Re: [MORPHMET] Importing .scn files into Geomagic Design

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Dear Kai
There was a plug-in a while ago for geomagic that could do this.
Unfortunately since acquisition by 3D systems, finding these old plugins is
very tricky-it may be available with careful searching and possibly using
the way back machine on internet archive (if they captured this part of the
site).
An easy workaround is that you could simply export each view as a .ply file
and import them into geomagic however.
Kind regards,
Tom O’Mahoney
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 at 17:43, Kai Michaluk  wrote:

> I've recently started using Geomagic Design to fuse osteological models at
> my university done with the Virtuoso 3D model scanner. I've decided to do a
> project abroad this spring using the NextEngine scanner which has its own
> native fusing software, but I don't really like the UI, and I feel like
> Geomagic has much more capabilities. ScanStudio exports the models as .scn
> files, but I'm having trouble importing them into Geomagic to fuse. Does
> anyone have any suggestions to how I can do this?
>
> --
> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MORPHMET" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.
>

-- 
MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MORPHMET" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.

Re: [MORPHMET] Portable 3D scanner suggetsions

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Dear Miguel,
This was discussed a few months ago. The popular models at the moment are
the LMI HDi series and the Artec Spider and Eva series. All start at around
$15k, depending on what you buy. All give very good data and all have very
well written software, much of which can also be scripted for
post-processing.

Best,
Tom O'Mahoney
PhD Candidate, University of Manchester.

On 19 January 2017 at 14:06, Miguel Eduardo Delgado Burbano <
mdelgadoburb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all
>
>  I am planning to obtain 3D surface models from different museum
> colletions, so I need a 3D portable hardware  (and associated software).
> Does anyone have suggestions of models and prices they would recommend?
>
> best regards
>
> Miguel
>
> --
> *
> Miguel Delgado PhD
> CONICET-División Antropología.
> Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo.
> Universidad Nacional de La Plata
> Paseo del Bosque s/n. La Plata 1900. Argentina
> Cel: 5492216795916. Fax: 54 221 4257527
> https://unlp.academia.edu/DelgadoMiguel
> http://www.cearqueologia.com.ar/
> E-mail: medelg...@fcnym.unlp.edu.ar
> *
>
> --
> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MORPHMET" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.
>

-- 
MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MORPHMET" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.

Re: [MORPHMET] RE: micro-CT suggestions

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Dera Luci and Angela Roggero,
Nikon and Northstar imaging are also manufacturers that are worth looking
into. The Nikon XTH225 is extremely popular in the UK for digitising
objects from ~2cm up to ~50cm. Resolution varies between 3-5 microns and
100 microns, depending on sample size etc. If you are looking for high
throughput of specimens below 10cm, a helical microCT such as the FEI
heliscan (designed originally for scanning of rock core samples) or
Scanco vivCT (designed for in-vivo scanning of rodents) may be worth
looking at too.
As ever, remember that the machine is just the beginning! Factor in
technicians, computing, file storage etc as well (this can add at least
another $100k to a budget).
Best,
Tom


On 6 December 2016 at 08:10, Angela Roggero  wrote:

