Ah, ok, I think I got it. The laser frame only being “hair size” is the reason I thought it would be easier. Fewer points in a frame, so fewer numbers to crunch. But the fact that it needs much more precise (and fast) tracking makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the clarification!
How easier ?
SLLP : Full Frames capture
LP : Hair wide Frame capture
SLLP : 360 frames to full capture
LP : 7000 to 25 000 frames to full capture
SLLP is always much easier and faster but LP more precise but slower for that reason it needs more markers for perfect tracking .
SLLP : can lose frame alignment
LP : clean capture, no ghosting , no losing alignment while scanning , no scanning while markers not visible
2 Likes
Can you tell us, how long the connection cable (MetroX <> PC) would be and if it possible to use a extention cable?
Thx
The cable I have with my beta unit is 2 metres. You could use a USB3 extension cable with it but it will need to be high-quality and not too long due to the bandwidth requirements. MetroX transfers a ton of data and any communications issues caused by bad signalling will result in dropped frames and tracking losses.
1 Like
I got it. But my original thought was: computational power (numbers per second to crunch) is: Number of - hm - numbers 
per frames times frame rate. It doesn’t matter for my computer how many frames in total I have to take. It just takes longer if I Need more frames. Then, my thought was: 60 frames per second vs 10 frames per second. But for each frame in SLLP there are muuuch more points collected than in laser mode.
360 frames times 100000 points per frame is the same as 20000 frames times 3600 points per frame. In the end I just want my 3600000 points.
And as the SLLP is much faster than laser (for the whole scan), there are (given the same resolution) more points per second. Therefore it would be obvious at first sight that this would be the more challenging task for the hardware. Same total number of points in shorter time. Plus the challenge of alignment without the help of well-known markers.
But you already pointed out that in the 25000 frames (which come in faster in laser mode) there is not only point calculation but also tracking, which needs to be a) faster and b) more precise and c) can only rely on the markers. This makes it clear to me.
I guess they went with longer ones then for production.
Yes you can use extension to additional 12 ft USB working just fine .
The main USB cable is 6 ft with USB A going to PC
It have a split where you connect the power between .
1 Like
SLLP : 7 millions points per sec
LP Cross : 800.000 points per sec
That’s all I can share with you at this moment , the rest you can find in the specifications on KS and how many points it capture per sec etc …
Everything above will still be as fast as your computer system , your SSD and other factors .
And I tell you straight if you don’t have M2 SSD with at least 3GB you gonna be choppy … how faster it can write it down how smoother the scanning experiences for Laser mode .
1 Like
I guess the final product will have longer cables then since the one we used was only 6 ft around 2m
That is also the reason why we should not share much because our beta units are not final units .
1 Like
All good! 
I was just curious why 800’000 points per second are computationally more demanding than 7 million points per second, which is indeed counter-intuitive at first glance. But it was really just curiosity, and I mean to understand why now.
My laptop easily meets the specs, with the exception of RAM which I will upgrade to 64GB.
2 Likes
It says 3m under FAQ on KS. But great to know one can add more than same length.
1 Like
Because of the frame size and how many points it can capture at once, you can use Full Field on a i7 8th generation tablet with 16GB of RAM , and Intel graphic GPU it don’t need that heavy system since it is different technology .
Using Laser it only capture 10% per second vs Full Field so it need a powerful CPU and GPU to collect the data faster . It was always like that using Laser technology . I suggest you do some research on Google with both technologies to understand better it’s differences.
1 Like
How many GB of free space do I need for scanning? I realize that is a pretty open ended question. My laptop currently has about 250GB free on it right now. Is that enough to do a couple reasonably large scans before offloading the data, or will one scan fill up that much space pretty much immediately? I ask because my laptop seems pretty much okay but it might be worth upgrading and I’m trying to prioritize if I do. I’m an 11th gen i7 with 32GB RAM, a 3060 graphics card and a 512GB SSD at 2.5GB/s. I can double the RAM to 64GB for about the same price as I can get a 2TB at 7GB/s SSD. It seems like the SSD is the better choice for scanning although more RAM makes more sense otherwise.
some pages I found related to comparison of SLLP and laser line scanning:
Laser Scanner vs Structured Light Scanner: which should you choose? - 3Dnatives!
2 Likes
Small objects projects can take from 1 to 2 GB of space .
You can calculate .
BTW I highly suggest you use your fastest SSD drive to save projects while scanning and later place it on different drive to be backup .
1 Like
Oh good. I was worried that if it needed 32-64GB RAM it would also need that much space or more on the SSD to store everything. I think I’ll hold off on upgrading anything until I have had a chance to play with the scanner and figure out if an upgrade makes sense.
For storage much less per project , but RAM is used a lot , depends of the size or the objects and details , you can always copy and paste the project after wherever you want , that why I do because I don’t want to clog up my OS M2 SSD but using it while scanning with Laser modes improve everything .
From what I have read, the Miraco Plus, when using its Calibration Bars, has slightly better Metrological accuracy (0.05mm/m) than does the MetroX (0.10mm/m).
However, the MetroX does not need Calibration Bars to attain its maximum accuracy.
The Miraco, of course, has everything built in while the MetroX needs a powerful computer and an external power supply to work. I look forward to experimenting with my Dell 7480 to see if I can get anything useful.
1 Like
