# Specific 3D Printers, Scanners, & Hardware > MakerBot Forum >  The MakerBot Digitizer - Horrible Quality?

## BurnItDownBaby

I browse around Thingiverse quite a bit, and I love to look at all the different designs.  However, there are so many times where I see people that have made scans of things using a digitizer, and I must say that the vast majority of these scans look horrible to me.  I mean, here is one that MakerBot posted themselves, meaning they think it was worth showing off.  Even this one looks pretty bad to me:



This is actually a good one compared to the others I have seen.  I just don't remember the URLs, or I'd post them here.  Has anyone actually seen a Digitizer make something that looks good?

----------


## eveninggown

It really depends on how much detail you need to scan.  That gnome above has a lot of detail, thus it isn't all captured.  You aren't going to be able to replicate small details unfortunately.  Perhaps the Digitizer 2, whenever it comes out will be better.

----------


## greatestalive

I think right now this is the best scanner out there that is realistically priced.  The Sense scanner doesn't do any better in my opinion.  We will see advances in scanning technology just like we will with print quality.

----------


## ImaginationProgress

Here are a couple more thingiverse scans I saw today.  Utterly horrible looking in my opinion
Of a rubber ducky:


And a PS3 Controller.  


What the hell is the point of having a scanner if it can't scan?

----------


## RobH2

That PS3 controller is just awful. Yikes....

I was initially excited about the Sense Scanner (http://cubify.com/Products/Sense) but think it's only good for things the size of a football and up. I'd like to find a good scanner for things the size of a golf ball and smaller.

----------


## jimc

the controller is pretty typical of all the scans i have seen. many have been even worse than that. i really dont see the point of a scanner either

----------


## RobH2

Well, it depends on your point of reference. You can't always be proficient in everything and if you've never built models in 3d then a good scanner could be a welcomed tool in the kit. I've been doing 3d animation for 19 years and I have to say, that there are still times when I just can't get something modeled the way I want it without putting in hours and hours. I decent scanner could open a whole now world to people who just want to copy items. If there was a good scanner for small items out there I'd consider it. 

For example, my wife has been watching me do all of these 3d prints lately and a few weeks ago she handed me this hair clip and said, "this is the best hair clip I've ever used and if you could make it for me it would be fantastic because they charge $25 for them." So, off I went to model it. I have to tell you, it looks simple but its very organic and oddly complicated. I have about 8 hours of modeling in it and I don't have it complete yet. If I had a good scanner that could get me 95% of the accuracy that I need, I love to have it. In a production environment a good modeler will cost you $100-$150 an hour. So 5 hours modeling something gets expensive. 

I for one see the benefits of having a good scanner. However, there is no room nor love lost for a crappy one. And the one above is way worse than crappy. But like any emerging technology, you have to start somewhere and selling those crappy ones to the people who just have to buy the "latest thing" generates revenue so that the next iteration can be designed and hopefully be made more precise. Let's wait another two or so years and I bet there will be a selection of pretty darn good hand scanners.

----------


## ImaginationProgress

Here are a few more.

A toy Hammer


An Army Man


A Brush Head

----------


## RobH2

I'm wondering why anyone would put these on Thingiverse. What's their goal as no one would download these things and print them? 

What I do find interesting is that the scanner is "trying" to work on all the brush fibers. That has to be a nightmare for a scanner. I give it kudos for getting some of it kind of right. I'm amazed it even got that many bristles instead of making it look like the top of broccoli. I tell you, someone "will" work it out and we'll have some good scanners in the near future.

----------


## American 3D Printing

We use both the Digitizer and the Sense in our 3D store, and also stock and sell them (as we do with all my different 3D printers and filament). Something I explain to my customers is that none of this stuff works as well as the web sites would have you believe. It's not like a washing machine where you just throw the stuff in and turn the knob. This industry is still in its infancy in a lot of ways. I also explain to my customers that this is kind of like where personal computers were in the 1980s. Finicky, limited and slow, but advancing rapidly and prices falling rapidly.

That said, both the Digitizer and the Sense have their utility. The Digitizer was overpriced for its capability when it was introduced, and Makerbot quickly realized this and dropped the price quite a bit. Unfortunately they now sell for less than what I paid for my stock, but that is a risk you take when you have a business. Sometimes you lose money. The Digitizer does some items exceptionally well, some items poorly and some things not at all (you get a blob, like some of those images above). The Digitizer excels at small objects that aren't too shiny. Sometimes the cornstarch trick works, much of the time it doesn't. I discovered that completely covering the Digitizer and scanned object during scanning with a large cardboard box to block out all ambient light can REALLY help. Sometimes. It really varies from one object to the next.

If you go to our website and click on "Gallery" then "Scanning and Copying" you will see a number of images of successful scan with both the Digitizer and the Sense. When either scanner only produces a blob, of course we're not going to waste time building it, or uploading it to our thingiverse account either.

