I’ve been watching quite a few videos and learning how to do better scans.
As I am trying to work on large car parts that have large smooth panels with sweeping curves/panels.
I’m thinking especially with the range coming on board with a curve option for hole filling be a viable option?
It would take the curvature of points around a hole to try and replicate that curvature in the hole.
This is something I’ve seen that the Shining 3D software does and on panels like car wing panels or bonnet’s it seems really useful
The option you describe is called Tangent in Revo Studio . Closing holes based on the curvature of the points in space.
Holes with Range are a very rare
But doing better scan us all about the perfect cloud point , nothing can be done to make your scan better than the original point cloud , how less you edit it how better the mesh will be .
What bring us back to the begining , taking more time on scanning will give you better results .
I think Range will give you 500% less headache than any other scanner you using right now with scanning your curved panels , still it is 3D structured light scanner and require physical tracking points , but so much less of it what make scanning a breeze and very enjoyable.
From my very limited experience, the best way to do “Hole filling” is to use Meshmixer (free-of-charge software at 2023Jan). Especially, the sculpture tool.
Here is the final mesh: So I have my fist on the computer, what’s next? - Dao. It is way much smooth. What’s better about it is that I run my first computational fluid dynamic simulation without any errors. That’s how crazy it was.
That’s so helpful and your posts actually reflect some of the issues I had been facing.
Thanks for sharing.
@PUTV That’s so exciting…
Maybe I’ll get good enough with my POP2 to make some money and afford a Range or I’ll keep entering competitions and cross my fingers.
Thanks for explaining the hole fill method to me as a noobie I wasn’t really sure what either meant. ( Except from flat fill I understood that much)
Well @3d_data , it was not about an external software as for me Zbrush is the best mesh editing software in this case .
But thanks for the effort , it may be helpful for someone else looking for solution in this area .
What we talking here is closing holes in mesh based on its curvature surrounding the hole , in short the best reconstruction , you have many options in Revo Studio , one is plane flat solution for hard edges or flat surface , and another for organic round edges .
I hope you don’t miss the Range Kickstarter campaign in February, I love POP2, my favorite for most everything scanner , but Range just extend the experience where POP2 stops to another level .
It’s happy to see that we can fix the hold natively within REVOPOINT.
I installed Rev Studio 3.0.6.9 a while ago and forget that I have this
amazing tool in my toolset. I believe Zbrush is the enterprise
solution and I will consider it in the future.
I’ve tested my problematic mesh using Rev Studio today, and I would say
that it is very easy to complete the mission. I’ve compared Rev Studio
(b) with Blender (c) and Meshmixer (d) are shown in the following
figure. In my opinion, the result from Blender is almost useless.
In the context of my palm, the difference in the big hole between Rev Studio
and Meshmix is relatively small. What I am concerned about is some
small holes. Rev Studio fix the hold in a different way than Meshmixer. In some cases, some sharp elements are added. I’ve attached
a detailed comparison in the following figure.
In terms of curvature, it’s quite challenging. For example, how
you define surroundings? Is it 2 millimetres or 4 millimetres
always the lines? Which part of the surroundings is to be used to fill the
holes?
Mesh mixer remeshed the model in your preview , Revo Studio only affect the holes area and Blender use simple plane option for fixing the hole what is useful only for hard edge models .
If you click simplify after closing holes Revo Studios will remesh the model for flawless look as Mesh mixer did .
It is not about what software do it best , it is about what You can do with that .
I do not deal much with holes as I scan my scans completely in most cases , as I mentioned early I use Zbrush for my editing and I deal with the issues there if I have one , I also remesh the scans to quads for editing, as who editing triangulated meshes In first place ? For quick print or presentation ok , but not for serious work with it , I use mostly scans as a base for reverse engineering as the original scans are not usable for anything in their original forms .
@Cosantoir if you want to keep the exactly amount of points , change the % to 99% in place of 65% when using Simplify function .
Simplify function focus mostly on the edges and details .
If you use smooth option , always choice Denoiser in place of Geometry to keep the accuracy if you want to get rid of some noises.
When you use Meshing function , remember that Revo Studio level 5 , is Revo Scan level 6 , using higher than level 5 can induce noises , I usually use higher level for big scans like full body scans , but for small scans I always limit to 5 in Revo Studio .
Also when you scanning panels and smoother surface , using the highest fusing point settings is not always the best option.
For example if I scan a coffee mug I would use fusing pitch point 0.1 mm with Mini or 0.2mm with POP2, you may ask why ?
Because the object do not have the level of details that requires highest setting .
If you want smoother surface use lower pitch point fusing settings.
However this do not apply to Meshing , you want to keep it at level 6 in Revo Scan .
Think about a a simple square object that have 4 points only , adding additional 40 points to it will not make it any better than it already is , it will add points where noises can form easier . Lowering the amounts of points will provide you will flatter surface where it is needed .
So each time you scan a new object , you need to evaluate how much you need, and in most cases less is better .
It will speed up your processing and editing work .
@PUTV
This is terriffic insight I’ll definitely investigate this and it makes sense.
While it’s off topic of hole filling but based on your point would it extend to the below situation?
This relatively right radius at the back side of a spoiler is something I’m trying to get a good accurate scan on. As you can see from the picture of the part is a relatively narrow 180 degree radius.
As you can see not so much on the outer edge but particularly on the inner edge its very bumpy. and the points are quite inconsistent.
There is definitely an element of there being some mismatch with alignment but ultimately this is because I’ve scanned it poorly.
Do you believe that the pitch point and maybe even the scan quality being set too high is the route cause here or is this more a case of me poorly scanning this radius?
@Cosantoir I think you could do better than the rest you got considering the size of the object . It is not easy approach of scanning this type of an object .
The issue here we got : it is difficult to merge the scans since there are no specific tracking points that can be used as marker points for merging .
So in this case the best option is to manually align the scans in the lastest Revo Studio software .
What I do sometimes is sticking or painting red dots on the surface and scan it in color mode . Then export the fused point cloud as ply files , this allows you to see the red dots while merging the scans together in Revo Studio and use it as reference for your merging points , that is most perfect solution for merging objects without specific features .
I would also try to scan the object on a turntable in market mode , and get as many angles as you need , or try to use Head mode what means to scan bigger objects not just heads … and not use markers .
It should works .
You are using POP2 right ? If you do keep the fusing point at 0.1mm in this case to protect the edge accuracy . With MINI 0.1mm would be just fine in place of 0.02mm
