<p>I am about to buy a 3D handheld scanner for a project (I'm an artist interested in rendering 3D models of my work). </p>

<p>What are the drawbacks of using lower precision relatively, inexpensive scanners? Are there concerns beyond precision?</p>

<p>For reference, I will need to capture 1 to 5&nbsp;mm detail.</p>

<p>EDIT: Example scanners I am looking at are found <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B06W9LMJKX" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> (cheaper) and <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B07PQF96QB" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> (expensive) both are giving resolution in mm</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-29T19:54:56.987Z
@user3737411 I have seen photogrammetry produce some really good results (meeting your 1mm expectation); but, they can require quite a lot of photos and also a lot of cleanup as shadows can mess them up a lot.
markshancock
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-29T19:57:21.123Z
@user3737411 What you are scanning also makes a big difference.  If the design is pretty simple except for distinct edges then the scan can be cleaned up in something like Fusion360 or MeshMixer.
markshancock
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T07:02:22.360Z
I think that this should be on-topic, see https://3dprinting.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/276/game-plan-what-is-on-topic
Greenonline
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T07:03:56.533Z
What are the comparative scanning resolutions of the cheap vs. expensive scanners? Could you edit and expand your question to include these details?
Greenonline
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T10:36:40.337Z
Note: resolution is not given as millimeters but as an angle for 3D - distance is relevant for scanning, as close objects get more detailed. We are talking [angular distances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_distance) for scanners! for example, a 1 mm line observed from 1 meter distance is 0.0573°, while on 300 mm (~1 foot), it is 0.191°. An apperatus that has a resolution of 0.1° would pick up a 1 mm object on (almost) 200 mm distance, but if the apperature had just 1° resolution the object needs to be 3.491 mm tall at the same distance!
Trish
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-22T05:52:37.170Z
Thanks for the updated question and the links, but please include the details from the links *in the question*, as it saves people time from having to click the links and look for it themselves. Help us to help you... :-) Also, when the links die, as they invariably do, then they won't be much use. Thanks.
Greenonline
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-22T06:09:12.623Z
At a simple glance, the Da Vinci Scanner Pro seems a bit borderline with 1-2.5 mm, given your requirement. The other Da Vincis and Nobels with 20-400 microns seem better. It is always better to overscan, rather than under scan. All for the EinScan seem ok too, with < 100microns, but no prices are given on the link that you provide. **However** as Trish correctly states angular resolution would be the main deciding factor and not the apparently random `resolution` or `single shot accuracy` specification given. I'm not even sure what they mean or how they are even measured.
Greenonline
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-22T17:44:47.403Z
Because cheap scanners have crap for resolution **and** crap for accuracy.
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-22T20:22:54.060Z
The expensive scanner looks like it will best scan items which are a few inches from the scanner.  Consider the two outer lenses, and the plane they are mounted in.  I would expect the scanner to be optimized for objects placed at the intersection of the three normals to the lens planes.  The distance between the outer lenses is larger than it looks, so the object can be bigger and further away.  The first picture looks like the scanner is 4 inches tall.  Other pictures make it look more like 18" tall.  Cheaper scanners will depend on better software.  Have you tried an app for your phone?
cmm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-23T08:41:31.753Z
@cmm Can photogrammetry based solutions get the same level of resolution? (maybe this is better suited as another question)
user3737411
<scanning><resolution>
Why use more expensive 3D scanners over lower precision scanners?
user3737411
# Why use more expensive 3D scanners over lower precision scanners?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-21)

I am about to buy a 3D handheld scanner for a project (I'm an artist interested in rendering 3D models of my work).

What are the drawbacks of using lower precision relatively, inexpensive scanners? Are there concerns beyond precision?

For reference, I will need to capture 1 to 5 mm detail.

EDIT: Example scanners I am looking at are found [here](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B06W9LMJKX) (cheaper) and [here](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B07PQF96QB) (expensive) both are giving resolution in mm

**Tags:** scanning, resolution

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I think that this should be on-topic, see https://3dprinting.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/276/game-plan-what-is-on-topic  
> **username_2**: What are the comparative scanning resolutions of the cheap vs. expensive scanners? Could you edit and expand your question to include these details?  
> **username_3**: Note: resolution is not given as millimeters but as an angle for 3D - distance is relevant for scanning, as close objects get more detailed. We are talking [angular distances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_distance) for scanners! for example, a 1 mm line observed from 1 meter distance is 0.0573°, while on 300 mm (~1 foot), it is 0.191°. An apperatus that has a resolution of 0.1° would pick up a 1 mm object on (almost) 200 mm distance, but if the apperature had just 1° resolution the object needs to be 3.491 mm tall at the same distance!  
> **username_2**: Thanks for the updated question and the links, but please include the details from the links *in the question*, as it saves people time from having to click the links and look for it themselves. Help us to help you... :-) Also, when the links die, as they invariably do, then they won't be much use. Thanks.  
> **username_2**: At a simple glance, the Da Vinci Scanner Pro seems a bit borderline with 1-2.5 mm, given your requirement. The other Da Vincis and Nobels with 20-400 microns seem better. It is always better to overscan, rather than under scan. All for the EinScan seem ok too, with < 100microns, but no prices are given on the link that you provide. **However** as username_3 correctly states angular resolution would be the main deciding factor and not the apparently random `resolution` or `single shot accuracy` specification given. I'm not even sure what they mean or how they are even measured.  
> **username_4**: Because cheap scanners have crap for resolution **and** crap for accuracy.  
> **username_5**: The expensive scanner looks like it will best scan items which are a few inches from the scanner.  Consider the two outer lenses, and the plane they are mounted in.  I would expect the scanner to be optimized for objects placed at the intersection of the three normals to the lens planes.  The distance between the outer lenses is larger than it looks, so the object can be bigger and further away.  The first picture looks like the scanner is 4 inches tall.  Other pictures make it look more like 18" tall.  Cheaper scanners will depend on better software.  Have you tried an app for your phone?  
> **username_0**: @username_5 Can photogrammetry based solutions get the same level of resolution? (maybe this is better suited as another question)  
> **username_1**: @username_0 I have seen photogrammetry produce some really good results (meeting your 1mm expectation); but, they can require quite a lot of photos and also a lot of cleanup as shadows can mess them up a lot.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 What you are scanning also makes a big difference.  If the design is pretty simple except for distinct edges then the scan can be cleaned up in something like Fusion360 or MeshMixer.  

---

## 0 answers

