Archive: https://archive.today/zkiWt
From the post:
>The concept of a 3D scanner can seem rather simple in theory: simply point a camera at the physical object you wish to scan in, rotate around the object to capture all angles and stitch it together into a 3D model along with textures created from the same photos. This photogrammetry application is definitely viable, but also limited in the sense that you’re relying on inferring three-dimensional parameters from a set of 2D images and rely on suitable lighting.
To get more detailed depth information from a scene you’d need to perform direct measurements, which can be done physically or through e.g. time-of-flight (ToF) measurements. Since contact-free ways of measurements tend to be often preferred, ToF makes a lot of sense, but comes with the disadvantage of measuring of only a single spot at a time. When the target is actively moving, you can fall back on photogrammetry or use an approach called structured-light (SL) scanning.
Archive: https://archive.today/zkiWt
From the post:
>>The concept of a 3D scanner can seem rather simple in theory: simply point a camera at the physical object you wish to scan in, rotate around the object to capture all angles and stitch it together into a 3D model along with textures created from the same photos. This photogrammetry application is definitely viable, but also limited in the sense that you’re relying on inferring three-dimensional parameters from a set of 2D images and rely on suitable lighting.
To get more detailed depth information from a scene you’d need to perform direct measurements, which can be done physically or through e.g. time-of-flight (ToF) measurements. Since contact-free ways of measurements tend to be often preferred, ToF makes a lot of sense, but comes with the disadvantage of measuring of only a single spot at a time. When the target is actively moving, you can fall back on photogrammetry or use an approach called structured-light (SL) scanning.
(post is archived)