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.
And here is the Eva scan:
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.
A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
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?
May I ask what your current SLS system consists of right now, Micro?
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
As far as scan alignments go, what was the strategy used for the DAVID scans that works the best / most efficient?
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
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
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
LG PF50, LG PF1500, RangeVision DIY: 2x DahengMer630, 2X12 and 2X16 mm 5Mp ZK lenses, RV turntable
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
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.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
µ
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
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.
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.
LG PF50, LG PF1500, RangeVision DIY: 2x DahengMer630, 2X12 and 2X16 mm 5Mp ZK lenses, RV turntable
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 27 Jan 2020, 09:06
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
hi,
Micr0
I see your first image (in this section) and i'm surprised of your results (detail + smooth).
download/file.php?id=381&t=1
If i'm not in wrong (in this scan) you used a similar hardware to mine: Hp scanning pro software, Optoma ML750e, David Calibration panels, 2 david-cam-4-m (1920x1080)
Please tell me what kind of magical configuration did you use to reach this quality level? (I'm going crazy)
Thanks
Micr0
I see your first image (in this section) and i'm surprised of your results (detail + smooth).
download/file.php?id=381&t=1
If i'm not in wrong (in this scan) you used a similar hardware to mine: Hp scanning pro software, Optoma ML750e, David Calibration panels, 2 david-cam-4-m (1920x1080)
Please tell me what kind of magical configuration did you use to reach this quality level? (I'm going crazy)
Thanks
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
Not magic. The only obvious difference I can see is that I'm using an HD square pixel projector. I'm also using Imaging source cameras, but aside from a global shutter, I think they spec about the same.letstry001 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2020, 21:53 hi,
Micr0
I see your first image (in this section) and i'm surprised of your results (detail + smooth).
download/file.php?id=381&t=1
If i'm not in wrong (in this scan) you used a similar hardware to mine: Hp scanning pro software, Optoma ML750e, David Calibration panels, 2 david-cam-4-m (1920x1080)
Please tell me what kind of magical configuration did you use to reach this quality level? (I'm going crazy)
Thanks
µ
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 27 Jan 2020, 09:06
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
Ok thanks
What do you think about this one ? Optoma LH200 ?
Or is better to try to add macro lens to Optoma Ml750e? Any idea?
PS: I need to scan litle objects (normally under 6cm)
What do you think about this one ? Optoma LH200 ?
Or is better to try to add macro lens to Optoma Ml750e? Any idea?
PS: I need to scan litle objects (normally under 6cm)
Re: A Comparison of David and Artec Eva
i've tried lenses on the projector and never had good results. Projectors with interchangeable lenses are very expensive and tend to be low resolution. I think there is someone here that modified their projector with a different lens and maybe they can comment more in it.letstry001 wrote: ↑29 Oct 2020, 17:52 Ok thanks
What do you think about this one ? Optoma LH200 ?
Or is better to try to add macro lens to Optoma Ml750e? Any idea?
PS: I need to scan litle objects (normally under 6cm)
I thought about picking up an AXXA P5 as it has the ability to project a very small image.
One thing to consider is that with smaller objects you may have to bring the cameras in closer to the projector to get a good field of view. Most projectors are designed for a relatively short throw which will determine the focal length of your camera lenses (to get a properly sized image). with that optoma you asked about you may have to position the cameras over and under the projector to get them close enough for them so "see" properly.
µ