Pro 3D Scanner Better Than Photogrammetry? (3DMakerPro Whale Review)

[@mattiasfagerlund]

Whalecome back, mr Switch & Lever!

[@Pauseedgndgn]

You might be some “random guy on KZbin” but you’ve taught me a lot as I set out on this journey to self teach myself all about 3D scanning and where to start coming from a low income. Glad to see you back, as it feels easier to trust your word than most on this platform.

[@pyrothepenguin]

Glad to see you posting again!

[@GrahamDallas]

Welcome back Daniel, nice to hear your rich tones once again.

[@maficstudios]

In general terms, there's a lot you can do to the photos on the photogrammetry side to really be able to get some better results out of it. You can bump the contrast on the photos, as one example. (You can have two sets of photos so the textures are unaffected.) Having a larger cameras sensor does make a difference. And of course there's using polarized light & filters. Obviously, that makes the whole setup more complicated, favoring the whale to some extent.

[@joell439]

Great to see you again. So weird I was just thinking about your channel yesterday and figured YT wasn't notifying me of your adventures. And bammm.... a new video. Thanks for the excellent comparison. 👍👍😎👍👍

[@SwitchAndLever]

Thank you, I appreciate it! 🙂

[@garagemonkeysan]

Great video and evaluatioin. Glad to see you publishing videos again. Your intro is still very fresh. Mahalo for sharing! : )

[@AlexisMorin]

Welcome back, Switch & Lever! 👏

[@johnkeller9290]

If texture is not important to your goals, you can spray the part with scanning spray and get a great 3d model. I would try again using the spray to remove reflections and provide a homogeneous color.

[@SwitchAndLever]

Homogenous color isn't necessarily the best, or easiest, way to scan an object though. Look at my first video on photogrammetry (linked at the end of this video) for some comparisons on different surface finishes and how I finally managed to get a great scan on a smooth and homogenous object.

[@JensAndree]

@@SwitchAndLever He is referring to a spray paint made for 3D scanning though and not just "any" homogenous colour. It does make a huge difference when scanned by a 3D scanner. I've seen the Whale produce really nice results with preparation, data that we later import into Fusion 360 to make adjacent parts, or copy features - but what your video doesn't mention is that the Whale costs $7200... Way outside any hobbyist budget! The Lizard would've been a more fair 3D scanner to compare with photogrammetry with regards to costs. Scanning spray does make a huge difference though, just saying... ;) The big question though: did you get to keep the Whale or was it just for loan? I would love to just have access to one for a week or two so congratulations for getting your hands on one!!!

[@patrickauger5216]

Where did you find this black and white mat you use for tracking under the objects?

[@wbcc3388]

Will either one work on a large object such as a room or the inside of a house?

[@cupbowlspoonforkknif]

I want to scan my backyard. It seems like lidar might be better for those applications though.

[@brandonmcgarrell3328]

could you scan orthodontic brackets, and then 3d print them?

[@cgrosbeck]

How or where to get the Fiducial Marker Mat?

[@russtuff]

Nicely done. I've only tried meshroom but have never been able to get a useable result.

[@WellHiddenTreasure]

Try mushrooms 🍄

[@SwitchAndLever]

Indeed. I covered Meshroom in my last photogrammetry video, and frankly for a free program it's alright, but I wouldn't even pay $1 to use it when a program such as Reality Capture delivers vastly better results, and is very cheap.

[@russtuff]

@@SwitchAndLever I'll give it a try. Looks like you have to buy credits for each scan. Interesting.

[@SwitchAndLever]

@@russtuff indeed, and the cost is basically depending on how many megapixels of photographic imagery it has to process. But it's really not a bad cost overall, and you don't have to pay until you actually export the mesh, you can process however much you want, redo, add photos, etc, until you're happy without it costing you a dime.

