A Comparison of David and Artec Eva

Write here about construction, ideas, equipment, tips n tricks etc. related to structured light scanning
Post Reply
User avatar
Micr0
Posts: 363
Joined: 15 Nov 2016, 15:20

A Comparison of David and Artec Eva

Post by Micr0 » 13 Dec 2017, 14:49

This is an older scan of mine done with David 4, an optoma ML550 projector and one Imaging source 173 camera. Next is an Artec Eva with artec Studio 12.1. Same scan subject.
BlockWatermark1.jpg

And here is the Eva scan:
Block Eva Watermark2.jpg
FYI this was manually processed in Studio 12 using sharp fusion on the default setting.

The Eva was MUCH faster. Almost no setup time. It got deeper features much better and was far less effected by surface prep. By the same token Artec Studio feels much more like a modern piece of software. It feels far more refined, simple, fast and over all it works well. However for this size object it is not great. Passable at best. As you can see David gave a much sharper and more detailed scan. Accuracy was proportionally better with david too. Artec specs the Eva at +-.4mm and that about what I got measuring with in Studio. With David and the above mentioned setup I got +-.05mm and now with a dual camera system am getting better than that. Artec does not have the alignment problem that David has when calibration isn't perfect. There is no calibration requirement with Eva. Studio also can compensate for slightly missmatched scans though that does reduce accuracy. This "flexible" alignment would be a great feature if added to david especially if there were user controls as to how to implement flexibility.
µ

Alonso
Posts: 25
Joined: 05 Dec 2016, 05:55

Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva

Post by Alonso » 15 Dec 2017, 18:05

Excellent work Micro. The results from the Eva scan aren't nearly as desirable as David's.

May I ask what your current SLS system consists of right now, Micro?

DasUltra
Posts: 2
Joined: 27 Dec 2018, 19:15

Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva

Post by DasUltra » 27 Dec 2018, 19:26

As far as scan alignments go, what was the strategy used for the DAVID scans that works the best / most efficient?

mading
Posts: 109
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 13:09

Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva

Post by mading » 28 Dec 2018, 22:23

Great results Micro.
Regarding the camera, I think the UX173 is discontinued, only UX174 available now. Is the ux173 a global shutter 1/1.2 too?
It would help knowing the kind of lens you used. I guess the projector lens is the original one.

Still I'm working in order to reach these levels!!
Maybe one day..

Best wishes

User avatar
Micr0
Posts: 363
Joined: 15 Nov 2016, 15:20

Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva

Post by Micr0 » 29 Dec 2018, 16:46

mading wrote:
28 Dec 2018, 22:23
Great results Micro.
Regarding the camera, I think the UX173 is discontinued, only UX174 available now. Is the ux173 a global shutter 1/1.2 too?
It would help knowing the kind of lens you used. I guess the projector lens is the original one.

Still I'm working in order to reach these levels!!
Maybe one day..

Best wishes
RE the UX173: looking at the IS web site I cant see the difference between the 173 and 174. The specs look the same. As for lenses, Hi definition lenses for C mount cameras are Expensive. I have posted a lot on lenses. The quick tip however is look for used, name brand SLR lenses (not DSLR. you don't need the bells and whistles). The name brand stuff (cannon, Nikon etc) is all excellent glass and extremely well made. Get a C-mount adapter and you good to go. Just take into account the focal lengths are different on SLR stuff and the c-mount adapter will change that too.
µ

mading
Posts: 109
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 13:09

Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva

Post by mading » 29 Dec 2018, 20:48

Thanks Micro.
I will give a look at the old posts in David forum.
An old lens with manual aperture it's more suitable than my eos lenses. Also the sensor in 23ux236 claims for a 10-12 mm lens. With a bigger sensor (and a projector with bigger throw ratio than the acer k132) you can use longer lenses.

Post Reply