The green object was obtained using a "professional" ToupTek UCMOS03100KPA camera (3.1Mp / sensor 1/2 "/ 8fps) USB 2.0
Blue object with cheap camera YW500U3 (5.1Mp / sensor 1 / 2.5 "/ 25fps) USB 3.0
Model height - 110mm
Comparison of different cameras
- OBNRacerMan
- Posts: 372
- Joined: 12 Aug 2019, 09:46
- Location: Obninsk, Russia
Comparison of different cameras
Soft: RangeVision DIY, Calibration panel/Rotary tables - RangeVision, Prj: LG PF1500G, Cam: Daheng Mercury MER2-630-60U3M-L (USB3.0, monochrome) x2, Obj: ZLKC FM12036MP5 (F2.8/5Mp/12-36mm) x2. And a handheld scanner Creality Ferret
Re: Comparison of different cameras
Thanks for sharing. At a glance, the "cheap" camera seems to have better specs than the ToupTek. Not surprising the scans look more detailed. There does seem to be more noise in those scans however A common problem with higher resolution cameras.
µ
- OBNRacerMan
- Posts: 372
- Joined: 12 Aug 2019, 09:46
- Location: Obninsk, Russia
Re: Comparison of different cameras
This is not surprising - there are more pixels and less matrix.
However, it seemed to me that the dynamic range of a cheap camera is higher. If with the first camera a place painted 100% in red gave an artifact, then in the second the same place is often scanned normally.
But these simple Chinese cameras with Aliexpress also have drawbacks - both of my YW500U3 "red" cameras may require turning them on/off several times before a normal image appears (otherwise, either a black screen, or white, or stripes or low contrast). Although the exact same cameras (but with a larger body - black in the photo) from the same manufacturer work without problems. I liked the ToupTek camera - but scanning was too very very slow ... sold it.
Soft: RangeVision DIY, Calibration panel/Rotary tables - RangeVision, Prj: LG PF1500G, Cam: Daheng Mercury MER2-630-60U3M-L (USB3.0, monochrome) x2, Obj: ZLKC FM12036MP5 (F2.8/5Mp/12-36mm) x2. And a handheld scanner Creality Ferret