[@truegret7778]

Great review and honest assessment. Welcome back. Just a friendly criticism - You might look up Leo LaPorte ( in the USofA ), known as "The Tech Guy", and read about him and his approach. To me he is the true influencer ( uh, since the late 1980s ) in that he purchases ALL products he reviews. His position is that he has legitimate "skin in the game" by spending his own money, just as customer would do, and that allows him to give an honest opinion and objective review.

[@pit00s0]

Where is the link for PDF?

[@SwitchAndLever]

Crap! I knew I forgot something. Check back tomorrow and I’ll try to have it up. Not in front of the computer right now.

[@pit00s0]

@@SwitchAndLever 👍

[@einars899]

@@SwitchAndLever Still not there?

[@pit00s0]

@@SwitchAndLever Hey!

[@imacmill]

I own a scanner from another company and the main thing I've learned from using it is that there are precious few, non-organic objects in this world that are good candidates for scanning.

[@christophercolumbus8944]

what scanner do you have?

[@Marvel3DUK]

Nicely done

[@LizMatzelle]

Whale seems to perform no better than the CR Scan Lizard, and CERTAINLY is not worth anywhere near its price point. If you can spend $8k on a scanner, get an Einscan, you will be shook at how much better it is than this POS. If you can only spend $1k, the Einstar just came out and looks like the best option for large object scanning on a budget. If you need to scan really small objects or medium objects with really high accuracy (0.02mm), get the Pop Mini. And if you'd be happy with the quality of the Whale scans, and don't need to scan anything big, get the CR Scan Lizard. Comparing just the Whale to just photogrammetry is kinda useless imo, because the Whale looks like slightly improved hardware over a $500 scanner, but the same software as that $500 scanner, and no real improvement in quality/results over the $500 scanner. So why in the heck they think it's worth $8k, when an Einscan can be had for $6k, is a total mystery to me.

[@rodin-06]

I'm inclined to agree with your comments. I recently received my Whale unit (super early bird, so huge cost difference to their claimed retail price, which is eye watering!). Christmas is approaching so over the break i will give this Whale unit a few runs. If I'm not happy, it's going to be sold and I'll most likely go for the new Einscan as you say - this was my thinking before i saw your post!

[@OBN_RacerMan]

I have several scanning systems - both based on all kinds of sensors (from Kinect to Intel Realsense F200 / SR305 / D415) and a really high-quality DIY scanner using SLS technology. Since this is all just a hobby for me, I decided to buy another inexpensive scanner for my experiments - Creality Lizard - and judging by everything that I saw in the video - its quality is no different from Whale (at least until until Creality makes a software upgrade so that it can fully utilize Whale's capabilities (if the new software can solve it, of course))

[@rodin-06]

@@OBN_RacerMan i agree with you too. They need to sort out the software, which feels like bit of a let down, that is the same used with the Lizard... The Whale is working. I'm just trying to decide if I should keep it. One of the big factors is the software. Perhaps they should look a little closer at the competitors to see where they can improve

[@pj8979]

Seems a premium lizard scanner but same quality scan. I am glad I got lizard at the end for just very low price. Good luck.

[@lupusk9productions]

man its just hard to justify 7,000+ for a scanner for those results... :(

[@curtisnewton895]

did you check luma ai ? it just beats the crap out of these photogrametry softwares and hardware

[@SwitchAndLever]

While a cool technology saying that it "beats the crap" out of other tech like photogrammetry, or dedicated scanners, is false. Even a quick glance at the meshes it outputs shows how low quality the output is. It's very cool that it can with AI extrapolate shapes of objects from a limited dataset of images, absolutely, but the technology needs to mature a fair bit before it's a contender with proper 3D scanning methods. I could see the meshes it generates as being useful for quick visualization work where you don't really have the time (background objects), or need, to look closer at the meshes. For something like 3D printing, or replication of objects, where quality and accuracy is important Luma AI falls very short.

[@macswanton9622]

Jag hoppas att du tog med dig en videokamera på din resa.

