I’m Mark, an independent 3D scanning specialist and artist based in the Pacific Northwest, US. I’m applying to be a beta tester for the Q4 New Product Launch Series.
I spent 11 years in the footwear and apparel industry, where I helped establish a 3D footwear production studio and later trained partner studios in China, Korea, and Taiwan on our scanning and production workflows. My enterprise work covered scanning process development, archival capture, and digital asset library building. I worked with Artec 3D’s Space Spider and Eva scanners and Artec Studio, alongside photogrammetry, material scanning, and rapid prototyping.
In my home studio, I recently picked up a POP 4. Attached is a scan of a Men’s size 9 On Cloudmonster Void, captured with Laser Line scanning in Color tracking mode using Revo Scan 6 (v6.4.2). The shoe is a good stress test because it packs layered mesh, a perforated microfiber tongue, and reflective details into one object, all of which challenge a scanner’s ability to hold fine detail. The POP 4’s RGB camera does well at 1.3 MP, but I’d love to see what Revopoint’s upcoming products with higher-resolution sensors can do on a subject like this.
If selected, I’d report on detail retention, tracking, color and texture quality, and the experience of processing the data in your software. You’d get clear, structured, well-documented feedback from someone used to holding scan data to production standards, plus results I’m glad to share with the community.
Thanks for your consideration. Much of my enterprise work is under NDA, but I’m happy to answer questions or share more references privately with the team.
The Cloudmonster Void seems like a tricky target given the layered mesh and foam, so I’d be curious how the POP 4 handled the transition between the upper and the sole. Did you find the darker Void colorway affected scan capture at all, or was it mostly about the surface texture? Also wondering how much cleanup the shoe scan needed before it looked presentable, since footwear tends to have thin edges around the laces and collar.
The upper-to-sole seam is the part I’d expect to cause trouble with any structured-light setup, so I’m curious whether tracking held through that step or needed markers. On the colorway question, dark foam usually costs some contrast against the RGB tracking, though matte finishes tend to behave better than glossy ones, so the Void’s texture may actually help more than the color hurts. Cleanup around laces and the collar edge is where I’d want to hear real numbers, like whether thin features survived or had to be rebuilt by hand.
The most significant factor here is that I scanned the shoe in Revo Scan 6 using the Laser Line scan mode with Color tracking on the POP 4. It’s a big step forward, and I don’t think many people have experimented with it yet.
Revo Scan 6.4.1 (October 2026) added Laser Line scanning to Color tracking. It needs a computer with a dedicated graphics card and POP 4 firmware newer than v5.3.99. The same update also lets laser scans use Texture Capture with extra phone or DSLR photos, and supports 3DGS training after merging.
Every time the issues you both raised came up, Laser Line with Color tracking outperformed Hybrid HD in my testing. That covers the upper-to-sole transition, the complex materials, and the thin edges around the laces and collar. On the transition, tracking held cleanly through it, with much better results when using reflective markers.
I’ve attached screenshots of the point cloud after running 0.30 mm HQ Fusion. After meshing at 0.30 mm, it only needed light manual cleanup on the edge of the tongue and deeper collar lining. This was made from two aligned scans, and nothing needed to be rebuilt.
Compared with the Artec scanners I’ve used on similar footwear, I’m very impressed with the POP 4’s updated native capabilities.
