Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CES 2014: 3-D Scanners are a Logical Next Step After 3-D Printers

Roblimo posted about 9 months ago | from the next-we'll-have-4-D-scanners,-then-5-D,-and-before-you-know-it-we'll-have-created-a-whole-new-univer dept.

Technology 87

A number of companies are either selling or preparing to sell 3-D scanners. Aside from fun (but interesting) uses, like duplicating chess pieces or possibly reproducing a miniature of Rodin's famous sculpture, Fallen Caryatid Carrying Her Stone, Matterform anticipates archeologists reproducing artifacts so that students can study them without handling the precious originals. This video is an interview with Matterform co-founder Drew Cox, who was exhibiting Matterform's scanner at CES 2014. MakerBot is also selling a scanner, as are a growing number of others. In fact, even though Matterform talks about being a low-cost (pre-order price $579) scanner for home use, as opposed to a commercial one that costs thousands. There are also several interesting hand-held scanners out there. Sense sells theirs for $399. Structure has one for $349 that's essentially a peripheral for an iPad. And this is just a random selection from a brief Google search. Use "3-D Scanner" as your search term and you'll find multiple Google pages full of 3-D scanners and information about them -- including software being developed at ETH zurich that turns your smartphone into a 3-D scanner.

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cue dick scanning jokes... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956053)

'Cause you know you all thought of that first off.

Re:Cue dick scanning jokes... (0)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 9 months ago | (#45956241)

Online dating for women will get even more awful then.

Old news? (3)

SBJ95 (992570) | about 9 months ago | (#45956097)

I seem to remember ~5 years ago seeing a program that could turn your run-of-the-mill webcam into a 3D scanner. It was even open source too! Don't know if this this [lifehacker.com] was it...

Re:Old news? (2)

Roblimo (357) | about 9 months ago | (#45957119)

I remember trying something along those lines, but couldn't get it to work well enough to review. The new generation of 3-D scanners looks a lot more useful.

Re:Old news? (4, Informative)

djscoumoune (1731422) | about 9 months ago | (#45957235)

You're probably thinking of http://www.makerscanner.com/ [makerscanner.com] which is opensource. Here it's a video of David3d scanner. But there are other opensource programs that don't require a laser like VisualSFM http://ccwu.me/vsfm/ [ccwu.me] and CMPMVS http://ptak.felk.cvut.cz/sfmservice/?menu=cmpmvs [felk.cvut.cz] , or PPT GUI http://www.arc-team.homelinux.com/arcteam/ppt.php [homelinux.com] .

Re:Old news? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#45962733)

The ZScanner 700 was available in 2006. I first became interested the following year, when the ZScanner 800 [zcorp.com] was released. They were not new even then.

Yeah, I know... not a webcam. They were $50,000.

No Pirating Please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956141)

Please, no making copies of mundane household items for your friends and family. That is theft or something.

Re:No Pirating Please (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45956209)

I'm not sure your "friends and family" want a copy of your Star Wars branded dildo collection.

Re:No Pirating Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45957467)

Star Wars branded dildo collection

[citation needed]

Re:No Pirating Please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956333)

You wouldn't *download* a silverware set, would you?

Re:No Pirating Please (1)

peragrin (659227) | about 9 months ago | (#45961043)

you wouldn't 3d print a silverware set.

however maybe a plasticware set if the prices come down.

"Next" Step? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45956221)

I've been using David3DScanner since long before 3D printing was so much as a meme...

Re:"Next" Step? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 9 months ago | (#45956439)

"I've been using David3DScanner since long before 3D printing was so much as a meme..."

I agree. It's not so much of a "next step" as it is a necessary beginning step. 3D printers will never see a huge part of their potential without first having devices that will do 3D modeling of existing items.

Re:"Next" Step? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45957289)

"I've been using David3DScanner since long before 3D printing was so much as a meme..."

I agree. It's not so much of a "next step" as it is a necessary beginning step. 3D printers will never see a huge part of their potential without first having devices that will do 3D modeling of existing items.

Honestly, I've always been amazed at how the Copyright Gods balk at the mere idea of 3D printers, but don't seem to even notice 3D scanning, which is a much more important and useful tool to the everyday copyright violator.

