I’ve been playing around with the Revopoint Mini for a few days. Although the meshing seems quite fine, I can’t seem to get a good texture out : it’s very pixellated from up close, looks dirty and full of triangles (see the capture). Is there something I’m doing wrong? Other than not having quite an homogenous lighting which creates color changes within the texture…
I’m kind of new to structured-light scanning, so any advice would truly be welcome
To have better results you need proper light , and this part is tricky with MINI as it don’t like too much light to begin with.
The best are the LED sold by Revopoint , avoid cold light color LEDs .
Then you have to scan all the angles proper at slightly slower rotation .
How more angles you capture how better results you will get with the textures .
However do not expect a picture quality in your textures , it depends of the amount of triangles and points .
To get little better quality you can try capture just RGB color per vertex data , mesh the fused point cloud and export it as ply or obj , and create new textures from it in another program .
You will get slightly better quality .
Here is my own workflow
You can see my process in Zbrush
But you can use MeshLab or Blender to do that as well .
Revo Scan texture mapping is not ideal , it never was from the beginning anyway.
Okay I understand. I’m testing photogrammetry on the other hand, and I definitely have much better results at least in terms of texture. For now I’m not sure whee I stand in terms of meshing though : when it works,the MINI truly provides astounding results for its price, but it’s never as perfect as photogrammetry. Maybe I indeed need more practice Anyway thank you for your advice !
Photogrammetry textures are excellent and Revo Scan can’t compare here with , different technology.
MINI hardware is excellent, but software needs little more work .
Personally I don’t care about the Texturing in Revo Scan as for me it is not usable in my work anyway .
I design textures manually for over 25 years already . And this is just not the quality standards many of us need .
Professional textures are not a pictures of an object .Even if they were perfect still need to be edited to works perfect in 3D programs for rendering .
Yes the meshes are quite great indeed, but for now I couldn’t see a real benefit to what I get with photogrammetry, even only considering the mesh. I also feel it’s a bit hard to have a truly perfect meshing with the MINI, and I couldn’t get there yet. Maybe, again, I need more practice. Also it’s quite unpredictable, I found. Like I couldn’t scan a shoe for instance, but a bronze skull had no problem!
Yeah for me the textures are quite important in my work, as I’m trying to reproduce exact photorealistic copies of objects. That’s why for now photogrammetry is my best choice, but I was very curious to test the structured light technology. I think for now the best case of application would actually be to merge photogrammetry data with scanning data.
Also, I know you already answered, but in the thread I sent you, I just cannot understand how dfodaro (first post), could produce such a perfect model of the long haired woman statue. It’s not a flat object, and yet the texture seems just perfect, so far from what I can obtain, which is just a bundle of pixels. How do you explain their result? And do you think maybe there will be some changes in the future software which will allow a better treatment of the textures?
Thank you so much for your time and extremely good advice, looking forward to reading you!
Thank you so much for your explanation. I understand better now. I will follow your advice and practice more today, I have a whole batch of objects to test. I’ll see if the results are better.
I have three last questions for you, if you don’t mind
what kind of situations do you think the MINI is best for, even better than photogrammetry ? For now I would say scanning dark objects but I’m not sure.
how do you scan so as not to have any holes ? Do you go over one spot several times, or does it confuse the scanner ? I find the promotional video quite different from the experience I have ^^’ it’s really not that easy nor fast, except if you want a rough shape with lots of holes.
at last you said earlier that I have to scan all angles at « slightly slower rotation ». What did you mean exactly ? Were tou talking about the turntable?
Number one are actually humans , but POP2 is better on this job .
I do mostly use it on small objects I create from clay or wax for prototyping where I can finish it digitally.
MINI after all was created to scan mini stuff , and much quicker than different methods.
Everyone use it for their own personal needs , so it is hard to tell what exactly , once scan their sculptures, others mechanical parts for references … so what I use it for is not exactly you want to use it for ., Very hard to tell.
I do not have any holes in my scans , and if the object is difficult to scan I create multiple scans from different angles and merge them together, if there is small missing part I use " close the hole" option as long it do not affect the detail , if it do I rescan another angle and merge it .
3D scanning is time consuming if you want it to be perfect , it is not one button solution yet , it never was but definitely better than before .
As with all tools you need to learn how to use it , and the workflow will be not the same as with other methods, once you develop your own workflow it going to be easier for you to archive your goals with it .
Check my YT channel, I have couple of videos there it may help you out . The link is under my icon , just click on it .
Yes slower rotation on the turntable when capturing color data , it helps out , however it only works when scanning everything at once in Revo Scan , you can’t scan partial scans with textures and merge it later into one , as you going to lose the UVs mapping in the process , that why I never create textures in Revo Scan , and keep my RGB data only so I can later convert the merged model into textures I want .
So if you want to use it efficiently, there is some learning curve to it as with any tools.
And it will be easier if you actually learn what it is all about and how it actually operates . So a lot of practices if you want a perfect results so you actually know what you doing .
I can’t tell you how , you need to go through the process and the best way to learn on your mistakes .
Real scanning is not about taking pictures of your object , so you have to approach it slightly differently.
Thank you very much for this ton of useful information. I will indeed make more tests before deciding whether the MINI is suitable for my needs or not. I have also taken the liberty of perusing through your videos, and I’m definitely going to try out your workflow, see what quality I can reach in the end, and to what extent some of the steps can be automated.
Anyway, thanks a ton again, I’ll let you know if I run into more issues