> dear Luci,
>
> we too are interested in buying a microCT, and are examining some
> instruments just now. Essentially, we want to scan hundreds of similar,
> small and low-density objects (insects), and recently tested both SkyScan
> 1174, and 1172 (Brucker). Besides, I will be glad to know what is the
> better choice of microCT to be used on insects. Many thanks for any
> information, Angela Roggero
>
> Il 06/12/2016 01.06, Murat Maga ha scritto:
>
> Dear Luci,
>
>
>
> The very short answer is, it depends on your application (scanning
> hundreds of same thing or a multi-user facility in which users will want to
> scan rocks, biological specimens, engine parts). The major companies I am
> familiar with are Bruker (Skyscan), Scanco and GE. Expect to pay anywhere
> from $250K to $700K, depending on the scanner you choose and your support
> agreement.
>
>
>
> Whatever you choose, there are very good open source packages. If you are
> spending tens of thousands of dollars on your analysis and visualization
> software, you are wasting money.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kohn, Luci [mailto:lk...@siue.edu ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2016 6:41 AM
> *To:* MORPHMET  
> *Subject:* [MORPHMET] micro-CT suggestions
>
>
>
> I am planning to apply for funding for a micro-CT unit (and associated
> software.  Does anyone have suggestions of models they would recommend?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Luci Kohn
>
>
>
>
>
> Luci Kohn, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Biological Sciences, Box 1651
> 44 Circle Drive, SLW 1155
> Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
> Edwardsville, IL  62026-1651
> Phone:  (618) 650-2394
> Fax:  (618) 650-3174
> e-mail:  lk...@siue.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MORPHMET" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.
> --
> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MORPHMET" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.
>
>
> --
> Dott. Angela Roggero
> Dpt. Scienze della Vita e Biologia dei Sistemi
> Via Accademia Albertina 13
> I-10123 Torino - ITALY
> Phone +39 011 670 4536 <+39%20011%20670%204536>
> Fax +39 011 236 4536 <+39%20011%20236%204536>
>
> --
> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MORPHMET" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.
>

-- 
MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MORPHMET" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.

Re: [MORPHMET] Curve sliding semilandmarks

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Dear Lawrence,
Stefan Schlager's excellent Morpho package for R has the option to slide
semilandmarks without the mesh. I have had some success with this myself,
but you can of course include your mesh with these protocols in either
Morpho or Geomorph (written by Dean Adams et al.).
Best,
Tom

On 6 December 2016 at 18:21, Lawrence Fatica 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am working on a project examining shape variation in the pelvis. I used
> IDAV Landmark to place four curves of five semilandmarks each (as well as
> several fixed landmarks) along the major contours of the pelvis. I plan on
> doing the analysis in R, but I am unsure what my options are for
> semilandmarks sliding along curves. I am particularly concerned that the
> semilandmarks will slide along their tangents and off the bone when using
> sliding protocols that do not include the 3D mesh itself.
>
> Is this something I should be worried about? Has anyone else had success
> using sliding semilandmarks along curves?
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any insight,
>
> Lawrence
>
> --
> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "MORPHMET" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.
>

-- 
MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MORPHMET" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.

Re: [MORPHMET] old Morpheus et al. does truss, missing landmarks etc.

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Hi all,
Both the R packages 'Morpho' and 'Geomorph' will allow you to estimate
missing landmarks using either thin plate splines or regression. It's about
3 lines of code, fully explained in each package, to import your data and
then estimate the missing data. Both packages accept a variety of file
formats, and can also export a variety as well, so you can do the remaining
analysis in MorphoJ if you prefer.
Kind regards,
Tom O'Mahoney

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 at 07:34, alcardini  wrote:

