hardware beta for it. I may look into buying one for research purposes... The David system is an ok scanner as far as that goes. A little expensive, since just the software is around $2500 the last time I checked. It may have come down since then however.

Gene, If the part you want scanned is 100% metal 99.99 % of industrial scanners will capture it without modification. The guy you went to may be using one of the 0.1% that don't Reguardless, powdering it (not with flour but with talc or gypsum, MUCH smaller grain size on these ) will allow the scanner to see it. At least that's been my experience over the last 10+ years of doing this.

As far as photogrammetry being cheaper and easier... wellllllllll, um.... no. Not reallly

To do photogrammetry right required a professional camera ($1000+), professional lenses ($500+ per lens), and a professional lighting set up ($1000 per light, minimum of three). Software like Autodesk's consumer photogrammetry suites (Momento, 123d, etc) are designed for use with your cell phone camera, tablet camera, etc. and produce very low accuracy models. To get the kinds of accuracy you want for your models through photogrammertry you would need one the professional suites, which aren't cheap. They also take ENORMOUS amounts of time to process and a monster computer to handle the minimum system requirements for the software (minimum specs usually are a quad core, with 32 gig ram. Recommended is 16 to 32 cores, 256+ gig ram). The guys at Autodesk can process things in the cloud so fast because they have a few thousand servers dedicated to nothing but processing other people's images.

Unfortunately for you my lab is way the hell over here in Idaho. We do contract work, but you'd have to ship us the part or travel with it (or pay to have us travel to you). I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that isn't in the cards

Robert

You are exaggerating things immensely. First of all, Memento is NOT a consumer-grade solution. It is a professional piece of software that is free to use when it is in beta. It is not designed to be used with cell phones, like 123d catch is.

Second, you likely haven't used 123d catch or Memento enough, because they can produce VERY high quality meshes.

Third, you absolutely do not require $1500 worth of photography equipment. Like I said, a $300 EOS M will absolutely give you enough to scan an object nearly-perfectly (given the right enviornmental factors).

If you overlook photogrammetry, you are overlooking one of the best methods for low-cost scanning.

geneb wrote:*throws wet sponge at mhackney*

The problem is that the part has a couple of bends in it that make it damn difficult to measure.
Here's a side view of the frame: http://www.geneb.org/images/hud-left-side.jpg

It's the upper most part - it holds the two combiner glass panes.

I did a pretty fair approximation of it by scanning it in a flatbed scanner and then tracing the part in SolidWorks, but it's still not good enough.

g.

Did your wet sponge hit Mhackney? A sight to behold!!

It was virtual. For him to get the full effect, he'll need a local wet sponge application system.

g.

geneb wrote:It was virtual. For him to get the full effect, he'll need a local wet sponge application system.

g.

Oh no, you should not have said that, he'll have one built before the month is over.

Example of 3D scanning: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgWxgZZ7pZo[/youtube]

Guess what technology was used.

Impressive Bot,

I was at a local museum and they were scanning some of their collection and they had can of photographers kill shine that they were using on things like glass, it seemed to wipe right off as they finished with an object. the scanner was a large gadget on a heavy surveying tripod and I think it had a Trimble logo on it.

I thought Trimble did high end GPS surveying instruments I was surprised that they did 3d scanners as well. also no one was wearing laser safe glasses so it must use a low power laser.... i expect the price of such a gadget and the price of the required software support is of the "if you have to ask you can't afford it" level.

Windshadow wrote:Impressive Bot,

I was at a local museum and they were scanning some of their collection and they had can of photographers kill shine that they were using on things like glass, it seemed to wipe right off as they finished with an object. the scanner was a large gadget on a heavy surveying tripod and I think it had a Trimble logo on it.

I thought Trimble did high end GPS surveying instruments I was surprised that they did 3d scanners as well. also no one was wearing laser safe glasses so it must use a low power laser.... i expect the price of such a gadget and the price of the required software support is of the "if you have to ask you can't afford it" level.

Cough!!!! http://www.surveyinghill.com/3d-surveyi ... 3d-scanner

barry99705 wrote:

Windshadow wrote:Impressive Bot,

I was at a local museum and they were scanning some of their collection and they had can of photographers kill shine that they were using on things like glass, it seemed to wipe right off as they finished with an object. the scanner was a large gadget on a heavy surveying tripod and I think it had a Trimble logo on it.

I thought Trimble did high end GPS surveying instruments I was surprised that they did 3d scanners as well. also no one was wearing laser safe glasses so it must use a low power laser.... i expect the price of such a gadget and the price of the required software support is of the "if you have to ask you can't afford it" level.

Cough!!!! http://www.surveyinghill.com/3d-surveyi ... 3d-scanner

Now that is expensive!