[@SwitchAndLever]

På min resa? Har inte rört mig ur fläcken sen min förra video 😄

[@cornbreadcuban5456]

The problem comes into when you’re scanning the smaller objects. The smaller items whale has a better outcome, but it’s just as useless at the end of the day. I could not use the files that will produced even though they are “better”. All I would’ve done is spent money on a non-solution. That being said, I think photogrammetry still takes the cake due to its versatility and ability to grow with just an update in the software. Instead of having to be locked in to the same quality of scan with hardware. Also when scanning smaller items with photogrammetry using different lenses for different objects is possible to obtain better scans. Which is an additional purchase but far more versatile of a purchase.

[@SwitchAndLever]

In the end it really depends on your application and time spent. I love photogrammetry, which should be obvious from my previous videos, but it's not cost effective from a "time is money" equation, which is often more important to those of us who are paid by time worked. Or who bills based on finished project, and the faster I can finish the better the profit. If I can get more work done with Whale in a day than I could with photogrammetry (which is true) the choice becomes a lot more attractive in favor of Whale. What would be interesting is to really spend some time and capture an optimally easy part with either method and then compare just how accurate either method is to the true object. Either method, not just these two, has a level of tolerance, and a level of distortion. It would be interesting to see which does the best.

[@gladiatormechs5574]

Have you noticed that the bigger the subject is the better the photogrametry is... like trying to photogram a small object does not come out as good as taking the photos of a big object... do you agree with this ?

[@xKatjaxPurrsx]

Click on video, doesn't notice channel. woah, switch and lever?!

[@TheKdcool]

I feel like the next leap in 3D scanning will be nerf

[@monkeysubscription4496]

With a price of USD $7000 you'd expect scanning rate faster than 10 frames per second and potentially some kind laser cross hair to let you know exactly where you're scanning without having to look at the laptop all the time. The turntable and software look identical to those supplied with the Creality Lizard, which from first hand experience isn't that great, or well documented.

[@SwitchAndLever]

I dunno if you can really expect that, around 10fps seems to be standard for most handheld 3d scanners, especially if you expect some sort of accuracy in the scan. This may change in the future with faster computing and better sensors however. I'm not sure a laser crosshair would be a great idea, as it may introduce distortions in the scan as the laser light will be read by the sensors on the object as well.

[@Tycho343]

Results look surprisingly bad and slow, comparing even with the $1000 Shining 3D Einstar.

[@curtisnewton895]

why is it so massive ?

[@kayezero703]

It's been like a year

[@SwitchAndLever]

You're not wrong.

[@doughall1794]

I would love to see how the whale scans a car.

[@ShaggyMummy]

Neat, but not $7200 neat

[@jongmassey]

Howdy

[@perori_neko]

nah, I prefer my old mirrorless witch fits in my pocket

[@cobeer1768]

So, we are supposed to believe that getting a $7,200 scanner for free doesnt color your opinion? LMAO They didnt want a review. They bought a sales promotion video with a high priced scanner you would guarantee to recommend. Before you start in with the usual crap about how they made no requirements, no money and "blah, blah, blah", admit its the barter system. If you werent bought, did you return the scanner, or do you still own/use the $7200 worth of positive opinions?

[@SwitchAndLever]

You sure do fit in a lot of bull in one comment. 🙄 You can decide not to trust me, nothing I say will change someone who’s mind is already made up, and I won’t waste my time further. I aim to make my comment section a nice and welcoming place though, so please push your luck more, it’s been a while since I banned someone 😂

[@RoboCNCnl]

Very nice pro :) and @3dmakerpro

[@Shiva4D]

Incorrect compare. Use Cross folarazied filters on light and cam and use deep focus and all RealityScans will be much much better. Whale its just a toy like Microsoft Kinect

[@SwitchAndLever]

Funny, I went to your page and I couldn't find any content at all about 3D scanning. 🤷‍♂️ I knew this video would draw out the comment field experts.