> Not exactly: another user-friendly option is the 'old Morpheus et
> al.', which estimates missing landmarks (with coordinates, for
> instance, coded in NTS as - - -, for each 3D landmark)
> using mean substitution, regression, tps or mirror reflection. The
> last option is a bit more complicated, I believe, and I never tried
> it, but the other 3 are easy to select: import the NTS file and first
> use the command SET FULLPRECISION ON; then try the command LIST PMISS
> OPTIONS, and then SET PMISS IMPUTATION REGRESSION (for instance);
> finally use SUPER GPA followed by PMISS IMPUTE; if you restore scale
> (SUPER RESTORE SCALE), you'll get size back in the data (and also
> estimated for specimens with missing landmarks).
> You just need to re-export the nts file and remove, in the first line,
> the code (1 -) for the missing landmarks (replace with simply 0):
> check any description of NTS in the TPS Series and you'll see what I
> mean.
>
> In a couple of my old papers (the one with Thorington on marmots
> ontogeny, 2007, and the one with Elton, 2008, BJLS on guenon skulls -
> pdfs in my webpage) there might be something on this and how we
> estimated the accuracy of missing landmarks estimates. Much more on
> this topic is in several papers by Gunz and the others from the
> Viennese school (including, if I am correct, one of their two papers
> in the Hystrix, 2013, open access special issue).
>
>
> As someone was also interested in the truss method (implemented in the
> old Morpheus et al. as well), I've uploaded the software here:
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ee5gu0qiqe6hz0v/AABLZkLs98uD8aXr79VaxbWma?dl=0
> That should be the  latest version I have, which Dennis gave us in
> Vienna 10 years ago. To be honest, I suspect it's still on the web, in
> its official page, but haven't check the link for a while.
>
> Dennis can help more with the 'secret commands', and check if I made
> mistakes above.
> There should be a few other people on the list with experience on
> this, and certainly someone who has used the mirror reflection option
> (on which, I can't help).
>
>
> Good luck. Cheers
>
> Andrea
>
>
> On 13/11/2016, Murat Maga  wrote:
> > MorphoJ handles missing landmarks, but I don't think it has a function to
> > estimate them. SO without an estimation of your landmark position, your
> > options are either to drop the sample from the analysis (if you want to
> > retain full set of landmarks) or to remove the landmark from your
> analysis
> > (to keep full set of individuals).
> >
> > You can also experiment with trying to estimate them based on reflection
> (if
> > it is a symmetrical structure) or based on bunch of reference samples.
> Both
> > Morpho and gemorph in R have functions for estimating missing landmarks.
> See
> > if they give you reliable estimates, and then you can proceed with your
> > analysis.
> >
> > Otherwise your options are limited to those two.
> > M
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rosa Perez [mailto:rmper...@ncsu.edu]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:53 PM
> > To: MORPHMET 
> > Subject: [MORPHMET] Re: Problem with missing data using MorphoJ
> >
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 4:06:01 PM UTC-4, Jade Racine wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I digitized 108 craniofacial landmarks on human skulls from an
> >> archaeological context using a MicroScribe G2X. I have a lot of random
> >> missing values due to postmortem damage. I am currently trying to
> >> analyze my data using MorphoJ. I followed the instructions from the
> >> user’s guide, entering "-" in the data files for missing values. I
> >> then combined the dorsal and ventral views using FileConverter. The
> files
> >> I get can be read in MorphoJ.
> >> However, nothing else works. I can’t visualize the landmarks or
> >> perform any kind of analysis. If I try to find outliers, I get the
> >> message "Finding outliers is not possible because only a single
> >> observation or none at all is available". I get this message
> >> regardless of whether I upload one file with all individuals in it or
> >> multiple files with one individual each. The problem seems to be with
> >> the "-" code because if I remove the missing landmarks from my
> >> data files, MorphoJ runs correctly. I tried to substitute "-" for
> >> "" or "-999". MorphoJ runs fine with those but generates odd
> >> results that do not look like the shape of a 

Re: [MORPHMET] How to export .obj with textures as .ply with colours for morphometric analyses?

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Dear Viviana,
I had this problem recently. I seem to remember that it was solved by
saving the files with no spaces in the names.
so instead of, for example "skull 2.obj", save as "skull2.obj"
 This will help the textures associate properly.
Then when you've converted to .ply, it doesn't matter, as the textures are
per vertex and included in the file, rather than in a separate texture
file. But bear in the mind the caveats Bill mentioned earlier in the
message stream.

Best,
Tom


On 7 September 2016 at 17:03, Anneke van Heteren 
wrote:

