I purchased MatroX through Kickstarter and am testing it.
The feature I was personally looking forward to was the object scanning method that can be used without a marker. Unfortunately, it does not work properly.
As shown in the attached image, even if you move it a little, the tracking is lost and garbage data is recorded.
I would like to know if this is a defect in the device itself or a limitation of object scanning. If it is the latter problem, unfortunately, it seems to have a tracking problem that is almost impossible to use properly.
I wonder if it can be solved through a future update.
Hi, are you using the “Full Field” scanning mode? Please note that if you are not using marker points, make sure that “Feature tracking” is selected.
Can you take a screenshot of the scan settings in the bottom right corner of Revo Scan 5 MetroX for us to help check?
There is a learning curve to scanning. How you hold it, how you move, angle, and distance. That’s one reason people like auto turntable mode. It eliminates all of that. It won’t work with everything, but it does work with a lot.
Not to say that there couldn’t be improvement in the feature tracking. Texture tracking would be nice as well. Hopefully we get that with updates. You will get better tracking with markers, but features track decently.
Try watching some YouTube videos of people scanning with IR scanners. They all work in a similar way. Watch how they do it, technique is important.
Current scanning feels like 3D printing at the beginning. A bit finicky but really cool when you get it. Auto turntable is as close to Bambu printers as we currently have in the hobby price range.
I think feature tracking hates markers. Look at this video:
I held the scanner still, with very subtle and slow movements up and down. Suddenly, as soon as the tracking indicator turns green, it starts moving like seen in the video. Often it’s even much worse, it starts spiraling very fast.
Interestingly, this apparently only happens when there are marker dots around (the turn table in this case).
Actually I have much more issues with small, feature rich objects than with larger objects with little features. After completely failing to scan a small Lego thingy I borrowed from my son, I tried with a wall power outlet (larger, not many features). This came out quite fine, although, also there the laser mode gave MUUCH better result.
As I don’t have any experience I really don’t know if laser scanning is per se simply much much better than full field scanning or if it is just easier, so I need to practise more on FF, or if the MetroX is very good in laser scanning and not so much in feature scanning, especially with feature tracking. No rant! I really don’t know.
FF to me always feels a bit like “uh, I hope the scanner doesn’t screw up… Sooooftly… No sudden move…please be nice…” While laser scanning feels more like "uh, here we are a not yet green, just give it another wipe… change hands? No problem. Lay it down, pick it up, start from a different angle… just rock-solid. Either it scans or it doesn’t, but it doesn’t hallucinate.
The field of view, the area that is being captured needs to be filled with enough features. The scanner can only perceive its position in space by coordinating with points in the frame. A small highly detailed object will not track well at all cause the details are not filling the width and height of the capture enough for it to understand. Surround small objects with other things. Crumpled up paper works really good. Then small objects will be captured real well. The tracking in full field feature mode is excellent if you understand this. Even if your model grows on the screen as you capture it, only what is currently in the frame will be understood for tracking. I think sometimes people think that since they have a large part scanned already on the screen and then they lose tracking that it is the scanners fault but it can’t see what has already been captured unless it is within a part of the current frame.
What you mentioned im the end is clear to me. But the fact that a small feature rich thingy surrounded by a big featureless “desert” will not be enough totally makes sense, I will try that later today.
But then again, surrounding a tiny object with feature loaded stuff would not make that much sense as then I can just as well go for marker tracking, right? So feature mode is only really meaningful when I have a larger object which fills a big portion of the FOV, and I don’t want to cover it with markers (e.g. because they would cover some features I want to have scanned), right?
And if I want feature mode for that reason, I need to make sure that I feed the tracker some features even when scanning the peripheral parts of my target, by surrounding it with e.g. paper pieces.
You got it! It does make more sense to surround objects with markers or marker blocks and use marker tracking or even global marker mode rather then waste time with paper or other objects. Markers are only visible at up to around 45 degrees so you will need some blocks with them on it also. Having a 3d printer is a big plus here. Global marker mode is fairly new and I have been meaning to see if it works with my old pop2 as I think it would breathe new life into the accuracy and reliability of even the older scanners.
Don’t forget you can use marker tracking in full field. This scanner (or the software) really likes marker mode.
Feature tracking is iffy right now. I get better feature tracking with my Inspire. This could partly be user error. This is a very different setup. I have only tried a few times so I could need practice.
i tried mine today and running newes firmware and 5.6.4 revoscan the full field mode is more on par with the 3dMakerpro Moose. it is super sensitive to the features of the object. wont be getting rid of my competitor's scanner yet (also larger field of view on the competitor's scanner perfect for large body panels) i guess i will stick to laser mode for smaller objects (what i really need the Laser modes for anyway)
