3DMakerPro Moose Lite 3D scanner Review

This brand new #3dscanner from #3dmakerpro just released and here's my review after a couple of weeks of use before launch.
Affiliate link: geni.us/Moose3...
My discount code ($15): 3DPT15
Check out the LYNX larger format scanner here: geni.us/lynx3D
Moose 3D scanner additional resources:
Amazon store: amzn.to/4cD07uV
JMStudio: forum.jimumeta...
Moose Facebook group: / 1097565751663715

[@barryporteous4904]

I am looking into 3D scanning and your presentation with it's cautious approach telling all of the possible pitfalls and not what to do gives me a much better idea of what it's all about. Great presentation - thank you!

[@JohnJones-oy3md]

8:44 - Brilliant choice for a test of dimensional accuracy.

[@tomhanauer6919]

Hi, too small. I know the scanners can produce incredible detail on a small scale, really breathtaking. But it's their tracking that doesn't seem to work. Like each scan image seems very accurate, but scanning an engine bay requires the software to track objects and feature. This just doesn't seem to work.

[@plasma453]

The price of this is very close to 3DF Zephyr and then you can use any camera really, for subjects as big as buildings and as small as a small model figure. You do need a pretty high-end PC for that mind you.

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

Photogrammetry is a more flexible solution, but also more complex. It’s definitely always there as an option, but most users want the simplicity of point and shoot. But in a future where fewer and fewer use computers…

[@dirtcreature3d]

would love to see how this stacks vs the front facing lidar on the iPhones (true depth). Dope video!

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

I only have the regular iPhone 13, any particular app you recommend I use?

[@BojanSusic-qi4qn]

looks interesting, I'm looking for a cheap 3D scanner to have a reference model from which I'd make a functional part in CAD

[@MarcMonson]

ordered one using your code. this will be my first scanner.

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

Thank you Marc! Hope you enjoy it and find 3D scanning helpful and interesting :) Remember it can be a bit frustrating in the beginning until you get the hold of tracking objects :D Good luck!

[@efboiz5302]

How’s it working out?

[@APxKP]

out of all the scanners you reviewed, which one would you recommend for small-medium?

[@SyncroForge]

Please update the title to be less misleading, this is the moose lite, not the full moose.

[@droneforfun5384]

Very good info. Could you give alternative product in the 1000usd price range? For 10cm-1000cm objects or similar. Thank you.

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

You know I haven’t tried the bigger scanners from 3Dmakerpro and revopoint yet, so I’m unsure exactly which one is “best”. But I recommend checking out the lynx I linked in description.

[@marcwilkins8787]

Thank you

[@tegmentoo]

whats is difference the nir or blue light tecnology as a consumer level ?

[@BVLOS]

Do you think it is a solution to scan of horses hoof on the downside? Infekt i don't need a 3D Scan surface Scan to make a hoof shoe from that

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

Hi! I think you would be able to scan a hoof quite well actually. Specially if you only need to underside and not much up on the sides.

[@wreckingball8881]

The creality ferret se scanner has color and is still cheaper. I wonder how well it the moose lite holds up scanner faces compared to it

[@user-pm9mz6dw3i]

You compared that to the "Moose Lite" when the Ferret SE's accuracy is only "Up to 0.1mm" compared to the Moose's set accuracy of "0.05mm @ 0.10mm Resolution"... and amazon has the Ferret SE Priced @ $319 compared to the pre order sale of Moose Lite @ $255 (prices vary with discount codes.) These 2 items are in different categories my friend.. not even comparable in software either.

[@tbip2001]

Why does the live view of the scanned object look pretty good but the final output is so messy?

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

The live view is just sparse data, it often looks very blurry but helps you see what’s been covered. Since it’s 3D-data, the filtration of the raw data can then transform it to much more detailed (but also sometimes noisier) data.

[@dirkwalther2354]

Sie verwechseln da wahrscheinlich etwas; das "live view" besteht überwiegend aus einem Bild, nicht aus "3D-Daten".

[@97Customs]

I want to scan larger (up to 1500mm sqaure) but low detail items, would this be suitable?

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

Not if your items are low detail. This scanner has a narrower field of view and is focused on smaller items. Have a look at this one instead: geni.us/lynx3D. But with low detail objects you might have to prepare them anyways to track, it depends a bit. Send me an email from my website if you need more specific tips for your parts

[@zk_6312]

I have yet to see a 3d scanner that is worth the high cost of them.

[@r.addisonarthur9392]

try KIRI. It's an inexpensive subscription & uses your phone camera. First scan very clear with good instructions & editing features. I tried the Moose lite. Very garbled image, poor instructions & a hassle. Website grammar is atrocious. An uphill learning curve, too. They think everyone is adept and lightning fast like they are; and other techies.

[@nonononononononon5478]

so no one has had luck with the scanning of faces/people or pets? I am in the market for one- but every review I watch says these budget ones arent great for that?

[@Skul-Ski]

Do you have an opinion to share on this Moose scanner compared to the Einstar by any chance?