> Dear Viviana
>
> If I remember correctly, you need to export, rather than save, your file
> to get a ply. I think there are some extra steps you need to take so that
> the ply doesn't come out colorless (something to do with the vertices I
> think), but like I said, I forgot the details and I don't have easy access
> to geomagic at the moment.
> Just keep fiddling with it. Good luck!
>
> All the best,
>
> Anneke
> On Sep 7, 2016 5:52 PM, "M. Viviana Toro Ibacache" <
> mtoroibaca...@odontologia.uchile.cl> wrote:
>
> Dear Anneke,
>
> Geomagic seems to read the three files and saves them to generate a .wrl
> (not .ply) file that has indeed colours, although they are not in the right
> place. But that is a good start. I assume there is a Geomagic setting to
> generate the file I am missing so I will keep on trying. Luckily in the lab
> I currently am there is Geomagic... a freware option for everyone would
> always be great!
>
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Viviana
>
> 2016-09-07 16:39 GMT+02:00 Anneke van Heteren :
>
>> Dear Viviana,
>>
>> Have you tried geomagic? It has been a while since I last used this
>> program so I forgot the details, but it is capable of importing obj files
>> with textures and then exporting coloured ply files. Like I said, I forgot
>> the exact steps you would have to take, but I have done it before, so it is
>> certainly possible.
>> I hope that somewhat helps you.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Anneke van Heteren
>> On Sep 2, 2016 2:54 PM, "Antonio Profico" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Viviana,
>>
>> you can export the 3D model from MeshLab as wrl format (export mesh as).
>> After, you can open and display the new mesh in Avizo (Display Open
>> Inventor Scene). In this way you can acquire the landmark in Avizo.
>>
>> Best,
>> Antonio
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-01 13:31 GMT+02:00 M. Viviana Toro Ibacache <
>> mtoroibaca...@odontologia.uchile.cl>:
>>
>>> Deal Morphometricians,
>>>
>>> I have .obj files with textures from three .jpg photos. I can load and
>>> see the textures very nicely in Meshlab, but I need the textures to be
>>> transformed into a coloured .ply file to do geometric morphometric analyses
>>> (the landmarks are represented in the textures). So far it has not worked
>>> doing it from Meshlab, so my questions are:
>>>
>>> - I know I can place landmarks in Meshlab using the .obj file, but when
>>> I do it, the software crashes. any thoughts? the .obj file is 16 Mb big. Is
>>> there a limit to files size in Meshlab? I would rather not to downsample
>>> the mesh to not lose anatomical details.
>>>
>>> - When using the Transfer Texture to Vertex Color function, the texture
>>> gets messed. It seems from web forums that Mshlab takes only one of the (in
>>> this case) three .jpg files to do the colouring of the .ply mesh. Does
>>> anybody know how to fix this? Another freeware software?
>>>
>>> - Is there any landmark acquisition software that loads .obj files with
>>> textures? So far, I have not been able to do it in Landmark Editor, Evan
>>> toolbox, Avizo, Morpho nor Geomorph.
>>>
>>> Any help is greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Best (y saludos),
>>> Viviana
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Viviana Toro-Ibacache DDS MSc PhD*
>>> Profesora Asistente *(Assistant Professor)*
>>> Centro de Análisis Cuantitativo en Antropología Dental (CA2)
>>> Unidad de Anatomía, Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Odontológicas
>>> Facultad de Odontología Universidad de Chile
>>>
>>> Dirección:  Sergio Livingstone Pohlhammer 943
>>> *(address)*   Independencia, Región Metropolitana
>>>  Chile
>>> Email:mtoroibaca...@odontologia.uchile.cl
>>> Web: www.researchgate.net/profile/Viviana_Toro_Ibacache/
>>>  www.cienciaymemoria.cl/staff.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "MORPHMET" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> __
>>
>> Antonio Profico
>> PhD
>> Department of Environmental Biology – Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale
>> SAPIENZA Università di Roma
>>
>> Lab.  06 4991 2690
>> Mob. 3293440766
>>
>> --
>> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at 

Re: [MORPHMET] 3D surface scanner information

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Hi,
This subject pops up every few months on Morphmet. The general consensus is
that either Creaform or structured light scanners like Artec or LMI have
made are generally very satisfactory solutions. People like Breuckmann are
an order of magnitude more expensive but also very good.
You'll want to budget at least $20-30,000 to set yourself up properly with
both scanners and workstations/post-processing software. Popular post
software include geomagic and polyworks. They work extremely well but cost
$$$. For CT, Amira/Avizo has a minimal learning curve but again costs $$$.
I can't give exact prices as they will give you a bespoke quote depending
on number of workstations etc. Stradwin is a nice freeware solution for CT
if your scans don't have too many problems (e.g. fossil embedded in matrix,
low contrast).
For fossil hominins, bear in mind that a large proportion have been either
CT or MicroCT scanned, and curators will be loth to allow surface scanning
on top. So a CT program is useful for processing already existing scans.
Photoscan is worth playing about with, as it only costs $50. With a good
protocol you can get some extremely good results from skulls and mandibles
(think good camera and lazy Susan).

