I’ve had a pop 3 scanner for a whopping 8 days and have several question/concerns. I purchased this device to assist me with reverse engineering and I will admit that I have no previous experience with this technology.
I’ve tried scanning ~28 different objects with and without scanning spray in many cases. I’ve read through the forum to answer my question’s and I still have a few. I’ll refer to scans of the sample bust provided in the kit.
Fusion - when adjusting the point distance setting in the standard method the slider allows a setting down to 0.05mm, the advanced method bottoms out at 0.2mm. this seems backwards to me but that’s not my concern. What I’m concerned about is that when fusion with the standard method my final mesh, regardless of what point distance I select, has the sandpaper appearance described in much of the forum content. While the advanced method is much cleaner. I’m not yet qualified to judge the quality of either meshes at this point. But I would like you to evaluate these results and advise me if these results are typical. See images attached.
When opening previous scans, a one-click edit function panel is placed in the upper-right-top corner, when executing this feature on a previously saved scan it always increases the point distance to a higher value than I used during the initial scan. I’m interested in why this function is highlighted in this manner when opening a old scan, and why the increased point distance seems typical. Is it that common for someone to reprocess an old scan? I suppose it depends on what type of objects the user typically scans. But it concerns me that both the grainy appearance of meshes when using any standard method point fusing, and the way the one-click edit function is highlighted when opening an older file, that maybe the the software, and maybe the scanner have limitations that are not obvious in your product descriptions.
In my attempts to learn the software and proper scanning techniques, I’ve tried many different approaches, found in the forum, to get consistent results. I just don’t have confidence in this device in it’s current state.
In the forum, one possible cause of the sandpaper appearance is scanner calibration. When attempting to run the calibration software, the program would sometime (but not always) perform a calibration check, which in my case would always fail, and then when attempting the calibration process, it would end by displaying an error which read “calibration failed, repeat”, or “a data transfer error”. It took more than 30 attempts to resolve that issue, which I believe was a USB power issue when my very expensive laptop was operating on its battery. With the laptops power supply connected, I successfully recalibrated the scanner last night, and the images I’ve attached were post calibration. I saw not difference in my scan quality from before the calibration, but I now have another concern, in that throughout the forum everyone is comparing accuracy check values against the 0.05mm standard, with this version of the software the calibration check does not report an accuracy value. This also make me question why that value is no longer reported.
I again admit that I am inexperience with this technology, and I really want to make this device work for me in my reverse engineering projects, but I’m struggling with these potential quality issues. Can you help me with this.