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

I wish I had tried the Einstar myself! But I haven’t had the opportunity to do that yet. I have good connections that recommend it very well, but I don’t think they’ve tried budget scanners like revopoint and 3Dmakerpro to compare it either. The software for Einstar is probably better, but how the scan/track differs is probably not much of the field-of-view and etc. is similar. If I recall, the einstar is a bit more medium-format

[@Skul-Ski]

@@3DPrintTechDesign I have one but the Moose looks to be much faster. My Einscan get "lost" very easily and hates most dark colors. It is also very slow even though I got the company to buy me a $4500 laptop to support it. I might just have to put in a requisition for the Moose pro and upload a comparison of my own LOL. I just want to make sure that I am using my "buy me this gizmo tokens" for work for a worthy cause.

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

Haha, yeah the dark scanning is actually mighty impressive on the moose lite. But with the other type of light on the “PRO” moose, you might have a different result. The tracking is probably not remarkable better. It could just be user experience and object, really. Scanning speed is probably better then if you feel so. I’m using a good Pc, but usb 3 port on the front, so no crazy usb speeds either.

[@pietreimert6082]

what pc specs you need? Thanks

[@allthekidsareright]

What size is the holder screw for the tripod?

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

That is the standard camera/tripod diameter of "1/4-20 UNC" =)

[@CPF-cv4so]

How do they compare with iPhone LiDAR ?

[@droneforfun5384]

What app for this?

[@tdg9281]

iPhone lidar is made for room scanning, the distance resolution is just… too low for this kind of application

[@Todestelzer]

iPhone lidar has mm accuracy. You can’t compare it to a 3d scanner.

[@CPF-cv4so]

Thanks for replies : )

[@dirkwalther2354]

Bitte bei Werbevideos keine Werbung schalten. :)

[@PoloHungary]

So its a junk for lot of money

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

I wouldnt say that! Its actually quite some scanner for the money. But it’s not a high-end scanner and you don’t get perfect results in real life scanning. Still incredible cheap for what many users need; reference surfaces, and not perfect copies.

[@elchavode6479]

I don't trust reviewers that have affiliate links to the products they review.

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

I understand. But I see it as a win win. In the case where I’ve made a difference, showing you the real value and features of a product, with good and bad, and you still wish to buy it, it’s a win win. It’s almost harder for you the viewer to click an affiliate link than it is to google the product anyway :). By being upfront and honest about the links and that they allow me to buy products to review, So you’re not only seeing what companies send out, we achieve better coverage. I hope to earn your trust, but I understand you might think my positives are biased when I use affiliate links. My mission is to be honest no matter what and I take inspiration from the big tech KZbinrs who, for good or bad, all use affiliate and sponsorships

[@elchavode6479]

@@3DPrintTechDesign either I miss the part in your video where you mentioned the affiliation / sponsorship of this product in your video or it wasn't in the video. If it was in the video it would help with providing transparency if you included at the beginning of your video. Don't think this isn't the wrong way as you did bring up some constructive criticism on the device It issues it has. But your reality is probably all software related since most of these scanners to needs very similar hardware but in the end it's the software that will make them for break them

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

You’re right, the software is critical and that’s why I’m quite harsh on this scanner and trying my best to put in the expectations. You see it on the Mole scanner review as well, where the hardware and software both operate worse than the moose. The review unit is a loaner, so it’s not a sponsored video in any ways. I will probably end up giving it away as they rarely want to return it to china due to shipping costs, even tho it’s in my terms. And I do call out that I have affiliate links to the product in the description. Thank you for the feedback, I’ll try to see what I can do to be even more transparent in the end :)

[@leszekkalinowski2436]

How is it conpare to mole?

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

Basically the same, but I find accuracy a bit better on the Moose!

[@tomhanauer6919]

I have the Mole and it's f'n useless for anything where you actually want dimensional accuracy... so if it's like that then just forget it.m unless you just want to scan garden gnomes. It causes me such pain!

[@3DPrintTechDesign]

@tomhanauer6919 well I’ve only been able to test accuracy on my known sized objects, and the moose is much better than the mole, but it’s probably a ton up to the user as well. But for dimensional accuracy with tight tolerances these scanners are not designed for.

[@tomhanauer6919]

@3DPrintTechDesign Yep I totally get that user input is important. I have spent weeks, in communication with 3Dmakepro trying to scan an empty Nissan Leaf engine bay. It is matt painted metal. I have used masking tape, with writing etc. It makes no difference. The scanner picks up amazing detail, capturing dirt, cobwebs, weld imperfections. But it can't track. So as I track along a chassis member with multiple fixing holes it will scan seemingly perfectly, then I raise up to get the top of the rail and I return, and there we see that somehow when I get back to the start, nothing lines up. When I go into the scan data I can see frames where it just jumps half an inch, with perfectly useful features on screen, it doesn't care, it just duplicates the feature. Then when adding scans together you end up with something, that if it's a sculpture it probably looks fine, but if you actually need the holes to be where they are supposed to be, is, as mentioned, totally useless. As an indicator of where we're at, 3dmaker told me not to return the scanner over already scanned areas... well shit it's almost as if they know it doesn't work.