Sure, with a 3D printer I can make an unauthorized Darth Vader figurine; but with a 3D scanner, I can create a file that anyone can use to make said unauthorized figurine.

Re:"Next" Step? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 9 months ago | (#45959411)

"Honestly, I've always been amazed at how the Copyright Gods balk at the mere idea of 3D printers, but don't seem to even notice 3D scanning, which is a much more important and useful tool to the everyday copyright violator."

Uh... well, I'd hardly call them "gods". Trolls, more like. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Re:"Next" Step? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#45965061)

"Honestly, I've always been amazed at how the Copyright Gods balk at the mere idea of 3D printers, but don't seem to even notice 3D scanning, which is a much more important and useful tool to the everyday copyright violator."

Uh... well, I'd hardly call them "gods". Trolls, more like. Otherwise, I agree with you.

I was thinking that's more how they see themselves.

Re:"Next" Step? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45957173)

Not interested until I can print the scanner to scan the printer to print the scanner.
I Know it also involves gorillas starving somehow.

Re:"Next" Step? (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 9 months ago | (#45960229)

Yup. This has been around for at least 15 years:

What you can do with Micro Scribe. Digitize complex 3D objects in minutes. Create realistic models as lines, polygons, splines, or NURBs. - http://archive.org/stream/NewTekniques_Volume_2_No._02_1998-04_Advanstar_Communications_US/NewTekniques_Volume_2_No._02_1998-04_Advanstar_Communications_US_djvu.txt [archive.org]

3d scanner is a pre-req to Artificial Intelligence (2, Interesting)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 9 months ago | (#45956247)

Imagine a toddler picking up an object and spinning it around looking at it to learn what it is.

In the same way, AI needs to be able to digitize something by looking at it. You might thing you want a box to digitize things in, but then what if the box is too small?

I think there are going to be two types of scanners. One scanner will just detect a solid object, and consider it a "wall" until it learns further about that object. The other scanner will be one that determines the colors, dimensions, (maybe even hardness/softness) then tries to pattern match that with known objects in its database so the AI knows what it is looking at. Read more here [botcraft.org]

Re:3d scanner is a pre-req to Artificial Intellige (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956675)

Skynet is coming!

Combo (4, Funny)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | about 9 months ago | (#45956269)

I'll wait until I can get a 3D-scanner/printer/copier/fax that does none of those jobs well.

News like, before yesterday. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956273)

I don't want to make this news sound bad, but 3D scanners are like 3-5 years old already. I studied photogrammetry and for me 3D scanning is like a 7 years playing with its iPhone today. The developement of better 3D scanners only goes to higher scanning density in less time with less HDD space wasted and far higher transfer rates. Limiting factors are platform size but just if you want it locally fix. Mostly you do 3D scanning with mobil instruments or even by DSLR cameras.

Re:News like, before yesterday. (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 9 months ago | (#45957145)

Even five years ago, the movie FX industry was using 3D scanners on actors to make accurate molds for latex masks and prosthetic costume pieces compared to splatting on alginate [1] on an actor and waiting for that to harden.

[1]: That stuff is not plaster. Plaster heats up when it cures and can burn unprotected skin. That is why a cast gets wrapped up in gauze or other cloth first, then the plaster-laden bandages put on.

Re:News like, before yesterday. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45957437)

3-5 years? Try 15+.
Rotating platform, 1D scanned laser, CMOS sensor.

Soon... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45956299)

There's nothing stopping it now other than mass-market interest, but as soon as I can walk into Costco or Sams Club and buy a box the size of a dorm room refrigerator, put in an object (or pick one from the internet), then an hour later it spits out a copy, we'll have reached the tipping point on these.

shape at the end of the recursive series (2)

smoothnorman (1670542) | about 9 months ago | (#45956335)

so if one scanned what was printed, printed that, scanned that and printed for N cycles (optionally including a grind-it-up for media source for the next generation) then the series convergence no matter if one started with the venus-de-milo or a sierpinski-tetrahedron would be a sphere?

Re:shape at the end of the recursive series (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956607)

this confuses and infuriates me.

Re:shape at the end of the recursive series (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45959307)

now this gave me the weirdest boner.

