POP 1 vs CR Lizard: POP1 result with the last software and comparison with last Creality scanner

Showcases POP Series
1

Hello everyone,
today I present a post I think may be of interest to owners (like me) of the first Revopoint scanner: the POP 1.
This is the first Revopoint scanner I have used (even with exciting results) although the software was still quite raw at the beginning! Despite this, I loved (and still love!) this scanner.
In recent days, having had the opportunity to use the latest version of the Revo Scan software (already Handyscan) with the MINI and the POP 2, I promised myself to carry out a test with the POP 1:
I wanted to understand if with the new software (which showed improvements with the latest Revo scanners) had improved results with POP 1.
To carry out this test I used a wooden sculpture (which those who follow me have already seen used as an example in several posts) with the following characteristics: dark wood, in contrast with lighter areas, shiny areas.
Below is the result of the scan:

Senza nome
Senza nome1294Ă—1184 61.9 KB

Senza nome 2
Senza nome 21294Ă—1184 99 KB

Senza nome 3
Senza nome 31294Ă—1184 105 KB

Senza nome 4
Senza nome 41294Ă—1184 57.1 KB

Senza nome 5
Senza nome 51294Ă—1184 104 KB

Senza nome 6
Senza nome 61294Ă—1184 101 KB

Senza nome 7
Senza nome 71294Ă—1184 54.9 KB

Senza nome 8
Senza nome 81294Ă—1184 50.4 KB

The result seems to me to be amazing: really clean point cloud and the resulting mesh that is clean and rich in details, and with (almost) zero artefacts. The sculpture was scanned in three main parts (+ detail of the upper part of the head), subsequently aligned and meshed with Meshlab.
In short, the Revopoint team did not leave behind the first POP (which is still in the catalogue).

As I wrote in the title of the post I decided to make a comparison with the latest Creality scanner.
Below is the result. Although (on paper) it has “better” characteristics than POP 1, the result seems to me to speak for itself.

Creality’s software, CR Studio, is a professional-looking software (even if the Mac version is not fully functional) but it is, all in all, difficult, or rather, not intuitive to use. If you compare the images of the result with the POP 1, apparently it does not look so different, but in reality, numerous artefacts/noise/roughness, are visible caused by the presence of contrast between light and dark areas on the surface (see the area of the neck and left shoulder) and poor resolution (see the top of the head, hair strands).

Senza nome 9
Senza nome 91294Ă—1184 67.5 KB

Senza nome 10
Senza nome 101294Ă—1184 65.2 KB

Senza nome 11
Senza nome 111294Ă—1184 119 KB

Senza nome 12
Senza nome 121294Ă—1184 77.2 KB

image
image1294Ă—1184 73 KB

image
image1490Ă—1274 99 KB

POST SCRIPTUM - I WOULD UNDERLINE THAT IN NONE OF THE TWO TESTS WAS ANY KIND OF SOFTWARE EDITING PERFORMED and / or IMPROVEMENT OF THE RESULT

6 Likes
2

Thx for sharing!
I absolutelly agree, POP1 is still a great 3d scanner to work with!

1 Like
3

Hi ivan,
Thanks for your appreciation

1 Like
4

Thanks! Davide
Very helpful and clear comparisons for other users.

1 Like
5

Great comparison Davide,

That was the reason I cancelled my KS pledge for the Lizard , it was below the quality of POP2 and you can see that from the start .
What really interested me was the color kit , but until today , nobody made any clear video about it to see if that really worked as it was presented.

BTW the professional looking software credits belongs to Artec :joy:

Keep up the good work :+1::blush:

3 Likes
6

Hi PUPTV,
Thanks!
I also have the color kit

As soon as I understand how it works (if it works!)

I will do some tests to compare it to the texture of the POP2 and MINI.

2 Likes
7

Thank Selina!
——————

1 Like
8

That’s great :+1:

Thanks Davide , you suppose to have an option to use your own camera or a phone to capture separately the pictures for the textures so that is going to be interesting !

Can’t wait to see the results !

2 Likes