Scan of motorbike trim

Hi, new to the forum. I got my mini in the KS. I’m loving learning how to scan. I thought i’d share a recent scan as a way to introduce myself. I enjoy 3D printing and have a CAD background.

This was a scan with the intention to try to reverse engineer it later in Fusion 360 using T-splines for the surface parts. That is still to do!



3 Likes

Hi, It looks quite good, these bigger things tend to scan less easy.
Did you use markers?

I am also scanning some motorcycle parts. For instance an engine cover, but that one loses track every time.

No markers although i expected that I’d need them

The object looks to have enough unique features (if small enough to fit in the Field of View) that Marker mode would not be needed.

Very good results, except, apparently, at the end of one section.

Very good result considering MINI is not really made for scanning that type of objects . The name MINI stands for small mini objects after all .

Good job ! and welcome to the forum !

Thanks. Would the Pop2 or new Range be best for this sort of thing?

Seems like paint spray was used?

Range would be the best as you don’t have to deal with tracking and markers as the frame speed is to 20 frames per second but the accuracy is slightly lower than MINI of course , however if you scan to use it as reference for reverse engineering it may be just fine for the scale of the object, Range works best on scanning objects that are taller than 15cm and the accuracy totally acceptable for this kind of work as long the object is not very small of course.
After using all Revopoint devices , seems Range is my new favorite for bigger objects above 15 cm and most favorite for objects around 30cm in length/height

1 Like

to me looks like 3D spray as it vanishing quicker on the edges first …looks like AESUB Blue with a layer of 15 microns .

Great feedback, thanks! I’ll be keeping an eye out for the kickstarter

You’re also correct about the use of scanning spray.

1 Like

I’d be tempted to scan the whole thing using Range, then hit the detailed parts with a pop2 or mini.

Imagine couple of seconds top and bottom then merge , no POP2 needed for this size object since it is whole volume , at 35 cm distance it would be a perfect scan without hustle , tracking , whatsoever. Just perfect job for Range .

In order for the attachment points to be right, you may want them to be scanned at a higher resolution so that you can make sure they are dimensionally accurate.

You don’t got my reply but that is ok !

POP2 would be not more accurate at that object’s dimension here than Range , they both has the same resolution . I have both so I know what they are capable of as I made already testing comparisons .

You don’t need that high precision if you use the scan for a reverse engineering, unless you want to print it exactly as replacement then MINI would be the choice here and best fit .

i wasn’t saying to scan the entire thing with the pop2, i meant just the small scale critical dimension parts, like the points where the clips attach.

Perhaps better to scan the small, detailed parts with the Mini.

Of course, taking any scan into CAD software and using the scanned object as a reference template for a mechanical design allows you to make reasonable assertions about various features, such as deciding that a hole is exactly 0.1" instead of the 0.107" that the scanned object measures.

1 Like

Thanks Jeff … at least someone get it .

1 Like

POP2 accuracy is not the one you want to trust here with your dimensions.
So to scan just a parts or a whole thing really don’t matters .
In short scanning it with POP2 or Range will give you almost the same results .

If you want a really accuracy you will need to work with MINi and at max 10cm distance from the object to get the best accuracy and precision .

But you don’t have to do that if you use the scan for a reverse engineering process as it will be just a starting point or a template that allows you to build the proper model on top of it with the exact dimension and precision , the rest really don’t matters .

Most CAD software don’t even support this level of resolutions and the scanned model need to be simplyfied before you even can do anything with it .

I understand exactly what you mean and your idea behind but that is not really nesesery.

1 Like

@PopUpTheVolume I have question about the Ranger.

According to Revo’s specs, the Ranger’s resolution is worse than the original pop @ .2mm single frame, while the pop in .15mm. You are claiming that the Ranger has a similar resolution to the Pop2 @.05mm.

Which is correct?

I am not interested in a Ranger at .2, but if it is similar to a Pop2, then I might be.

Bruce

I know @1bigpig
That why I asked the team , as I expected much less quality but I was surprised, and for me it made no sense how it was even possible with that specifications to get the results I did .

Of course the specifications are not really final yet since the app also still improving , I even suggested to get the resolution to 0.05mm as there is still room for that .
The hardware is much better than the software version of 4.1.1 where Range don’t had as much fine details at all ( I suspect that where they test the accuracy with) , but ver 4.2 changed that dramatically so the accuracy and resolution results improved almost double but only with Range , POP2 was the same as before .

I made some tests and there is not really any difference at 30-35 cm distance between POP2 and Range and you can really get very fine details .
You can scan MINI bust with it , very good POP2 bust scan results ( less noises)

I can’t post my results yet but I can tell you , don’t miss the KS .

The difference is that the FOV is much bigger so you can’t scan at 15cm distance like with POP2 but most people do around 20-30 cm distance anyway .

I have no more needs for use POP2 as I have MINI for 10-25cm distance and Range starting at 30 cm so full range anyway .

I am very pleased with scanning faces and full body scans since Range scan them at higher quality where POP2 body scans was on the lower quality in comparison and more washed off compared to Range .
I suspect the structured light of Range is much stronger that why the details are much sharper .

You can scan full body with Range in feature mode where POP2 was not for that task unless used in Body mode what downgraded already the quality.

I hope it make sense .
I suggest you waiting for the showcase and see with your own eyes the real results .

Comparing Range in Revo Scan 4.1.1 to 4.2.1 (beta version) is like the resolution improved from 0.1mm to 0.02mm , what made it better than POP2 when scanning objects taller than 15cm .
So I am sure the specifications going to be adjusted as the new software deliver more as it was expected .

Originally MINI was supposed to have 0.1mm resolution as well but after many of my testings the optimal results changed to 0.02mm

It is impossible for Range to have accuracy of POP1 , if it deliver better results than POP2.

1 Like