Hello Revopoint community!
I’m looking for advice on choosing a Revopoint scanner for detailed 3D scanning and analysis of biological objects, with a focus on creating models and detecting surface changes (e.g., texture variations, irregularities, or morphological details).
My use cases:Scanning small biological objects: plants, flowers, fruits, seeds (sizes from 10 mm to 200 mm) — to capture fine details like veins on leaves, petal textures, or seed surfaces.
Body parts: hands, feet, or other small anatomical features — for modeling and analyzing surface changes (e.g., skin texture, minor deformations, or asymmetries).
Goal: Create high-resolution 3D models for further analysis (e.g., in MeshLab or Blender), 3D printing, or research (morphology, medical/educational purposes). Ability to detect subtle surface variations (e.g., roughness, bumps) is key.
My considerations:Budget: Around $500–$1000.
I’m leaning toward the MINI 2.
Has anyone used the MINI 2 or other Revopoint scanners for similar biological/anatomical scanning? Which model would you recommend for precision on small, delicate objects? Any tips on software for surface analysis (e.g., detecting changes via Revo Scan or exports)?
Experiences with challenges like shiny/wet surfaces?
Thanks in advance for your insights — looking forward to your recommendations!
Mini 2 would be great for that but MetroX or MetroY Pro would be better because the auto mode have better capacity of capturing finest details on a very small objects , and Full Field since both use blue light as well .
So your choices are Mini 2, MetroX, MetroY Pro only.
Please note that Mini 2 is not as good with shinny or wet surfaces , the other can handle it better but this kind of surfaces are generally not 3D scanning friendly , wet surfaces will disturb the surface while scanning so not recommended .
For surface analysis you can use free software like Cloud Compare , load both scans at the same time for analysis, massuments etc .
Hi. These are official recommended PC requirements. Revopoint also recommends to use only 3000er or 4000er Nvidia GPUs (even some other Nvidia GPUs work,too, but it might be hit or miss )
I’m a bit confused how the Metro series can capture finer details than a Mini 2, when the (on paper) specs state 0.05mm and 0.02mm fused point distance respectively. I’ve always assumed that fused point distance is effectively resolution and therefore related to the smallest detectable feature.
For instance, if I was concerned with picking up the fine grain in leather, I’d assume that a scanner with a 0.02mm fused point capability would collect more detail than one capable of 0.05mm. Have I got that wrong?
Of course the OP’s question about shiny surfaces would mean that Metro series would be the better choice if the majority of their subjects are reflective.
The accuracy is build in the scan already and can’t be changed. That has nothing to do with resolution . MetroX laser mode fusing use 0.15 Vs mini 2 0.02 mm yet both produce the same results. In my case MetroX blue light auto mode capture much more finest details than Mini 2 what only have Full Field , Auto mode is slightly different and more precise than Full Field .
Setting everything in full high settings don’t always gives you the best results either .
Why you think MetroX has Full Field and Auto Mode ? Because it is the most precise mode available on the market in the customer range price. MetroY Pro is for that reason the best precision and accuracy 3D scanner produced to date by Revopoint .
I am aware of the differences between resolution, accuracy and precision. But here I’m talking about - on paper at least - the fused point distance effectively being the nominal sampling density (0.02 mm on the Mini 2 vs 0.05 mm on the MetroX) which should mean that the Mini 2 can pick up smaller surface features (like veins in a leaf or fine leather grain). That level of fine detail was what I interpreted from @HzA‘s original post - and I’ll potentially be interested in that sometime in the not-too-distant future.
But I think that you’re suggesting that in practice, real-world results suggest that the MetroX Auto Mode picks up finer details than the Mini 2?
I just want to point out that the grain in leather and the veins in a leaf have a size would be measured on the tenths of a mm so 0.1 and the difference between 0.02 and 0.05 is a incredibly small detail and cannot be detected buy the human hand. the real thing that you are looking for is noise in the sample if you have high noise than a detail can be lost in the averaging of the sample.
some devices even when very noisy but when averaged can be incredibly accurate when measurement is involved but the detail is lost due to the averaging and some devices with low noise can be inaccurate but reveal incredible detail
You see , the way the Auto mode capture are still frames and usually 3 of them per second, it is very stable capture compared to Full Field , it has different pattern compared to only one in Full Field , so different technique . Usually $26K scanners use that scanning technique . It is to prevent the shaking and eliminating additional noises.
You see here are fusing at 0.15 mm , fusing it at 0.02 mm will not give you more details but more noises. BTW it is laser scan with Trackit. The specs on paper are always downgraded by Revopoint , but the accuracy will be never get greater than 0.02mm with handheld scanners as that is technically impossible. Accuracy of 0.05 mm would not allow you to capture the details below .
MetroX Auto mode can very well capture the human pores or micro wrinkle on the lips and generate full mesh of it without limitation . Considering the budged price , it is better to get MetroX than Mini 2 you get 4 scans in place of one for all occasions and sizes.
The thread detail on the cap head bolt is very good, I was concerned about this with some other scanners I have seen. its good to have in RE so I can measure tread pitch. that is one of the things that I liked about my photogrammetry set up
Thanks you , I actually once printed it and screwed it in without any issue just because why not .
The massuments of the tread was very accurate with the original . I don’t even expected Trackit to get it so well . But as usually Revopoint always downgraded it’s specs that in reality are always much better.
The bolt is my benchy in my beta testing for all scanners. If it don’t pass the massuments dev.team hates me
This may not be a very fair question, but are there any significant advantages to the MetroX compared to the competitor Raptor? Sorry. I am standing between choices.
In this community we only discuss Revopoint’s products .
But I am surprised that after all the messages and responses you just blindly mention another scanner that have nothing to do with your needs . Since it can’t do anything you need it for since it can’t archive the accuracy to begin with. Neither it is made to scan living objects.
I’m sorry for any possible breach of communication etiquette and ethical norms. As this would be my first purchase of a device like this, it’s only natural for doubts to creep in. Thank you for the insightful discussion—it truly put them to rest.
That’s ok , I recommend you purchase it via Amazon , test it out for your need, get some tips here if you get lost and keep it if it is what you are looking for or return it back if it do not worked for you. Easy task
Beside Mini series or Metro series there is really nothing that can archive the level of accuracy in the price range on the market , unless you want to spend $26 K for it .
If there was any better for that price I would have it already
