My first gaussian splat test on the POP 4, nothing mind blowing but I think it came out pretty well considering the lighting conditions weren’t ideal as I did the scan at night in low light. For reference the camera is about 10cm (4in) across, so it’s fairly small and compact. The Pop 4 did a good job capturing the smaller details even though it’s not really designed for scanning small objects, it’s more for medium sized objects from my understanding, but still impressive. This feature definitely sets it apart from the Inspire 2, which is my favorite 3D scanner, but that may change soon as I test the Pop 4 more.
Another test. This time I scanned my wife’s turtle jewelry case measuring about 7 inches in length (about 18cm) using the laser grid mode for a more detailed scan, but I did do a separate color scan for gaussian splatting.
The laser grid works really fast (especially in GPU mode) and I was able to scan the turtle top to bottom in about 1 minute, this would have been unheard of with other scanners in this price range just a couple of years ago and it even outperforms my Inspire 2’s IR parallel line laser mode in terms of scanning speed by a noticeable amount due to having significantly more laser lines which means less back and forth sweeps due to a higher rate of point cloud collection.
I’m definitely having fun with the Pop 4, I will be working on a review video that I hope to have release sometime in the next 6 weeks or so, but in the meantime I will post my test scans here.
The textures look amazing. You’re underestimating the results when you say they’re nothing impressive. Of course, they’re inferior to photogrammetry, but it requires better preparation with lighting and is clearly more time-consuming.
Thanks for the response and I’m glad you think the scans look great. Maybe I could have worded it better. I do think the scans I posted are very good, I was just trying to emphasize the poor lighting conditions in my setup and the fact that I know the Pop 4 can do even better in terms of gaussian splats if lighting conditions are optimal. The Pop 4 really is a great scanner that can work quite well in different lighting though
It don’t requires more preparation with lighting compared to Photogrammetry and is much faster in processing especially when using POP 4 , because the half work is already done while scanning the object volume .
I never had so much fun with Photogrammetry in the last 26 years as I have now with 3DGS
Most amazing things are not just the textures , but also semi and semi transparent materials , Photogrammetry lossing to it on so many levels .
The magic of perfect 3DGS is not really lighting but capturing all angles possible and not leaving dead spots , the software itself will correct the lighting automatic .
However for best colors a good LED lighting is required and I am not talking about the brightness
Perhaps there’s a language barrier. I’m saying that classical photogrammetry requires good lighting to produce good results. Then it would outperform this technology.
I do agree with you , yes it does, but the results of classic 3DGS already are beating photogrammetry not only on the visual part but also the geometry is much better. Finally something moved forward since 30 years …