Re:shape at the end of the recursive series (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45970965)

I'm not certain that it would converge to a sphere. I remember reading some time ago about a musical piece that was a recording played in a room and recorded while it was played, played, recorded, . . ., until it finally became noise. It wasn't pure white noise because of the characteristics of the room and equipment. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Sitting_in_a_Room [wikipedia.org] and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSR2LSuzP_M [youtube.com]

Pretty fascinating stuff.

captcha: screams

Clearly they're not thinking evil enough (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 9 months ago | (#45956345)

Matterform anticipates archeologists reproducing artifacts so that students can study them without handling the precious originals.

I anticipate thieves reproducing artifacts so that museums cannot tell the originals have been stolen after the copy has been substituted for the real thing.

This brings up a question which everyone has been trying to skirt. Is the value in the object itself, or in the arrangement of the molecules which make up the object? That's already bitten the content industry. For a long time they thought they sold hardware - books, records, and films. It's now become apparent that they sell software - text, music, movies - and the hardware those used to be published on is interchangeable and in fact unnecessary. It's the arrangement that matters, not the molecules which make up the object.

The same thing is going to happen to physical objects as 3D printers improve and eventually maybe we arrive at Star Trek-type replicators. If the facsimile of a precious original artifact is indistinguishable from the real thing, does it really matter which is the original?

Re:Clearly they're not thinking evil enough (1)

erice (13380) | about 9 months ago | (#45956585)

The same thing is going to happen to physical objects as 3D printers improve and eventually maybe we arrive at Star Trek-type replicators. If the facsimile of a precious original artifact is indistinguishable from the real thing, does it really matter which is the original?

That depends on what sort of object it is. If it is merely a decoration then perhaps it doesn't matter. An approximation indistinguishable by the senses may be good enough. On the other hand, if it is an artifact worthy of detailed study then it may have more to tell us then we already know. Microscopic details may be important. The isotope ratios in the material may even be significant. We can never be sure that a copy is truly indistinguishable where it counts.

Re:Clearly they're not thinking evil enough (2)

mlts (1038732) | about 9 months ago | (#45957189)

Counterfeiters can still be foiled -- just use materials that can't be 3D printed such as hardened steel, or multiple types of materials. Then they would have to do the work the old fashioned way.

Then there are things like patinas, corrosion, wood grain, and other factors which will almost always allow someone with a trained eye to find a forgery.

Of course, we will still have the IP issue, and I'm actually surprised that we have not had DRM shoved down our throats, such as requiring all printers to have a chip forcing all files sent to be signed by a vetting committee that will approve/reject things by previous IP, or some other stuff like that. Create a sculpture too close to someone's IP, they won't sign it.

Re:Clearly they're not thinking evil enough (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 9 months ago | (#45957203)

Is the value in the object itself, or in the arrangement of the molecules which make up the object?

It depends on the object. For something like a stylish (but mass-produced) art deco chair, which can be duplicated fairly easily, then the answer is more likely to be the latter. An object with a bit more provenance such as a famous work of art, an illuminated manuscript or something on which a famous French arse was once perched is definitely going to be the former. After all, people don't go to view the Mona Lisa because it's an especially good painting, do they? Do people pay ten times the price because a handbag with a little dog on it is ten times better than one without? No, for many people things like branding or nebulously defined authenticity add value to an otherwise mundane lump of matter.

tl;dr People will pay handsomely for an antique firearm but they'll pay through the nose if it has shot someone famous.

Re:Clearly they're not thinking evil enough (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 9 months ago | (#45957809)

I got a chance to take a look at a facsimile of the Book of Kells, the archive treated the facsimile as it would a costly rare book (because the facsimile was costly to produce). However, I don't think you will ever reach the state where it is impossible to tell a facsimile from the original. You might not be able to tell if something IS a fake if it is of something that was mass produced (like a limited print of a famous work), but there is just too much going on in anything to really come to a point where you can't tell the original from the copy if you have access to both.

Re:Clearly they're not thinking evil enough (1)

slew (2918) | about 9 months ago | (#45958689)

You might not be able to tell if something IS a fake if it is of something that was mass produced (like a limited print of a famous work), but there is just too much going on in anything to really come to a point where you can't tell the original from the copy if you have access to both.

Maybe for something created pre-computer era, but for everything created post-computer era, (say anything originated in the last 20 years and through to the future), there is probably nothing "original" about most collectible works.

