I am currently using a Revopoint3D POP2 scanner after trying a couple more expensive ones. It works pretty well, but I have only taken the data all the way to useful projects 3-4 times.
I purchased a Creality Ferret scanner a little over a month ago at the introductory price. Took a chance that it was as promoted. It arrived a few hours ago. Came well packed in a very nice semi hard case. That is the good news. EXTREME disappointment. Advertised to work with only a Cell phone. It might if I had a new $500+ phone. It won't even plug into my Android. That limits me to using my Windows 10 computer here on the desk. That leaves me with buying a new phone, a Win 10 laptop, absorbing the loss and move on to another scanner or selling it on eBay. Given the reviews I found with regard to the Win 10 software (which I have not tried yet) from people that have had theirs for a couple of weeks I don't know if it would be ethical to pass on this brick. My advice = DON'T buy one.
Shoe, you got me curious. So, here is a video from a techy guy who, also, was less than impressed. Denis
Denis, thanks for the video link. The Android stuff is beyond me. Test objects to scan....he did not read up on what works best. Most scanners say they don't work well with shiny and dark objects and people spatter paint and foot powder spray and what not as countermeasures. Revopoint included a small white matte resin bust of Julius Cesar that works perfectly with the scanner. Shoe, I had similar startup issues. I had to buy a new laptop to play and first 2 scanners (that were significantly more expensive than the Revopoint) were bad as I received them (former rental/hire units) and then they were discontinued by the manufacturer. Distributor paid for return shipping and refunded the scanner cost but I was stuck with the new computer until I got the Revopoint. Eventually the old laptop died (albeit temporarily) and I was able to use the new one right away without having to drive two hours there and back to the PC store, and it performs really well with the scanner software and other design programs that would not even load on the old laptop. Fusion360 is also faster on the new laptop. I should do more with the scanner. One problem I have is that I am not good at manipulating data on a point cloud or STL level, so I end up redrawing the scanned thing in 3D and use the scan data to check that I am in the ballpark for form and fit. I should take the time to learn a bit more so I can touch up STL files without re-inventing the wheel. I have the nice Ted Sykora model anvil from Thingiverse https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3840781 that is on MrPete222's channel on Youtube. There is one corner that prints with an undercut. If I could just move a few triangles around I would not have to try to fill in the model later. PS The video host did a nice job and I like his Dr. Who shirt and room staging.
Thanks for the link to the video. I guess I just got spoiled by my old NextEngine scanner. It worked. There were some things that needed some foot spray (that was the go to mat finish back then) but overall it did a pretty good job. The hype for the Ferret claims it will work outside - which the NE would NOT do. Based on what I saw in the video I don't think the Ferret will either - and that is one of the reasons I decided on this structured light unit for a 'free range' hand held scanner. I'll get a round to trying it on my Win 10 desk top next week. I'd try it with my wife's Android (much newer than mine) but given that I'm one of those paranoid types that won't download TikTok there is no way I'm going to load an app on her phone that hasn't at least been vetted by the the PlayStore. I've had good luck with my other Creality experiences, with the exception of their CrealityBox. At least it can be hacked. Edit: Another YouTube vid. If this is an example of the processing time the Ferret software is Glacial in speed. My old NextEngine software required manual tagging of the scans to synchronize but processed the data, on little more than an old 386, in a matter of seconds.
I also have the POP2, which has worked really well for reproducing some interior pieces. More notably, helped a company troubleshoot an issue with some highly custom stainless hydraulic cylinders not fitting/stroking correctly. Scanner paid for itself this job alone.
Update on my Ferret scanner: It will not work withe WIN 10 software on a desktop computer. Tried 2 different computers and both Creality and JMStudio software. Full power USB 3 ports and powered USB hubs. No connection. No support from the factory either. Bought an off brand tablet (far cheaper than a new phone of comparable specs) and it does work with that. Seems to scan well but is pretty awkward with a 7 inch screen trying to hand scan. Waiting on a USB adapter so I can 3D print a nice mount. The tablet app is not a nice as the desktop software for processing - at least from just looking at the interface, but the processing time is better than I expected based on others reviews.
