Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fuel 3-D Claims to be a High-Res, Point and Shoot 3-D Scanner (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on from the two-dimensions-was-more-than-enough-for-grandpa-so-it's-more-than-enough-for-us dept.

The Fuel 3-D website has a blurb that says, "The world’s first handheld point-and-shoot, full color 3D scanner. Our planned list price is $1500 but by placing your advanced order now you pay only $1,250. Fire up your creativity!" We've thought about getting a 3-D scanner ever since we first messed with a 3-D printer, but we've thought more about something in the sub-$300 price range than in $1000+ territory. But that's just us. There is no doubt a healthy market for 3-D scanners to use in commercial applications where $1250 (or even $1500) is hardly worth noticing. Ah, well. Maybe we need to look at the The DAVID website which describes their device as an "Incredibly Low-Cost 3D Scanner for Everyone!" Their 3-D starter kit is only $529 from a randomly-selected U.S. reseller, which isn't too bad compared to the alternatives. But waiting for prices in this market niche to come down is another possibility, and it's one a whole lot of individuals -- including us -- and smaller companies will probably choose. (Alternate Video Link)

25 comments

  1. Re:I claim to be God! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You? A god?

    Can't be, I've never seen you at the meetings.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. $529? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that $529 scanner is useless without the $2,800 software...

    1. Re:$529? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Informative

      Buy it straight from DAVID and it comes with the software

      $529USD is actually a pretty good deal for the kit, considering that the software alone retails for around $360.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:$529? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Or you could buy a $349 scanner with free software, SDK, etc that is useless without the $400 iWare..

      https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...

  3. I remember one 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it used laser scanning for the 3d, and texture mapped the camera image on that

  4. Can't have researched competitors much by smart_ass · · Score: 4, Informative

    we are not aware of any of these handheld systems that collect color data in addition to 3D geometry.

    http://www.creaform3d.com/en/t...

    http://www.artec3d.com/hardwar...

    http://www.vorum.com/english/p...

    I am sure there are others.
    Having used all three of the above linked devices, the key is in the software. The hardware is but a small piece of the puzzle.

    --
    Ouch ... did I just say that.
    1. Re:Can't have researched competitors much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Another, this time shameless plug: Antera 3D using the same method as Fuel 3D.
      Instant 3D visualization (several images per second), resolution 5 times better than Fuel 3d, on the market for 4 years.

    2. Re:Can't have researched competitors much by Alef · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, calling their accuracy, by which they mean noise level on a perfectly flat surface, of 0,3 mm on a 35 cm (diagonal) field of view "extremely high resolution" is quite a stretch. High compared to other cheap scanners, possibly, but at least an order of magnitude worse than industrial scanners of similar format.

      I think it is an interesting concept to combine photometric measurements with geometric stereo in a single handheld unit, trying to get the best of both worlds, so to speak. But it certainly feels like they are overselling it.

    3. Re:Can't have researched competitors much by Alef · · Score: 2

      After having read some on their website, I get the sense that the primary novelty of Fuel3D is not the technology, but who they are marketing it towards. There are plenty of scanners, like the ones you mention, that have equal or better performance characteristics, but they pretty much always seem to be marketed towards either medical applications or manufacturing industries. Fuel3D, on the other hand, have the slogan "Fire up your creativity", visit Maker Faire, and so on. I imagine they hope to break into an emerging market segment before the other guys catch up.

    4. Re:Can't have researched competitors much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what happened to the concept of a volume control on videos these days? I clicked on the Creaform link and went to a video

      CREAFORM!!!! SIMPLY THE RIGHT FIT!!!!!!

      AAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHH! Yet another video player with a slightly different interface and no fucking volume control!

  5. Extrapolate 3-D solid from a 2-D picture by phrackwulf · · Score: 1

    So I can play around with a part in http://freecadweb.org/ without caring about the measured tolerances.

