Hello everyone,

Neil, was the video you saw the EinScan or the EinScan-S? Not only do they look they same, but the names are pretty similar too! The scanners are completely different in so many ways, from software to actual physical construction and scanning methodology. To be honest, I was unaware of this and saw a video that led me to think the EinScan-S was handheld. The EinScan is, the EinScan-S is not. The EinScan is 15,000USD, and is more like an Artec Eva Light than the Einscan-S (Not only in how it works but price too!!).

Back to the EinScan-S:

The software included with this scanner is extremely restricted in what it allows the user to do. Adding a head which was scanned then to a separate scanned body is not possible within EinScan-S, that would have to be done in another program. You can't open files in EinScan-S software, you can't save projects or even go back steps. If you scanned a head in "free scan" mode and continued scanning the body with overlapping regions then it would allow you to align them on a scan by scan basis. Good luck with that though, the file will get so large the alignment will stop working and you can't save or go back and remove any data after each scan is taken so it'll be very time consuming and challenging to do all of that in EinScan-S software alone. I've made suggestions using other software I've used as reference as how they could improve on that, but I'm not getting positive feedback on how much they are willing to change the software. Too bad, I felt initially they were very interested in what we thought and in making the product better. I guess it does scan so they have delivered on what they said they would on Kickstarter.

Shining 3D had in mind a very specific purpose for this scanner, which is to take a small object, scan it and then print it. When you try to do anything besides that, you have to get creative, and the software will start to give you heartburn.
I'm trying to use it for scanning larger objects and work with much more scanning shots than they obviously had intended, so I'm running into walls every step of the way.

If Shining3D would make one requested change that Hughes also mentioned is the option to save the file without the "water tight" meshing operation. This is the single biggest pain about the software as I'm dealing with it now.

It would be very easy for them, I hope they hear our voices.

In my case, I have other software that can easily handle working with the meshes, aligning, filtering, and so forth. When the EinScan-S software seals up the model it makes some giant guesses and tries to close all the holes. The problem is that every single vertex this creates is data based on mathematical assumption, at best. You can't trust it and it would be nice if it just wasn't there at all. I have requested they change this and I hope by posting on here more of you will also make this request. It takes hours for me to manually undo all the false data the "water sealing" operation does, and it also burns up time when you are finished scanning too. All the other little problems and restrictions with the software are tolerable, given the cost of the scanner and the quality of its output.

Just for reference, I recently did a scan and the scanner picked up text on a cast surface that is only 0.2mm high. You can actually read the numbers. With the naked eye it actually isn't much clearer than the model, that is how impressive the accuracy of this scanner is. Getting it to do what you want takes practice. Once you get several scans in the auto-alignment stops working well, and if you manually align the scan it will not auto re-align. That doesn't surprise me though, if you are crazy enough to scan on the highly detailed mode you will have many tens if not hundreds of millions of points in only a few scans, and the software just can't handle it all for auto alignment. My solution has been to just run on the low detail scan setting, you can't even tell the difference on the scans I'm doing, they are still very highly detailed, and they don't have textures to trick you into thinking the data is better than it actually is. The meshes are awesome.

This is a screenshot of actual scanned data. Took about ten scans to get that amount of data, this part is quite large, the area shown is around 280mmx200mm. If you have deep cavities you might as well forget about capturing them:

Pan_Scan1.JPG


The little odd bumps you see are actual casting flaws on the part, not errors in the scan.

Also, buy a tripod, one that allows for all forms of movement and adjustment. The stand that comes with it is really only useful if you feel like scanning cantaloupe-sized objects on the turntable all day. I picked one up from London Drugs here in Calgary for $50 (Canadian Dollars). Use a slightly longer metric 5mm threaded bolt to attach the scanner though, otherwise the socket head cap screw that comes with the scanner will only be holding on by a thread or two. I hoard fasteners so I had one lying on the shelf. I also used just a small touch of mastic on the bottom of the scanner so it can't rotate on the base plate, since it is only attached by one bolt. It works great, I can even flip the scanner 45 or even 90 so it can get between fins if needed. It can handle cavities like fins, since the scanner is stereoscopic in nature with the projector and cameras all along one plane, but a cavity like a hole it just can't do.

This is a shot of the mesh after I've brought it into CAD and simplified it:

SW_Mesh.jpg


Once again everyone, please make a request to Shining3D that they change the "water sealing" to optional. When you start playing with this scanner you will see that the data gets too extreme to try to scan large objects in one scan, so to try to take multiple meshes and put them together in another program will get frustrating as you have to spend hours cutting out all the bad data that has been added. If you do have a scan that has no cavities and is pretty well covered on all sides with scan info before you finish though, the sealing will add little to nothing at all, but that is impossible on large parts.

I hope this feedback is helpful for everyone,

Dave