----------


## RobH2

Hi Jeff. That's encouraging. You do have some fairly good copies there. It seems as if the scanner needs something with a good amount of detail to work well. The cat for instance, didn't scan as well because the original had subtle detail. 

Your analogy to the computer industry is right I believe and that's what I tell people too. It's coming for sure and in leaps and bounds. It's still perplexing why someone would put those awful scans on Thingiverse. I don't know what their motivation was. I look forward to watching the scanning development. Obviously it's in full swing, it just needs some maturity. Thanks for weighing in though. It's good to hear the perspective of someone who both uses and sells 3d scanners.

----------


## ChiloquinRuss

There is a couple of issues with the MakerBot digitizer, the most important as far as those terrible scans are concerned.  When first trying the scanner the software AUTOMATICALLY tries to send the image to Thingiverse.  If you aren't paying close attention you can send some really bad stuff and not know it.  The other MAIN issue is there are no tutorials that have GOOD BEFORE and AFTER images.  You are totally on your own.  I too have moved into the closed in BLACK box for scans.  The item MUST show contrast but NO reflectivity.  The more accentuated the item (not subtle) the better the scan, but still not a photograph of the original.  Most folks are expecting a photograph.  I am disapointed in the lack of assistance from manufacturers in NOT providing sufficent documentation to at least give the user a jump start on scanning.  In the posts above the anology was made to the early pc days that is a good one.  However the majors like IBM and HP DID provide guides for making good looking documents, which fonts looked good together, etc,.  The 3d scaning world has a very long way to go in this direction.

Jeff, your company has some great scans posted on your gallery page.  How about you folks helping us all out with how those original pieces were tweaked, scanned, and processed.  Pick one with some detail and then do a step by step.

OK I'm off my soap box.  Russ

----------


## RobH2

Russ and Jeff, how do the scans look when you open then in a 3d program? Have you tried that? I'd be interested in opening one and seeing what the polygon organization is. If the scanner can get you 90% of the way there with a complex object then maybe some post production in 3DS Max, Rhino, etc., would be good. 

As with any manufacturing process there is rarely a single button that you push and get a perfect end product. I'm not implying that you guys expect that but many people want the reward without having to earn it. If you have a scan that I could play with I'd love to do that. I can take about any format. I'd like to see how much work it would take to make a scan really nice. I've been modeling in 3d for 19 years and have some pretty good tricks up my sleeve.

----------


## ChiloquinRuss

RobH2  -  I got one of the very early machines, have upgraded the software each time and I have yet to get a scan that gives me a better result than some of the photo converter software only solutions.  Yes I have looked at the file with several 3d softwares and yes they can be fixed, but . . . .   The Idea is to take an object, put it on the turntable, hit scan, then print it!  We are so far away from that!  I have even tried making objects to use as test scan objects just so I can see what the software is trying to do!  So far that is a dead end street.  What works on one object does not work every time on every object.  I have scanned a few figures (O scale for my modeling), sometimes we end up with a chin, most time we don't.  Facial features are almost non existent with these small items.  It's almost like you need to scan something two or three times as big as what you want to print in order to get something reasonable.  If that is the case then the laser / camera / scanner part is way to coarse of resolution to do small objects.  I don't have a good answer for you.  The controlling software is very easy to use, the resultant files stink!  Russ

----------


## urbanmyth

These are scans.  I would think it would be pretty simple to clean these scans up if you know what you are doing.  One day we will have scanners that can precisely scan any object, but we aren't quite there yet.

----------


## American 3D Printing

> Russ and Jeff, how do the scans look when you open then in a 3d program? Have you tried that? I'd be interested in opening one and seeing what the polygon organization is. If the scanner can get you 90% of the way there with a complex object then maybe some post production in 3DS Max, Rhino, etc., would be good. 
> 
> As with any manufacturing process there is rarely a single button that you push and get a perfect end product. I'm not implying that you guys expect that but many people want the reward without having to earn it. If you have a scan that I could play with I'd love to do that. I can take about any format. I'd like to see how much work it would take to make a scan really nice. I've been modeling in 3d for 19 years and have some pretty good tricks up my sleeve.


Hi Rob, Meshmixer is my go-to software for editing mesh files. I know Geomagic is supposed to be good but my reseller wants $8k for a license. I have been messing around with Blender too but haven't spent enough time with it to be proficient. I also have Sculptris and Cubify Sculpt but haven't made the time to sit down and learn how to use them.

I have not done any editing at all of anything I have scanned with the Digitizer, but depending on the size and complexity of the object you get anywhere from 50k to 250k triangles. I have gotten as many as 350k triangles doing head shots with my Sense, especially if the subject has complex hair. I do edit mesh files of people that we have scanned with the Sense, using Meshmixer.

