Additional IR-lightsource?

I still sometimes have the problem that there are (small) areas on models I try to scan which don’t appear, no matter how I hold the scanner and what settings I chose. Since the scanner uses invisible light, I can’t check whether the problem is that the light doesn’t “reach” into those somehow unscannable areas.
Thus I’m thinking about an additional IR-lightsource. I don’t know, thought whether diffuse IR-light could help or whether the internal lightsource projects some kind of pattern onto the surface of the model.
So, could someone help me with that?

That is precisely what happens (it’s called Structured Light"). Adding a diffuse light source will make it harder for the POP to work.


It is totally counterproductive to add IR light, because it will do exactly like trying to scan in broad daylight: it is impossible to scan afterwards.

Have a nice day :relaxed:

Electromagnetic radiation (=Light) behaves the same irrespective of frequency. You can’t see the IR lightsource from the scanner, but there’s no reason you couldn’t hold a flashlight instead and see where that light does or does not go. The light from the scanner will go (or not go) to the same place as the flashlight’s beam of light.

Do you scan the object with the POP at different angles to the object, and then merge those images together?

Thank you all for your replies. I suspected that it’s not just a diffuse light source, but a pattern of some kind, but good to have it confirmed.
Does anyone know whether it’s really a patter like a grid or is it a moving line? It is still hard to imagine what the IR-Sensors try to “see”. And I still think that knowing the exact pattern would improve the way I use the scanner.
Did anyone point an IR-camera at the object while scanning? It might also be good to know how bright the pattern actually is, in comparison to other light sources. It might be best to scan in (nearly) complete darkness?

Hallo @VikingELS,
so far I allway paused the scan, repositioned either the model or the scanner and resumed. This sometimes causes problems with re-tracking, but most of the time it works ok. Though I wish there weren’t any artifacts created as soon as the scanner/program thinks it has the tracking correct. After a lost track I would like to have the chance to confirm or reject whether the re-tracking is correct.


My camera shows the IR beam from my TV remote controls, but does not show anything when I use the POP on an object. Perhaps the wavelength is too different to get through the filter. Maybe the lines are too fine to be registered on my camera’s display.

It’s not a laser line scanner. It uses “Structured Light”. Look up “Structured Light 3D Scanning” on the web for details on how this works.

1 Like