    --
    What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
  6. What does the back look like? by mspohr · · Score: 2

    OK. I know nothing about 3D scanners but the subject of TFA and the others mentioned here all seem to be just stereo image capture. These might be useful for something but certainly not for duplicating the object in a 3D printer.
    To me, real 3D captures an object from all sides... a 360 degree sphere. These 3D cameras just capture one side view and try to calculate depth of that side from stereopsis.
    So... beyond making slides for my View-Master, what good it this?
    http://www.fisher-price.com/en...

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:What does the back look like? by Alef · · Score: 1

      They use stereopsis for coarse scale depth and photometric stereo (three directions from the looks of it) for finer scale structures. And they seem to be using some tracking target to compensate for motion between these captures. Not a bad idea per se, but I don't think their numbers are particularly remarkable.

      I'm not aware of any 3D capturing technique that captures an object "from all sides", unless it's comprised of multiple individual scanners who's data you then stitch into a single model, or a moving scanner (relative to the object's reference frame, so the object could be the one moving), in which case you're really building the model out of lots of tiny scans at different positions (e.g. sheets). In principle, either of these are more or less orthogonal to the choice of scanner. You could do it with this scanner; you'd just put them all in a box and calibrate the extrinsic parameters using some reference object.

      The only things that I can think of that could be remotely considered scanning from "all sides" would be something that penetrates the object, like an x-ray CT scanner, ultrasonography or something of that sort, but that would be stretching it.

  7. All in One by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

    When will they have 3-D all in one machines? Scan, copy, and print.

    1. Re:All in One by laird · · Score: 1

      There's not too much mechanical advantage in combining scanning and printing into once device, and they're too complex/expensive to combine because the combination would be too expensive and force users into bad compromises. This is different from 2D scanners and printers, because they're commoditized, so (1) the combination is cheap, and (2) you don't really care about the differences between specific scanners (or printers) because they pretty much do the same thing. In the 3D world, the different scanners (and printers) are very different, and they're expensive, so you're likely to research and select them independently based on your specific needs. Some day, when they're much more mature/commoditized, bundling them might make sense. But for now, it's too soon.

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
  8. "individuals -- including us" -?! by lazylion · · Score: 1

    Begin-Stupid-Rant
    I really hate it when a person writes about themselves in the first person plural. For some reason, it just irritates me. How many of you [the poster] are there? If only one, please write like it. It feels like you rubbed my fur the wrong way when you wrote that.
    End-Stupid-Rant

    1. Re:"individuals -- including us" -?! by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      Tim Lord and me. That's two people, therefore plural.

    2. Re:"individuals -- including us" -?! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We are the King.

      All others are serfs.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:"individuals -- including us" -?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why WE are royal, and YOOOOOUUU- are servile!

  9. Fuel3D is one of the best scanners I've ever used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm an Industrial Designer and Manufacturing Engineer with a 3D printing startup. I've used just about every 3D scanner on the market right now at various points in my career (I'm also a beta developer for the Kinect for Windows V2); including the Creaform, Artec, and Vorum.

    There are two key differentiators here I need to point out for y'all:

    1) Scanning speed, and ability to sweep: this is a pro and con about the Fuel. Unlike other scanners like those I just mentioned, it cannot do a sweeping scan, your scan data is limited to what it can capture in its view frustum. With those other scanners, you 'paint' your subject, carefully not moving two fast or two far from the target, until enough data is collected (this can be a laborious) process; and the fuel cannot 'paint'. That said, the fuel captures its target in less than a second. With it's flash bulbs all firing off in rapid succession. This is particularly useful if your scanning a living target like a human or animal. Also, it's safe for face scans, which the some afore mentioned scanners (including the David) which use lasers, are not.

    2) Cleanlyness of the mesh- depending on the scanner you use, the mesh data can vary dramatically, which has a huge impact on how easy it is to manipulate the scan data, especially for boolean operations and general modeling tasks. One of the stunning things about the Fuel is the quality of the mesh it produces. It's unbelievable to me that the Fuel's mesh cleanlyness is far far better than that of the Creaform and Artec which cost 10x+ its price.

  10. Re:Fuel3D is one of the best scanners I've ever us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it upskirt?

  11. spart38 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DAHA GÃster Neler bekliyoruz ... de 3d Olacak
    http://www.akcayaktifemlak.com/