For example, a book was probably wrote originally on a word processor which it was digitally transferred to an offset printer an mechanically bound into a book and is now simultaneous available in e-book form and books on tape. What exactly about a non-scarce reproduction is fake in this scenario? Have we created all the rare collectible artifacts that will ever be created? Some food for thought...

Re:Clearly they're not thinking evil enough (1)

snadrus (930168) | about 9 months ago | (#45959031)

Anything in that timeframe that's media-like (ebook, etc) has DRM trapping it, or else there are already more ways to make duplications of the original (Amazon MP3 vs torrented Amazon MP3).

But new art is made all the time that has identifiers showing that it was assembled and not printed.

Re:Clearly they're not thinking evil enough (1)

Tom (822) | about 9 months ago | (#45958843)

This brings up a question which everyone has been trying to skirt. Is the value in the object itself, or in the arrangement of the molecules which make up the object?

No, it doesn't. That question is still 50-100 years down the road when you're talking about unique items such as museum artifacts.

At this stage, these aren't replicators, they are basically DIY molds. Games Workshop is going to be pissed. Your average museum artifact is nowhere near being copyable to the point where it's more than a novelty or something for students. The value of these items is precisely in the fact that they are old and original, so making a copy from plastics isn't going to cut it. And actually replicating something on the molecular level is, as I said, way, way out there.

If the facsimile of a precious original artifact is indistinguishable from the real thing, does it really matter which is the original?

Depends. For your Warhammer tabletop hero, no. For your bronze-age spear tip, yes.

Smithsonian already did it (2)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 9 months ago | (#45956375)

The Smithsonian is already 3D scanning things and sharing them with the public. This is an article from about 2 months ago, but I read a more recent article in the paper the other day..

http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/13/5100190/the-smithsonian-is-now-sharing-3d-scans-of-artifacts-with-the-public [theverge.com]

Chess Pieces??? On the internet, TTP is seconds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956423)

I see TTP being short and making for many trolling for views headlines. I wonder whether it will drive something higher res Kinects? i.e. perhaps instead of a standalone scanner have a higher rez gaming/ui scanner (e.g. PS & XBOx Kinnect)?

3D scanner?!? How about 2D to 3D?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956449)

I want to scan in my Maxxim girl (2D) into my scanner and 'print' a 3D:jennifer aniston, Christina Ricci - OH! Yes!, Halle Berry and best of all: scan in and print Ginger AND Mary Anne!

When I take those Ginger and Mary Anne tests in HR, it's best to say "The skipper". No really because it shows you are a "take charge" type of person and either a woman who's into big older guys or a gay guy ...who's into big older guys. Either way, they don't give you a raise, you set them up for a HUGE lawsuit.

Re:3D scanner?!? How about 2D to 3D?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956663)

WTF are you talking about?

Re:3D scanner?!? How about 2D to 3D?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45960859)

Ginger or Mary Anne. Do try to keep up.

Need to be cheaper (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 9 months ago | (#45956477)

With the Peachy Printer 3d printer costing less than $100 US, we need a 3d scanner for less than $200.

It should not be that much more expensive to make a scanner. Typically you just need to use a rotating drip table, a laser, and a camera. Slowly drip milk into the table, eventually covers the object. As the milk covers the object, the camera records the laser's reflection. Works pretty well with the right software.

I have 3D printer. (1)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 9 months ago | (#45956481)

I'm not sure I see the value in a 3D scanner. One of the great uses of a 3D printer is to make custom parts for other things I am building. If a part exists (the one you are scanning), why do I need to duplicate it with my 3D printer? If I need multiple copies I can just buy more of them. OK, so maybe the part to be copied is expensive and made of milled metal and does something useful that I think will be OK in plastic in my application- let's say a bearing block. None of the 3D scanners I have seen have high enough resolution to allow the function to be duplicated. So as far as I can tell, these things are good for roughly duplicating small, nonfunctional objects.

I can't imagine not using CAD to design custom parts to be printed on my printer. Will people really spend $500+ to copy chess pieces and salt shakers, and not learn to use CAD so they can create things themselves? Not likely. Once you have learned to use CAD software, a not too difficult thing to do, you won't have much use for a low resolution scanner. And then there's Thingiverse and sites like it. Even if you don't CAD yourself, there are others who do and post to Thingiverse and similar sites.