Tell you what, I should probably just upload something to our Thingiverse account then post the URL here for you. I'll try to get that done some time next week. This store is getting busier and busier and it's hard to find time to get everything done LOL!

----------


## RobH2

Sure Jeff, if you get the chance to do that it would be fun to look at it. I do 3d animation for a living so I have lot's of high end software. I'd really like to bring one of your scans into my software and see how it looks.

Just send me a Private Message so I know that you are back.

----------


## WinceNWine

I've seen quite a few really nice looking scans, so I don't know what the factor is here, causing some people to have some awesome scans, while other have terrible scans.  Here is one I saw on Thingiverse that looks pretty good.

Original:


And the Scanned Copy:

----------


## ChiloquinRuss

Wince - I feel real comfortable is saying I don't believe that scan came from a MakerBot Digitizer!  It appears to be one from a commercial scanner of much higher resolutiion.  But believe me, I would LOVE to be wrong!  I cannot get any thing anywhere close to that kind of detail.  Russ

----------


## WinceNWine

> Wince - I feel real comfortable is saying I don't believe that scan came from a MakerBot Digitizer!  It appears to be one from a commercial scanner of much higher resolutiion.  But believe me, I would LOVE to be wrong!  I cannot get any thing anywhere close to that kind of detail.  Russ


Actually according to the thingiverse post, this was done with a Digitizer. I only wish I could find the post now.  I forget what it was titled.

----------


## American 3D Printing

I totally believe that was done with a Digitizer, but notice the image is from the Thingiverse software, not an actual picture of a printed object. That thing would have so much support it would take hours to remove it.

Rob I'll get something up on the Thingiverse by Thursday. I've been trying to get into a routine where I post something up there every Thursday.

----------


## ImaginationProgress

Here is another terrible one.
Orginal


And the scan


But here is one that didn't turn out too bad:

Original


And the scan


What is the factor that gives here?  Why are we seeing some really nice looking scan, and then some really crappy ones?

----------


## American 3D Printing

> Sure Jeff, if you get the chance to do that it would be fun to look at it. I do 3d animation for a living so I have lot's of high end software. I'd really like to bring one of your scans into my software and see how it looks.
> 
> Just send me a Private Message so I know that you are back.


Okay, it is Thursday, and as-promised I have uploaded a scan from our Digitizer to the Thingiverse:

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:282642

----------


## squadus

Sheesh the quality of the Digitizer can't be this bad. You guys have to be trolling lol

----------


## ChiloquinRuss

Squadus - that is actualy a pretty good scan for a digitizer!  It really is that bad!  Russ

----------


## American 3D Printing

> Sheesh the quality of the Digitizer can't be this bad. You guys have to be trolling lol


Nope not trolling. Frankly I thought that was pretty good quality for a $1k scanner. You want better than that then get ready to fork over $25-35k.

----------


## ImaginationProgress

Here's one I found today that looks to be really good quality.  I don't understand why some of these scans are horrendous while others are really pretty good.  Are some people just not using it correctly?


from http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:283706

----------


## BBR

I would honestly like to know how to get that quality without more than 5 or 6 scans.  I've been making scans of multiple things to include model cars and every time it comes out in a blob.  How can something so simple come out so unrefined?




> Here's one I found today that looks to be really good quality.  I don't understand why some of these scans are horrendous while others are really pretty good.  Are some people just not using it correctly?
> 
> 
> from http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:283706

----------


## Hall_of_Famer

I think the difference you see in some of these has a lot to do with small details.  The Digitizer will have issues picking up on the small details on small items.  It also has to do with the person not using the scanner correctly, even though that's hard to do.

----------


## American 3D Printing

Having done around 40-50 scans with the Digitizer, I still don't quite understand why some things scan fairly well and other things are a misshapen blob. I had a customer come in the other day with a small stuffed animal, The Digitizer instructions say that it doesn't do fuzzy objects, yet this stuffed animal turned out perfectly without even having to use multiscan. Alternatively, I tried to scan an HO scale diesel locomotive, and it was just a rectangular blob, even after using many multiscans and cornstarch.

I think Makerbot realized that these things were overpriced for their performance (plus they aren't a whole lot better than 3D System's Sense which sells for $400), so they dropped the price on the Digitizer to below what my wholesale cost was on the units I have in stock. Grrrr!

----------


## ChiloquinRuss

I believe the issue is the difference between reflective light and refractive light.  The fuzzy animal absorbs most of the light with very little bounce back to the camera (refractive).  The diesel reflects most of the light even with corn starch or flat white paint or whatever (reflective).  I think the ultimate personal scanner will end up being a combination of light and infrared technologies and much better / smarter scanning software.  The test piece that you use to register the scanners is hard black and hard white squares.  The current state of the software can handle that.  It cannot handle anything in between, it just sucks!  Russ

----------

