3DMakerPro has a new scanner called Lynx 3D scanner. The main difference between the Lynx scanner and the Mole is the Lynx will do a larger object with less accuracy. For the price, why not ?
My question is what is realistic accuracy that will translate to wood. The accuracy for the Lynx is 0.1 mm (0.004 in) and the Mole 0.05mm (0.002 in) . To me I would trade the accuracy for object size given that wood has replication limits. I will be using Red Oak for most projects.
I do not need the Color scan data option.
JMStudio is their scanner software with STL/OBJ export. That seems to fit the Carbide Create Pro work flow.
What are you hoping to scan and what are you hoping to do with the scan?
IMO, the software is critically important and from a quick peek at a couple of youtube videos, the software looks okay and better than what you normally get with cheaper scanners.
The alignment seems to be pretty decent but it looks like you can only scan a relatively short time before you have to stop and start a new scan. If that’s true, it would make it annoying to scan much larger objects and objects that are complex and require lots of specific scanning angles.
I was thinking of large objects so accuracy would be relative. I was hoping to do the front of a car maybe, I don’t know.
The price is fine for me. In my previous life these were $100k, which is still the price of metrology grade scanners.
Tom’s Hardware has a new review as of today.
There is a one liner at the bottom of the Lynx spec that says it can do “theoretically” 5000 mm.
2000 mm is 76 inches, 5000 mm is 196 inches. Hmmmm…
I’m not sure how important the low cost is for you. If you were willing to spend about $1K, you could also take a look at the Einstar scanner. I have both an Einscan SP (which is great for smaller objects BTW) and an Einstar (which sucks for smaller objects BTW). The tracking on the Einstar is quite good and no doubt due to the fact that Shining3D has been making high end scanners for a long time and have a lot of software experience that they are drawing on when making a sub $1K scanner. The Einstar has a resolution from 0.1mm to 3mm which provides a lot of flexibility.
One thing I notice with the Lynx is that the “accuracy” is 0.1mm but the resolution is 0.3mm. That sounds like a single point will be located within 0.1mm of the correct location but that the actual resolution will be 0.3mm. Which actually is more believable for moderately sized objects. A 5m^3 cube would be 12GB of data at 0.3mm resolution.
Which goes back to what do you want to do with the scans… At 0.3mm resolution, you can probably locate holes to a reasonable accuracy but if you want to do something other than locating holes, it may be more data than you want to deal with. For example, I have 2 scans I made of a male mannequin torso (it is waist to shoulders of a approximately 6 foot tall male):
The first is at 3mm resolution and the second is at 0.3mm resolution. The 0.3mm I had to simplify it down to 10% of it’s original detail as the full detail stl would have been 300MB and that is unruly to deal with!
You lose an incredible amount of detail with the 3mm resolution but what do you need the detail for? To exactly reproduce the fact that the plastic is not 100% smooth, the 0.3mm is better. At 3mm resolution, you completely lose the screws that are in the shoulders but at 0.3mm you can reference their locations. To make a part that covers the neck, the 3mm is going to much easier to work with and have plenty of detail to design around.
If you just want to have access to a scanner without spending more money, the Lynx looks pretty capable for mid sized scans. The more you know of what you want to do, the better you can decide if it works for your needs.
I grabbed one of the competing scanners, a Revopoint I think, to try it out and it was pretty disappointing for smaller items or items with textures. I don’t know about the Lynx specifically though.
I just stuck my finger in the light socket and bought the Lynx premium with the Android connect and 4m cable.
I was thinking larger objects. That would mean I have to scale the data down in order to be able to fit my 4 x 2 Pro 5 . That will reduce the accuracy because I will be tossing polygons during scaling.
I am not trying to make parts to fit, otherwise I would look for better accuracy/smaller cube.
So long as the software works well and results look reasonable, I think I will be ok.
I have made worse purchases ( race car) for more money.
12GB of data would be tough to keep in memory, I hope it has an option read/writes to disk (much slower) until I beef it up.
I would love to give it a try but would also love to hear your experiences first. The sale ends June 29th. Hopefully you can get yours before then and give it a try.