I can see some value in a scanner that allows large objects to be scanned and miniaturized (like people or their faces, or pets, etc.), but something that can only scan small objects that fit on a little turntable? Meh.

Re:I have 3D printer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956733)

I can't think of any actual practical hobbyist examples, but theoretically it might be useful to be able to scan something for the purposes of making a custom part around it (kinda like how some dental labs will digitize a mold of your teeth to custom make a dental appliance).

In general though I agree though. I personally like the idea of negative casting for reproducing parts (an injection molder is high on my list of toys I someday want).

Re:I have 3D printer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956759)

if the part is broken it seems feasible to construct the whole geometry from the parts

if the broken part is the same or symmetric with another non-broken part, that also seems useful

if the scanner does a crappy job but lets you snap planes and dimensions in the cad software before printing,
that seems useful. maybe even advanced things that would tell you what kind of gear cutter you'd
need to buy to cut those particular teeth

if your friend in the US has a working part and you're in Finland, he can send you a scan....also pretty handy

its probably not a total lose

Re:I have 3D printer. (1)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 9 months ago | (#45960579)

I don't think the scanning software produces an object file that is anything less than awful to try to edit. You're going to need CAD skillz, and if you have those, a 3D scanner is even closer to pointless.

Re:I have 3D printer. (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 9 months ago | (#45957559)

If a part exists (the one you are scanning), why do I need to duplicate it with my 3D printer?

I can think of a handful of scenarios off the top of my head where I might want to do just this:

+ I want to copy something that doesn't belong to me, like we used to do with those shiny things with music on them, then give the original back to the owner.

+ I want to duplicate a part with geometries too complex to recreate myself; the sort of thing that was sculpted in the first place and a mould made from the prototype.

+ Because I just want a spare.

If I just broke my lawnmower handle in half I'm not going to spend hours trying to get the NURBS just right when I can scan in both pieces, put them back together again with two clicks and print out a new one.

None of the 3D scanners I have seen have high enough resolution to allow the function to be duplicated. So as far as I can tell, these things are good for roughly duplicating small, nonfunctional objects.

The same thing used to be said about 3D printers just a few years ago and, like 3D printers, 3D scans can be finished/tidied up to the same standard as the original much more quickly than doing the whole thing.

I can't imagine not using CAD to design custom parts to be printed on my printer.

Your lack of imagination is not a fault of 3D scanners. Do you design everything that comes out of your 2D printer from scratch too?

If you want to use your printer to design new things and improve your CAD skills then more power to you, but to pooh-pooh a new* technology just because you can't immediately see a use for it is just plain foolish.

*New in the sense that it arguably predates the technology that it "logically" follows...

Re:I have 3D printer. (1)

snadrus (930168) | about 9 months ago | (#45959407)

'do you design everything that comes out of your 2D printer from scratch'

sort-of. We have symbolic glyphs that make up most of what my 2D printer produces, and I arrange long combinations of these glyphs. This is done in a typically 1D fashion despite being 2D glyphs.

Assembly of pre-existing libraries in logical ways (like connect surface A.side to B.bottom at right angle rotation on clicked spot) sounds more likely to have mass appeal than complete freedom (MSPaint for 2D) .

Re:I have 3D printer. (1)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 9 months ago | (#45960633)

I don't have a problem with 3D scanner per se, just small, low resolution scanners than can't scan objects much bigger than a salt shaker. I don't see the value in it. Instances where that capability would be truly useful are so unusual that it would not be worth dropping $500, at least not to me. I can't think of a single use for it.

As I said, large scanners that can scan a person's face, a pet, a whole person, a car, etc. would be useful if resolution were high enough. When that technology comes down in price I will be impressed and may even drop some $. There are a few hand-held scanners that are approaching what I would consider useful at reasonable prices and I have no doubt that in a year or two they will become much better, but putting small objects on a turntable and getting a poor quality scan is not for me.

Re:I have 3D printer. (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 9 months ago | (#45958069)

Consider a company like www.hahnandwoodward.com (now Hahn-Vorbach & Associates). They focus on restoration of very rare cars (like the Mercedes 300SL Gullwing). They are starting to use 3-D scanners for a variety of situations.