Disclosure-I run a small consultancy on 3d imaging and work with LMI in the
UK.

All the best,
Tom O'Mahoney

University of Manchester, Faculty of lifesciences



On 19 January 2016 at 11:56, Robert Z. Selden, Jr. 
wrote:

> Hi Miguel,
>
> I've been using a Creaform GoSCAN50, and am very happy with it (I scan
> ceramics though; not hominins). There are two of these scanners (GoSCAN20
> and GoSCAN50 - see
> http://www.creaform3d.com/en/metrology-solutions/handheld-portable-3d-scanner-goscan-3d);
> the 20 gets better detail on smaller objects, and the 50 is better for
> medium/large objects. Depending on the level of detail that you need
> (particularly for the teeth), it might be better to opt for the 20. I
> recently used a 20 to scan a projectile point (https://skfb.ly/ATNV), and
> it worked quite well.
>
> A few examples from the GoSCAN50 here:
>
> Ceramic vessel from Salvador, Brazil (takes a moment for the texture file
> to load) - https://skfb.ly/AGtZ
>
> Caddo effigy pipe (frog) from Louisiana (US) - https://skfb.ly/JMvv
>
> Caddo ceramic bowl from Texas (US) - https://skfb.ly/JM6W
>
> Some of my colleagues have produced some good scans with the NextEngineHD (
> http://www.nextengine.com/); these from Bernard Means:
>
> Racoon Skull - https://skfb.ly/EoVw
>
> Owl Skull - https://skfb.ly/EoVP
>
> There are also some good examples of folks using photogrammetry (123D
> Catch, AgiSoft, etc.) for this kind of application; although I don't have
> those handy.
>
> Yet another option would be to see if there is anyone on campus
> (engineering departments usually have quite a few) that might be willing
> and able to help. While I was in grad school, we ran across a CT scanner in
> the petroleum engineering department that they needed to justify
> purchasing, so they let us run as many samples as we wanted to at no cost.
> The art department also had quite a few scanners.
>
> It all comes down to what you have experience with, and what you're most
> comfortable with; particularly since you will be spending quite a bit of
> time with this equipment. There are advantages and drawbacks to every
> surface scanner and photogrammetry program. If you have an opportunity to
> demo a scanner or photogrammetry program, I would take it (there may be a
> variety of product reps in your area).
>
> As things get published, we've been uploading our scan data to Zenodo (
> https://zenodo.org/collection/user-caddo_nagpra_3d); bound to be other
> examples there and elsewhere that you can explore.
>
> Best of luck,
> Zac
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Miguel Eduardo Delgado Burbano [mailto:mdelgadoburb...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 6:10 PM
> To: morphmet@morphometrics.org; morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org
> Subject: [MORPHMET] 3D surface scanner information
>
> Hello everyone
>
>
> I am interested to obtain a 3D surface scanner which will be used to study
> hominin teeth and skulls. Does anyone have any experience, suggestions
> and/or recommendations?
>
>
> For instance price, resolution, peformance, manipulation (portable)
>
>
>
>
> thanks in advance
>
>
> Miguel
>
>
> ​
> Miguel Delgado PhD
> CONICET-División Antropología.
> Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo.
> Universidad Nacional de La Plata
> Paseo del Bosque s/n. La Plata 1900. Argentina
> Cel: 5492216795916. Fax: 54 221 4257527
> https://unlp.academia.edu/DelgadoMiguel <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__unlp.academia.edu_DelgadoMiguel=AwMFaQ=2X_btuPRWkGwRX26NHIotw=BzjivF1QeBfI_3LA2VUN9ft9kB36GKxt8Ke21CMTTJU=_yMz4_fPydvxBHPfznWW2bMkvyyK0vrm47EDxT-zAxI=5AHSpC1-D2-uNNtx0OB1jpt4oPypMqMjRjFSpjpcjgk=
> >
> 

