I recently took a quick scan of three berry scones I made with POP2.
For each scone I took top and bottom scans.
I exported the fused point clouds and the textured meshes that I obtained through Revoscan, and I imported everything into Cloudcompare for procesing.
The vertex color wasn’t great. The texures were slightly better but not very good either.
I had to handle all the meshes and the point clouds to align them in the excact possition, to later in ZBrush project the textures from the Revoscan mesh into the new mesh from Cloudcompare.
Because the texture was not good, I combined it with the colors from the point cloud to add a bit more color information.
I’m not sure if this is making any sense, or if this is really the best way of doing it, but the point is: The textures from the scanner aren’t good enough. If you take a look at the model I linked above, you will see.
I have a lightbox. The models were well illuminated. The scanner was at the recommended distance, but the images that the scanner captured look like they’re from an old webcam.
It seems that the camera in the POP2 (and maybe MINI too, didn’t check yet) are not very good, are they?
I would sugest for future products to invest in better cameras (and also better algorithms like Cloudcompare, but that’s for a whole other topic), so it’s easier to obtain scans with perfect quality.
I’m happy about how easy and quick it is to place the scones (or whatever object) into the rotating table, and in a few minutes getting a perfect scan. But this texture resolution issue is very upseting. I’m missing my old photogrammetry, where both mesh and textures were sharp -sigh-
I hope this sugestion helps to improve an already great product. I would gladly pay more for a version with a better camera