For example: A client brings in their 1 of 1 roadster or a concept car that needs restoration. There aren't any easily accessible plans or drawings, so you take a 3-D model of the car to convert it into an engineering drawing that you can use to plan your restoration or modification. You could run into a situation where it just isn't possible to replace a broken differential because there was only ever 1 made, or maybe the client wants an upgraded differential. You can use the engineering drawing you built to see if you can fit a part that is currently in production. The current method without 3-D scanning is to take a lot of careful measurements or attempt to see if a part will fit. In the end, it's risky and easy to make a mistake.

Consider another situation where maybe the car comes in with some previous bodywork. Sure, everything lines up NOW, but that is because the previous mechanic just bent some things so they fit together. If you don't know this going in, you could buy the actual correct part (lets say a fender) and discover that the NEW fender doesn't fit because the frame of the car is off-kilter. You could avoid this by taking a 3-D scan of the car in its current condition and using that scan to determine if the existing car matches factory conditions.

In short: Anytime you need to do custom work on an existing product or when the product itself is custom (like an old farmhouse) taking a 3-D scan of the place can be very useful in planning out your work or retrofit plan.

Re:I have 3D printer. (2)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 9 months ago | (#45960651)

That is a completely different sort of scanner than a small device that scans even smaller objects placed on a turntable.

Re:I have 3D printer. (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 8 months ago | (#45980195)

It doesn't have to be large pieces.

Imagine you want to rebuild a car with 'original' pieces, but are missing something like the custom lug nuts. You can find someone with the vehicle, take a scan of THEIR lug nuts, and then use that scan to reproduce the small component.

Sure you could just use generic lug nuts, but when you are dealing with high end restorations, people do actually care about the little details like this.

Re:I have 3D printer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45960457)

Would be great to make a copy of the washer I need to fix my leaking faucet.

Re:I have 3D printer. (1)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 9 months ago | (#45960563)

3D printing isn't magic replication of anything and everything of which you can copy the shape. There is far more to it than that. 3D printer materials have specific properties that make them suitable for some uses and useless for others. The fact that objects are printed in layers affects their performance in some applications as well.

If you copy the leaking washer you'll have a leaky faucet when you install it. If you have a good washer to copy then you may as well install it instead of making an inferior copy. The material the washer is made of and the material you print with have different properties. A 3D printed ABS or PLA washer would not work like one of the originals because of material differences and because 3D printed stuff is made in layers, unlike the original.

That last one... (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 9 months ago | (#45956485)

http://cvg.ethz.ch/mobile/press.php [cvg.ethz.ch]

The technology also allows the 3D capture of faces, giving a third dimension to portraits, profile pictures or images of loved ones.

Having a convenient way of getting 3D models of everyday objects, users will now be able to copy real-world objects by scanning a full 360 degree model of an object. The resulting 3D model can be used for visualization or augmented reality applications, or even be used for 3D printing, potentially at a remote location, effectively enabling the user to replicate an object.

so you can now use your smartphone to generate a photorealistic 3-D model of anyone's face, that can be replicated on a 3-D printer as a mask.

Are there any 3-D printers out there that print rubber, or would this still be a 2-step process (print the mould, then make the mask)?

Since this app purports to do all processing on the phone, you could use it on anyone, stream the model back to some parked van, and have a doppleganger ready to go in minutes.... smacks of Mission: Impossible.

Re:That last one... (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 9 months ago | (#45956795)

Remind me to not let Johnny Depp take my photo!

Re:That last one... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 9 months ago | (#45960155)

Remind me to not let Johnny Depp take my photo!

Just don't let him walk around you while "talking" on his phone....

Re:That last one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45960849)

Mission: Impossible

Johnny Depp

Huh?

Re:That last one... (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 9 months ago | (#45962091)

Since this app purports to do all processing on the phone, you could use it on anyone, stream the model back to some parked van, and have a doppleganger ready to go in minutes.... smacks of Mission: Impossible.

Johnny Depp looks good. ... still he'd (the story said, not an actual fact) want to scan my face to replace his (to look even better that is.)

Or something such, you'll figure out the rest.

Re:That last one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45962645)

You're drunk, aliquis, go home.

Cameras and phones (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956497)

Isn't it just easier to use a camera / phone / tablet as a 3D scanner?