Re: [MORPHMET] Information on 3d portable scanner

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Both Artec scanners and LMI's HDI series scanners are more than good enough
for scanning materials for morphometrics. I have used both on several
projects, and know lots of groups with either that are happy with their
choice. As Dennis says, the LMI series works very well with a turntable.
You can also use a turntable for Artecs-I believe Marcus Bastir has had
some success with this.
Blue light scanners, you are not going to manage colour texture
unfortunately-I have used them out in Kenya with relatively harsh light
conditions and they're pretty bomb proof. The texture capture for the
Artecs is beautiful, but post processing takes a lot longer.
Basically you pay your money and take your choice.
Best,
Tom O'Mahoney
University of Manchester

On 16 December 2015 at 01:26, Helmi Hadi  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I too would like to know what are good 3D scanners. I have seen people use
> Microsoft Kinect for 3D scanning an object. Here is a video of it.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQPTxiK-Crw
>
> I think that 3D scanners will come down in price eventually. The Kinect is
> cheaper than commercial scanners though it is slightly of lower resolution.
>
> I noticed the Creaform  (
> http://www.creaform3d.com/en/metrology-solutions/handheld-portable-3d-scanner-goscan-3d)
> and the Artek 3D scanner  (
> http://www.artec3d.com/hardware/artec-spider#specifications) are almost
> similar in technology and resolution. Maybe it is better to get whichever
> is cheaper.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Helmi
>
> School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
> 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, MALAYSIA
> Tel: +609 7677834; Fax:+609 7677515
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: morphmet [mailto:dsl...@morphometrics.org]
> Sent: 16 December 2015 03:24
> To: Anna Loy ; Dennis E. Slice 
> Cc: morphmet@morphometrics.org
> Subject: Re: [MORPHMET] Information on 3d portable scanner
>
> Replying to the list...
>
> Hi, Anna! No, I am not familiar with that. For the grant that secured the
> HDI, we also included the purchase of the similar Artec hand scanner
> (
> http://landing.artec3d.com/?keyword=artec%20scanner=CNHLk8TL3skCFUQ2gQod2YQMTQ
> )
> for archaeological field work, but did not get enough money for both.
> For our lab, the table-top seemed the best choice. I have used (well,
> minions, you know...) the Artec hand scanner some years ago and it was a
> bit flaky, but worked. I understand now that folks are using it quite
> successfully. I wish we had one. I might can refer you to someone if no one
> on the list has info.
>
> -ds
>
> On 12/15/15 2:12 PM, Anna Loy wrote:
> > Thank you Dennis!
> >
> > Do you have any info regarding the portables CREAFORM?
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Anna
> > 
> > Anna Loy
> > Dip. Bioscienze e Territorio
> > Università del Molise
> > Contrada Fonte Lappone
> > I-86090 Pesche (IS), Italy
> > Tel. 0874 404100
> > Cell. 3316265137
> > mail: a@unimol.it 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno 15/dic/2015, alle ore 19:31, Dennis E. Slice
> > > ha scritto:
> >
> >> We have the HDI 109 scanner with automatic turntable. My minions tell
> >> me it is quite easy to use with ridiculous resolution (I no longer
> >> get to play with the toys. This is probably for the best.). Part of
> >> the proposal for this was to digitize mouse skulls, so we opted for
> >> higher resolution without color.
> >>
> >> We were recently asked to scan a human skull at full resolution. The
> >> resulting file was 10s of gigabytes. I believe bear skulls would be a
> >> challenge because of both physical and digital size. I suspect
> >> resolution is controllable. One student is currently looking at
> >> morphometrics-appropriate decimation algorithms.
> >>
> >> Attached are pics of a macaque we scanned rendering only the vertices.
> >> The skull is about 100cm.
> >>
> >> Morpheus can't handle the full-res scan. Rendering done in Meshlab.
> >> full resolution: 3.4 million vertices (only vertices shown)6.8
> >> million faces
> >>
> >> Morpheus
> >> Pic 1) 500k vertices, 1000k faces
> >> Pic 2) 50k vertices, 100k faces
> >>
> >> -ds
> >>
> >> On 12/13/15 2:54 PM, ANNA LOY wrote:
> >>> Hello everyone
> >>>
> >>> Do any of you have experience with portable 3d scanner (no
> >>> structured
> >>> light) like
> >>>
> >>> *CREAFORM HANDY SCAN700 AMETEK
> >>> *http://www.creaform3d.com/en/metrology-solutions/portable-3d-scanne
> >>> r-handyscan-3d
> >>>
> >>> *GOSCAN 3D CREAFORM*video demo
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY1IN8swEc 2pounds no structured
> >>> light (no laser) molto veloce, res fino a 0.1 mm.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> They seems very fast and easy to use
> >>>
> >>> Also which are differences with portable structured light 3d
> >>> scanners like *HDI 120 Blue-Light Scanner
> >>> *?
> >>>
> >>> I should scan 