I have the Creality Lizard scanner, I got it on the Kickstarter campaign which ended up as hot garbage. Creality pulled through and delivered the scanner, had to jump through some hoops. It was pretty much hot garbage when I first got it (april 2022?) but the software has drastically improved and I have climbed the learning curve to getting successful scans. As with any scanner, some items scan great, others require lots of prep work. I also had to purchase a "gaming" laptop with some balls to run it, ended up being a good purchase though. I am at the point where I can get consistently good scans with it of objects that fit it's envelope. I am pleased with it now that I know what it can and cannot do. One notable limitation is the power requirements, it has a separate power brick for 12v, so scanning in the field requires power accommodations. I also recently added a Revopoint MINI scanner to my toolset, the Lizard could not grab very fine details or capture small items with the quality I wanted. This scanner seemed to fit the bill on the details front. The software and workflow are very different from the Creality system, which was yet another learning curve. The hardware is extremely capable and captures the fine details I am looking for. However the Revoscan software, I am not impressed with, at least yet. The visual tracking is nowhere near as good as with the lizard. The field of view is a lot smaller than the lizard, making it tough to keep features in the window to keep the visual tracking happy. Reviewers seemed to have decent luck with larger items, which I had hoped it could do,I've not found this to be the case yet. I haven't messed with marker tracking yet as it's a hassle. It can do small items really well that the lizard cannot, but struggles with some larger items that the lizard had zero issues with. It is capable of mobile scanning on a phone, my phone is ancient so I haven't messed with it much, and not compatible with my tablet for some reason. The USB power is convenient and lends well to field scanning, though The scanners are excellent tools especially for mechanical / automotive use, I'm excited to see where the hardware and software goes in the next few years with it. We're going to hit a golden age of reproduction parts for hard to find or NLA parts soon, I think. I wish I had access to these tools of this quality 10 years ago. Cool as it is and all, my biggest hurdle is the 3d modelling / reverse engineering side of things. Working with the scan data digitally has been a challenge for me, I use Fusion360 and my skills with it certainly need honing. There may be better software out there, I'm stubborn and getting old and don't like to change things I'm familiar with, haha
You are not alone. I would have what I think is an extensive CAD background and still don't 'directly' work with the scans. Most of the time I use them as a guideline for building the actual cad. Don't get me wrong, I have pulled lots of useful data from them. I usually have the scan right over the cad part and really lets you know if you are on the money or not. I think dealing directly with a scan would be quite time/power consuming given they all come from at least a couple million point cloud.
So what kind of file results directly from the scan? STL? I've never got very far into the read because it seems people have a lot of problems with the scans and require a fair amount of work, like them not being (perfectly) syymetric, small irregularities in contour and surface anomolies, etc, especially if you are making techinical parts and want smooth surfaces to generate tool paths and precise poitions of machine features. I have imported a few STL files directly into my CAM program and was able to generate tool paths and machine the surface. Generally, it seems if they are good enough to print without exception, they're good enough to generate a CNC program machine. But if you need to modify or add features, better to ahve a solid and better yet to have created the solid yourself. If I know how the model is constructed it makes mods much easier. Oddly, I can import STLs into my CAM program but not CAD (Alibre), though Alibre can export STL. The other thing is (limited) work envelop. I have a friend that is into restoring old model engine powered teather cars from the 1940s and 1950s. I have cast a number of parts for him. The bodies are thin walled aluminum castings. Typical shapes are tear drop streamlines and midget race cars, and other period cars shapes. I told him to have a body scanned and if he had a usable STL, I'd give it a go, but would much rather have a good solid model. They are about 18" long. What is a typical scan envelop? Here's a couple examples. I think would just model the streamliner directly, but the midget and some of the other body styles would be quite a bit more work. They had cool toys in the 1940s & 50s. More of big boy toys though. Even back then they were 100mph+ Best, Kelly
With the Revopoint's included software, the point cloud is saved as a *.ply file and then it can be 'meshed' and exported to *.stl and *.obj formats.
Most any of the hobby grade scanners mention here should be able to handle that size with no problem. The biggest problem with the bodies shown is getting them to scan at all. They will likely need to be coated with something to make them non-reflective. If the original is valuable then post scan cleaning is a factor. There are sprays on the market now that claim to disappear after a few hours. I've not used them and they are expensive - compared to foot spray. My mini experiment with mothballs in solvent was very promising. Nice scan-able surface and no trace after a day of setting in the open. Smell is a downside. I used isopropyl alcohol as I had it on hand. There are better solvents available and the solvent chosen should also not damage the specimen.
So that's kind of a whole thing. The exported files are normal solids, .obj/.stl are the two I use. One of the big issues with mechanical components is the scanner can't grab the inside of the part if it's hollow (think manifold) so you'd have to model that from scratch. The scanners rely on line-of-sight. There are ways to get inside geometry (destructive sectioning, casts using silicone etc) but they seem like a lot of work (I haven't needed/wanted to mess with that) The scans are also fairly dense, some programs struggle just opening them. Reducing mesh points can also lose detail, depends what you need. The output isn't really suitable for direct machining. Modelling from scratch using the mesh as a reference is the way to go. Minimum triangle count, flat dimensional faces, no undesirable defects transferred from the original object. One of my projects requires adding draft back onto a machined flange face with machining allowance, to be made into a sand casting pattern. I haven't got to designing the corebox for it yet. There are some high-end ($$$$$$) software / plugins that appear to make reverse engineering a part relatively simple, ones called GeoMagic DesignX i think, there's workflow videos on YT showing their tools. If there's softwares like that for the average home-gamer I'm not aware of them But if you're scanning stuff like sculptures or carvings etc, something more organic that doesn't need tight tolerances the scan data can be used as-is. The data usually requires some cleanup work (there's "noise" in the scan data on occasion) and the mesh has to be sealed watertight for most cases. The consumer-grade scanner softwares can sometimes do this but sometimes you need another software utility to perform these operations. But you can 3d print these with ease (actually really cool to do) and CNC route stuff or any of the usual home digital manufacturing methods. It's cool, helpful but not the game-changer I was really hoping for, at least not yet. Most useful for me at the moment is getting reference geometry & measurements, grabbing flange port/bolt patterns is a breeze with the scanners I'll have to post some pictures up and maybe an Stl to show some results