There is a bunch of software around for turning pictures or video in to 3D models and scenes.

I think it is more a problem that software isn't well known about. Hell, I don't think I can even name one from the top of my head and it is something that would interest me in having for fast prototyping of scenes.
I know Microsoft had something that was able to take a bunch of pictures together to create scenes.
IS there any kind of list?

I mean, sure, laser scans are great for getting seriously accurate models, but for those that would NEED that accuracy, they'd be using it. For others that don't need such high accuracy, it'd be easier to model something using pictures or video and maybe some moving lightsources to get even more detail of the curves or even flats.

Re:Cameras and phones (1)

Frans Faase (648933) | about 9 months ago | (#45956831)

It seems that all the good solutions are commercial and that most of the freeware solutions are crappy, meaning that either the UI is difficult or that the output has many artifacts or is incomplete. Still looking for a good solution with which you can create a good 3D-model using a set of pictures, like PTGui, which allows you to tweak the results of the various steps and correcting mistakes made by the automatic steps.

Re:Cameras and phones (1)

Beezlebub33 (1220368) | about 8 months ago | (#45964595)

Autodesk 123D Catch works pretty well, for some objects, and it is currently free. I have had it fail miserably in some cases, work very well in others. The important thing for me is that I can then read it into Blender, do the cleanup, and I have a 3D model of something much, much more quickly than if I did it from scratch.

Also, the technology will continue to get better. Consider the following SIGGRAPH video: 3-Sweep [youtube.com] If you combine this technology with 123D and data from several photos, then you are 99% of the way there. The original article of course is largely about trying to make the technology work for the non-specialist, and 3-Sweep is not there yet, but give it a couple of years.

20 years (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45956553)

OP makes this sound new. A friend brought home a 3d laser scanner from work 20 years ago.

Re:20 years (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 9 months ago | (#45957211)

Makerbot has a 3D scanner. I don't see why all the hubbub.

Re:20 years (1)

Beezlebub33 (1220368) | about 8 months ago | (#45964627)

It's all about making it commercially viable, cheaper, and easier. People have been doing 3D scans for a while now, but the infrastructure, technology, compute power, etc. have finally reached the tipping point making it available for the average hobbyist.

New copyright wars? (2)

mrwireless (1056688) | about 9 months ago | (#45956577)

One of the foreseeable problems was pointed out by, amongst other people, Cory Doctorow at CCC Congress in 2012 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYqkU1y0AYc]. Basically, these devices are comparable to MP3 ripping software, but for things. According to Doctorow a new copyright war could be upon us, and this time we're pissing of more powerful lobbying interests. A lot is possible, but in my experience it's often just too costly to be worth it. The medialab I work for explored this issue last year: we copied a euro-coin with a metal 3D printer. It worked great, except that it cost 30 euros to do.. [http://kunstroof.setup.nl/ (Dutch)]

Re:New copyright wars? (1)

Kardos (1348077) | about 9 months ago | (#45957217)

As soon that cost gets down to the 1-2 euro range, we're going to have some problems ....!

Re:New copyright wars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45960377)

s/copyright/design patent
I'm sorry, but this is quite an important distinction. Big Content is actually a small fish compared to the well-belawyered myriad of companies that make real things.

Doesn't Peachy Printer have a 3D scanner (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 9 months ago | (#45956595)

The thing they are releasing this summer for $100? Just via photogaphs and turning the object?

Granted, the resolution is probably going to be fuzzy, but still.

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45957011)

"Matterform anticipates archeologists reproducing artifacts so that students can study them without handling the precious originals."

Blah blah blah education bullshit for my new technology.

Here's what it will be used for: 3D dick pics.

Funny definition of "next step" (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#45957081)

CES 2014: 3-D Scanners are a Logical Next Step After 3-D Printers

Yes, I'm sure they would be, if they hadn't been invented years before the 3D printer.

TRULY CUSTOM SHOES AT LAST! A-HAHA HAHAHA! (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about 9 months ago | (#45959037)

Wow, one potentially HUGE market for these things could be the supply of shoes especially built for your feet...imagine, take a scan of your feet (or they do it in the store), email it to the supplier, pick out the style you want, and 4-8 weeks later they arrive in the mail...no more having to compromise, or having to try on endless streams of shoes in person to find one or possibly two pairs that fit 'good enough' to not actually cripple you...