Re: [MORPHMET] HDI 3D Structured-Light Scanners

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Hi John,
Yes,  I have a lot of experience with the Hdi scanners, both the fixed
calibration and adjustable ones.  They are great for archaeological
material/bones (I've literally scanned thousands,  as have my colleagues at
Cambridge,  Bradford and TBI in Kenya)  and I've had good success with
scanning articulated skeletons too.
They're actually made by LMI technologies,  who are Canada based.

I'm more than happy to send through samples as well, if anyone needs.  I'm
in the process of sorting out a gallery got my website as well.

All the best,
Tom O'Mahoney
Faculty of Life Sciences
University of Manchester
On 2 Feb 2015 22:24, Starbuck, John Marlow jstar...@iu.edu wrote:

   Hello everyone,



 Do any of you (or anyone you know) have experience with one of the HDI 3D
 Structured-Light Scanners? I am curious how well they work for imaging
 objects (skulls, pots), people, and children who wont sit still for
 morphometric research.
 http://www.3d-microscribe.com/HDI%203D%20Scanner%20Page.htm



 The videos and stats on these models make them look great, but I wanted to
 check with someone who has actually used one before.



 Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.



 Thanks,



 John



 --

 John Starbuck, PhD

 Department of Sociology and Anthropology

 Indiana University Northwest

 Lindenwood Hall, Room 209

 3400 Broadway

 Gary, IN 46408
  Curriculum Vitae
 https://iupui.academia.edu/JohnStarbuck/CurriculumVitae
 E-mail: jstar...@iu.edu

 --
 MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org

 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.


-- 
MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.

Re: Next Engine 3D scanner hardware requirements

[Thomas O'Mahoney]

Dear Andy,
Having used the NextEngine with both the minimum and recommended
specs (for scanning humeri)I would advise to go for the recommended
specs as a baseline. As you said RAM isn't a problem,I'd put as much
as you can in (although to go above 4gb you'll obviously need a 64bit
OS) -the scanning program sucks up memory,especially when aligning
scans and fusing them.
Hope that's of help.
Tom O'Mahoney

On 21/01/2010, morphmet morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org wrote:

  Original Message 
 Subject: Next Engine 3D scanner hardware requirements
 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:24:58 -0600
 From: Andy Grass adgr...@gmail.com
 To: morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org

 Hi everyone, we just got a new Next Engine 3D scanner here at the
 University of Iowa morphometrics lab and I was wondering if anyone had
 any experience using it on computers with different hardware.  The
 minimum requirements are 2GB or RAM  and a 256MB video card, and the
 recommended requirements are 4GB of RAM and a 512MB video card.  Does
 anyone have experience using it with both the minimum and recommended
 requirements? None of the computers we have currently are powerful
 enough to run it, so we'll have to get a new one.  Getting more RAM
 isn't an issue but most of the default computers that can be ordered
 from the university come with just a 256MB video card.  So if the
 lower power video card works just fine then that's great, but if the
 difference in performance with a 512MB card is significant then I'll
 push for that.

 Thanks!

 --
 Andy Grass
 andy-gr...@uiowa.edu
 Grad Student
 Department of Geoscience
 University of Iowa



 --
 Replies will be sent to the list.
 For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org