(as you may be able to tell, I have extremely non-standard-sized feet, so finding shoes that actually fit is kind of a big deal...you just try to find a ladies size 5 in triple E width! then try to find one with comfortable support for very high arches and allowance for taller-than-average bridges...chances are it'll be a boy's sneaker or possibly some clunky boy's walking sandal...certainly nothing 'pretty'. *sigh*)

Re:TRULY CUSTOM SHOES AT LAST! A-HAHA HAHAHA! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#45963175)

you just try to find a ladies size 5 in triple E width!

You just try asking to try a pair on in the store when you're a dude. The looks I- someone'd probably get. Hypothetically.

Re:TRULY CUSTOM SHOES AT LAST! A-HAHA HAHAHA! (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about 8 months ago | (#45964997)

you just try to find a ladies size 5 in triple E width!

You just try asking to try a pair on in the store when you're a dude. The looks I- someone'd probably get. Hypothetically.

Yes, I'd imagine :) Probably worse than the looks I get when I'm asking to try on men's shoes "but do you have that in a size four??"

They never have it in a size four...so then I get the suspicious looks for browsing in the childrens section without an actual child with me, kind of like walking into a Chuck-E Cheese sans kid and wearing a trenchcoat...

Re:TRULY CUSTOM SHOES AT LAST! A-HAHA HAHAHA! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#45965099)

Again, though, so much worse if you're male. You chicks have everything so easy.

Maybe I should post this anonymously...

Kinect anyone? (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 9 months ago | (#45959089)

Srsly, you can 3D scan with a kinect already. Or there is another application that uses a folded paper with dots, a webcam, and a laser pointer.

Nope. I'd rather have cheap CADs first (1)

aiadot (3055455) | about 9 months ago | (#45959247)

The next logical step is an affordable good CAD program. I use SolidWorks and many professional level 3D printers at work such as Stratasys Dimension and Vantage series, Objet Eden and Formiga for both metal and nylon models. And while things like Makerbot have proven to "sort of get the job done" in home/hobbyist environments, there is absolutely nothing even close to SolidWorks or AutoCAD that is affordable to the average enthusiast. In my case, for printing my Japanese Anime figures, Blender is usable but it's hardly the best option for building hobbyist robotics(in which case I use SolidWorks through my work computer using VNC, thankfully I'm the boss so I can give permission to myself to do so). If there are affordable, quality PCB desing tools like EAGLE, there should be something similar for CAE/CAM. I simply can't find anything.

3D scanners? At least IN MY CASE, completely unnecessary.

DVD (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 9 months ago | (#45959533)

I bet that scanner + printer can't even reproduce a DVD including its case and cover.
Wake me up when they can.

And after the 3-D scanners... (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | about 9 months ago | (#45959635)

TRON.

I, for one, welcome our new MCP overlord.

Get ready... (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 9 months ago | (#45960991)

You've seen how Hollywood looses their shit every time a new form of media is developed and popularized. You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Just watch, manufacturers of $everything are going to bring the hammer down HARD.

See: "Printcrime" by Cory Doctorow. Spooky.

real time 3D scanning taking off. (1)

volvox_voxel (2752469) | about 9 months ago | (#45961709)

It's one thing to scan something that stationary, it's quite another thing to continuously keep track of a 360 degree field of view around the scanner. The self driving car from Google, I think, uses a custom detector from Velodyne that spins at 5-15Hz: http://velodynelidar.com/lidar/lidar.aspx [velodynelidar.com]

I know of at least one start-up company called Quanergy that plans on competing in this space to give cars/drivers better real-time situational awareness. Hopefully they'll be able to develop something that is cheap / good enough to be part of a futuristic car. Perhaps this will help in car accident reduction, and a saving of lives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwcSmo3dzVM [youtube.com]

I ain't buyin' a 3D printer until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45962949)

It comes with a 3D scanner!

Otherwise, it's just a waste of money.

When it gets cheap enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45963053)

Can I legally print my own copies of game miniatures if I scan them in.

3D Lawsuits (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 8 months ago | (#45963791)

"Stop scanning my IP, you pirates!"
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?